RIAA and BSA's Lawyers Taking Top Justice Posts

An anonymous reader writes "Following the appointment of RIAA's champion Donald Verrilli as associate deputy attorney general, here's a complete roundup of all the RIAA and BSA-linked lawyers comfortably seated at top posts at the Department of Justice by the new government. Not strange, since US VP Joe Biden is well known for pushing the copyright warmongers' agenda in Washington. Just in case you don't know, Verrilli is the nice man who sued the pants off Jammie Thomas."

Comments

Change you can believe in

[Wonko the Sane]

http://i40.tinypic.com/11tqy52.jpg

Found on this thread

Re:Change you can believe in

[anactualfemale]

Thanks for the nightmares, man.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Lostlander]

Yes, and we don't want our hunters to start using pointy sticks as they might forget how to kill a buffalo with a club or their bare hands if they get too proficient with the pointy sticks we will have a generation of people unable to bash things with a rock properly. And then we will surely be in trouble and we will all starve.

-Rough translation from a crotchety old caveman

Re:Change you can believe in

[ppanon]

It depends. There's good reason to be able to do some back-of-the-envelope tests of your theories - first order approximations to see if your idea makes sense. You won't be able to do that if you can't do basic arithmetic in your brain. Maybe at some point we'll be able to tie computers directly into our brains so that just thinking an equation provides us with the solution, but until that happens somebody who can do the math in his brain will have an edge. Indeed, unless you always whip out the calculator at the cash register, it could mean you're also an easier mark to rip off.

I'm reminded of a couple of chapters in Vernor Vinge's The Peace War where Wil Wachendon enters a chess tournament where he plays unassisted against computer-assisted chess players. He gets his butt whipped by the computer-assisted players. That changes his attitude regarding using computer assist to solve problems. However I think the reverse would be true as well, the computer-assisted players who had never learned to play without the help of a computer would also be at a disadvantage because some of the pattern recognition abilities required for chess would never have developed as strongly. Sure it's fiction, but good SF writers put some pretty strong reality checks on their fiction

Similarly, while you can use Mathematica to do analytical solving of integration problems or differential equations, if you haven't done some of it by hand then you won't have as good an intuitive feel for what the equations that you are manipulating actually mean. That could seriously limit your ability to make new discoveries. But yeah if your ambition is to work on a road crew, you probably won't need to know all of your times tables up to 12x12 by heart.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Fozzyuw]

Or more importantly, at what age did they start/stop teaching basic math and English and start teaching astrophysics and warp-field dynamics at the Star Fleet Academy? Is the basic 101-course "Deflector Dish Realignments"? Ah, the one thing I always puzzled at was how smart those young kids where on any of the Star Trek series. "What are they teaching them?" is what I always seemed to ask.

It leads one to ask, are the basics really that necessary? How humanly possible would it be to project a warp speed trajectory for your starship if they did/didn't teach you how to add/subtract or do differential equations? I'm going to go on a limb and say the "basics" become less important when dealing with jobs that require computers to compute astronomical amounts of data astronomically fast, faster than humanly possible. Because no amount of knowledge or skill will help if you simply can't do it fast enough if your "tool" breaks.

However, to know how to understand the numbers, than being able to compute them, for example, is far more important. Which is basically how I perceived the expedited education process of one of our favorite TV series, Star Trek. Of course, Star Trek also taught us there's no replacement for "the arts" such as Picard's Shakespear or whatever old english classics Jane ran on the holodeck. However, when it comes to the "hard" sciences, there might be more room to breath by the reliance on tools.

Unless you're Voyager's crew in the first few seasons. They seemed to be so smart at the basics to create brand new technologies out of thin-air, in a matter of minutes, so long as it kept the script moving forward. Or maybe it was because their tools were just that much better?

Re:Change you can believe in

[TheLink]

The basics are useful so that you can quickly realize that you made a big typo somewhere ;).

It's useful to know that something is off by a magnitude or more.

Re:Change you can believe in

[mangu]

There's good reason to be able to do some back-of-the-envelope tests of your theories - first order approximations to see if your idea makes sense.

Under a first order approximation the earth is flat. There's no relativity or quantum mechanics.

Using a computer does not preclude understanding basic mathematics. However, *NOT* using a computer will make it impossible to have an understanding of a growing part of mathematics.

Try to get an understanding of non-linear dynamics without a computer. Chaotic systems. Not to mention that computers are being used in mathematical proofs of theorems. The four-color map was proved over 30 years ago, with computers, and still today no one has found a way to prove it by hand.

I don't mean that paper and pencil should be abolished, and doing math in the head is still an essential ability in everyday life. But computers are also essential, there can be no teaching of science and mathematics without computers.

Re:Change you can believe in

[zig007]

OH MY GOD!

You mean he's a SHAPE SHIFTER?!?!!?
That totally explains soo much, like how he got out of kyoto, dodged the shoe and everything else..

Re:Change you can believe in

[zig007]

OH MY GOD! (again)

http://i41.tinypic.com/8zr4f5.jpg

Re:Change you can believe in

[PitaBred]

Computers are great for doing math. But computers operate on the GIGO principle. Even in college I saw lots of people get into trouble because they just plugged numbers in. They didn't have the experience or understanding overall that would have let them realize that the answer they were writing down was a few orders of magnitude off.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Anonymous Coward]

OI HAI i can link to annoying shock sites that flash the screen around while showing tubgirl...

Go back to 4chan.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Jane Q. Public]

A flat-earth first approximation is perfectly adequate for people at a flat-earth level of technology. Lack of relativity and quantum mechanics is perfectly adequate for an 1890s level of technology. Actually, if you are a modern civil engineer, you could probably get by just fine using nothing but Newtonian mechanics.

"Using a computer does not preclude understanding basic mathematics."

Yes it does, IF, most especially, you have never learned to do basic math in the first place. A calculator can only give you examples, it will not teach you effective methods of performing arithmetic.

Further (as I have noticed personally), if you constantly use a calculator, your math skills DO get rusty, from lack of practice.

Your example of non-linear dynamics is fine as far as it goes, but it does not apply to simpler mathematics. Learning to do it manually (or in your head with practice) is an important step... and in fact if you do know the basics well, you will be able to use your calculator or computer much more effectively.

Computer programming is -- in every way -- nothing more than applied mathematics. Even natural-language processing by computer is, at its deepest level, nothing more than math.

Trying to optimize the loops and control structures in my programs would be pointless if I did not have a grasp of the "big O", which requires foreknowledge of geometry and even calculus.

I do agree with you that computers are essential, but I am not sure we agree on where the line should be drawn between "you must know how to do this yourself or you will not graduate" and "get out your calculator".

Re:Change you can believe in

[Dragonslicer]

Obviously for English classes, having access to computers to type papers is handy, but it's hardly necessary.

You've obviously never seen my handwriting.

Re:Change you can believe in

[slackbheep]

It would advantageous if those hunters were able to remember where to locate and how to sharpen sticks. Even better, they could combine rock and stick to form more complex tools.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Toonol]

A friend of the exwife asked for help regarding a math class she was taking in College. Pre-Calc, or some such. I sat with her to get caught up with what she was doing, and it was really disturbing.

She knew nothing of the theory or math. The assistance she needed was help plugging the formulas into her calculator, so she could use it to get the slope at certain points, and so forth. She said her teacher didn't explain any other way of solving the problem... she had memorized a rote set of steps. I don't think she was even clear on what a slope, or even a point, was. Granted, this is a girl that wasn't inclined to be interested in math in the first place, but it wasn't just that. Her textbook had big, easy to follow pages that explained exactly how to get the slope out of a TI-83 calculator. Pictures for the buttons, everything.

She learned nothing from the class.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Atlantis-Rising]

Jake Sisko took a calculus exam at the age of 15 in DS9's "Second Sight", which suggests that students in things like Star Trek are simply further ahead than most students in modern schools

I think the trick of it is, though, as long as your computer technology is sufficiently reliable, you just need to know how to manipulate it- it's not necessary to learn how to actually do any of what it's doing. If it breaks, you're already dead in the water.

I mean, the Enterprise's main computer also controls things like warp core containment and life support. If it goes out, you blow up, freeze, or asphyxiate; knowing exactly how to calculate warp field dynamics in your head is probably not terribly useful.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Lostlander]

How about we stop requiring basic mathematics via paper and pencil in grades higher than 6 (US). If you don't understand it by that point you'll probably always be useless without the assistance of a machine to calculate. I know a lot of people are afraid of technological Armageddon but seriously if we don't start to integrate computer knowledge and effective use of computational devices into our basic learning structures we're going to be stuck on the one great discovery/advancement per century time line.

In order to advance our society we need to teach people to use tools. Too many students spend their entire time in school learning "The Basics" without ever being able to translate that into effectiveness with computational devices. They get taught 1+1=2 so often their eyes bleed and they never get a chance to see how effective they are with higher level mathematics and theory if a computer does that part for them.

Some paper and pencil is a good thing too much teaches people that math is monotonous and boring and to never bother doing math again once they are out of school. A lot of people will never pay attention or retain mathematical principles teaching them to use a computer/calculator to calculate things effectively would go a long way towards having the average person understand why buying a house outside your income is very bad.

But I'm rambling what I'm really trying to say is if we want effective average people we need to teach them to use the right tools. Geniuses and math freaks should still have the opportunity to utilize pen and paper and be taught this information in a more advanced class. e.g. what your calculators sq rt key does and why. So basically teach pencil and paper for basic arithmetic then all other pen and paper math as advanced tools in advanced classes. This will supply your averages with sufficient skills for everyday use and keep them on track for understanding without filling their heads with lots of common formulas they will forget in 2 years or less.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Thaddeaus]

Actually, if you are a modern civil engineer, you could probably get by just fine using nothing but Newtonian mechanics.

And just a note for all of the non-civil engineers out there; knowing "nothing but" Newtonian mechanics doesn't mean simple, back of the hand calculations. A (good) civil engineer needs to know the math that applies to many different subfields. For example, take the Zipingpu Dam, just knowing how to build that dam doesn't mean anything if you're building it over a weak spot on the earth's crust.

Similarly, just building a skyscraper doesn't mean just knowing how high you can build it before it falls down. It also means knowing how to model the effects of air flow around the building, the effects on/by the type of material used, etc. Anyone remember Gertie?

For more, feel free to see Wikipedia's article on civil engineering.

Re:Change you can believe in

[WCguru42]

The four-color map was proved over 30 years ago, with computers, and still today no one has found a way to prove it by hand.

I seriously doubt that. There is nothing a computer can do without the input of a human. Whoever proved that idea with a computer had the understanding of the math to know what the equations were that governed it. The benefit of the computer is that sometimes doing the number crunching is prohibitively difficult and prone to error. This does not mean it can't be done by hand but that there is no point to do it by hand after you've got the fundamentals (I use this term lightly because this proof probably involved some impressive math) down.

Regarding the use of computers in math, they should be prohibited until you've gotten beyond a certain level of math. There is no need to use a computer until, at the earliest, vector calculus. I don't use a calculator to do basic maths (through calculus) other than to multiply numbers and take roots, etc. If you train yourself to do your math without a calculator you will strengthen the basic concepts to the level where you are capable of writing the complex programs that will solve the really difficult math.

As for the teaching of science and math without computers, I seriously beg to differ. Computers definitely make it easier but we've gotten pretty far before computers were used to do those subjects. You should learn your basic mechanics and electromagnetism without a computer so that you can actually understand the first principles. It's no good to know which matlab program to use to calculate the B and E fields around an object without understanding Maxwell's equations. If you don't really understand those principles then you won't know which questions to ask when you're systems start faulting.

Also, relativity and quantum mechanics are not the reason why we know the world is round.

Re:Change you can believe in

[mangu]

Computer programming is -- in every way -- nothing more than applied mathematics.

You had me up to this point. Computer programming is so much more than applied mathematics that they have created a new word to name a branch of science that's still very much empiric, because it was discovered only after people started using computers.

I remember when I and a coworker were discussing, about 25 years ago, if a function that was supposed to generate a random number sequence could be trusted. This guy was a real genius in mathematics, he explained about a dozen different methods to test for randomness, he really knew the basic principles of statistics.

His conclusion: the function was fine, all the tests he ran showed it generated a good series of pseudo-random numbers. Then I plotted 100000 points on the screen, the X and Y positions given by consecutive "random" numbers generated by that function. A clearly visible pattern appeared on the screen. In five minutes of programming I demonstrated that his several hours of theoretical analysis were wrong.

I think you are right in that one must learn the basics before one starts using advanced tools, but computers are much more than tools to accelerate calculations. Computers are a practical demonstration of the adage that says "the result is more than the sum of the parts".

The resistance to the use of computers is due more to the fact that they are new, rather than their use actually causing harm. Think of an artist who wants to draw a straight line. He uses a ruler, of course. But how are rulers made? How many artists could create a ruler without having any straight edge to begin with?

You can create a straight edge from nothing if you build three edges at the same time. Fit edge 'A' to edge 'B' until they match perfectly. Then fit edge 'B' to edge 'C'. Finally fit edge 'C' to edge 'A'. Repeat until any of the three edges matches exactly the other two, at this point all three edges will be perfectly straight. Do you believe an artist needs to know this before he can use a ruler to draw a straight line?

The concept of a straight line is so old that we have forgotten the basic concepts of why a ruler is straight. Computers are new things, someday they will be as common as rulers are today.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Anonymous Coward]

So sad... calculators can't help her, computers can't help her, and obviously not even teachers can help her. She doesn't want to learn. My generation is willfully and adamantly retarded.

Re:Change you can believe in

[DMUTPeregrine]

I am a very, very visually oriented person. I have trouble with math in my head because I cannot keep an image of more than a few steps in my head at once. When I divide two numbers I imagine writing out the long division. Same for every other operation. I use a (TI-89) calculator to do more complex problems and to store intermediate values that I cannot remember in the middle of a problem. Different people think differently, and basic arithmetic is difficult for me. Yet with all that I can easily visualize a hypersphere and other multi-dimensional constructs.

Some people may be better off with different teaching methods. That said, I think the method you mentioned (rote steps with no theory) is horrible, since it doesn't actually teach anything. For most of my math classes I created generalized programs for my calculator to solve entire classes of problems. Each chapter had a new program, and with it I would both understand the theory better (have to, to write it correctly) and have a tool I could use to solve any problems of that class. By using my programming skill I was able to overcome the difficulty of holding such complex problems in my head.
Sadly, the teacher decided to mark me down for not showing my work, and when I showed source code she didn't understand it and still marked me down. Apparently writing a program to find the first derivative of any equation offered isn't nearly as important as doing it their way, for that problem, and not learning the theory.

Re:Change you can believe in

[lgw]

Her textbook had big, easy to follow pages that explained exactly how to get the slope out of a TI-83 calculator. Pictures for the buttons, everything.

That's funny, I was just thinking of the book that came with my old HP programmable calulator, from which I learned more actual math than from my high school textbooks. Of coruse, that book described more than just how to push the buttons!

A calculator is just a tool. Like any other, it can be used for good or evil. I went through a period in high school where I used a slide rule instead of a calculator, just for fun. As a result, I can approximate common logs in my head. There was great moaning and wailing when sliderules started being used in classrooms and memorizarion of log tables was deprecated. "How will people learn to multiply in their head if they don't memorize log tables?" While I find it habdy to occasionally work with logs in geeky ways, I've never actually added logs in my head as a way to multiply in my head.

Calculators are now ubiquitous. Multiplying numbers in your head is a geeky trick with limited practical value, and *no* relevence to understanding a pre-calc textbook. Math just isn't about computation.

And that's the problem in the example you cite. That book was evil, because it taught computation, not math. The calulator was innocent.

Re:Change you can believe in

[khellendros1984]

Teaching math isn't about actually teaching arithmetic, it's about teaching logical thought, and conditioning the students' minds with the proper tools.

In my opinion, people need *more* problem-solving skills, not fewer. They need to be forced to think things through. Teaching someone to use a calculator is teaching them to pull answers from some magical place, instead of understanding how the answers are arrived at.

Re:Change you can believe in

[ppanon]

Some paper and pencil is a good thing; too much teaches people that math is monotonous and boring and to never bother doing math again once they are out of school.

Well, I'll partly give you that point. I think I enjoyed math more because I learned it according to European approaches of the time, which involved introducing Algebra and word problem solving a lot earlier (grade 4/5) than in North America. While I had already gotten a lot of repetition in memorizing addition and times tables by that point, the word problems provided a way to make the math more analytical, more relevant, and thus more interesting. It also provided a good base for later problems in scientific studies. By grade 5, I also already had exposure to fractions and decimal notation, which I didn't get until grade 8 in N.A.

Now the repetition aspect is one of the things that I think computers can make more fun by turning it into a game. For instance, try out Tux, Of Math Command. The repetition is necessary, but a good use of computers is in making it less boring.

Actually, I would really like to see an RPG for older kids where at regular points in the game you need to solve (word-type) problems to progress. It should certainly be possible to fit into the storyline simple kinematics problems for instance, basic arithmetic/algebra/compound interest problems. It might also help kids see how that sort of math is applicable in everyday life. Maybe you could start with an open sourced game engine like Quake's as a foundation for a virtual environment that you can explore, and then build on it. As you master one skill and start learning new ones, new map areas open up. I wonder if Alan Kay and Viewpoints Research might be interested in pursuing that approach.

I suppose what I'm thinking of is somewhat inspired by the software for the "desks" in Ender's game. I think that with current hardware, a simplified version of that is now becoming possible. I would rather my kid play with something like that than GTA 007 - Licence to Kill.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Jane Q. Public]

I sympathize with your situation. You had indeed "shown your work" -- probably more rigorously than others -- yet it was not understood. Hard to blame the instructor, however, for not understanding what was, in effect, a new mathematical notation with which she was not familiar.

And I guess, really, that is part of the problem. Math teachers I have had who were not mathematicians (most of them), tended to think of math as a series of rigid formulas and answers that they got from their Instructor's Version of the textbook. Fail to quote the textbook, and fail the lesson.

Well, I could go on about this for a while, but I think the basic problems here are well understood. At least by the people who understand these things. My sincerest wish is that those who understand could make our government (local, state, federal) understand as well.

And you know, I am a rather visual person as well, and my big strength is a strong "intuitive grasp" of how the equations relate to the physics. But I have trouble internalizing dimensions over 4. People like you could get together with people like me, and together make a pretty good team!

Re:Change you can believe in

[Jane Q. Public]

Meh. It's late. What I meant was that my talent is for "seeing" how the equation relates to the properties / actions of real objects and situations. And it's good. But only up to dimension 4. Try beyond that, and it's like "all a muddle, too many variables". Everything "looks" gray.

Re:Change you can believe in

[Niris]

"Man, another lame ass math problem. Brb, going to go google the answers"

Re:Change you can believe in

[nog_lorp]

Yes it does, IF, most especially, you have never learned to do basic math in the first place.

I first learned to use a computer at 7. No wonder I keep fucking up the arithmetic on my multi-variable calculus problems!

Re:Change you can believe in

[nog_lorp]

it's about teaching logical thought

Well, you can stop right there. We might as well be putting our resources into sports!

Re:Change you can believe in

[nog_lorp]

Neither of you said "A deterministic function cannot possibly generate a random number sequence"? Heh.

But, seriously, what was the intended period of the PRNG? Mersenne Twister is considered an excellent general use PRNG (not for cryptography), but if you ask for more than 2^19937 - 1 random numbers from it without reseeding it will repeat.

Re:Change you can believe in

[nog_lorp]

What was done was an exhaustive proof: all possible topological layouts were tested. It required a variety of tests on about 2,000 types of maps, which would have taken lifetimes to be done by hand.

Granted, a large body of work was done to lead to this proof, including a 500 page proof showing there were only about 2,000 relevant types of maps.

There are problems where the number crunching is entirely prohibitive to humankind, and solving the problem leads to significant forwarding of science and/or math.

Re:Change you can believe in

[WNight]

Math, Science, and Literature/Writing - where do you see the benefits in using computers?

Ummm, Math, Science, and Lit.

Playing physics games can teach you a lot, math programs can graph equations and really help in understanding even basic things. And literature - can you imagine being able to grep and diff in a classroom? Not only would people not need to carry the paper books, but they could see various versions of a work side-by-side, look for similar constructs, plots, etc...

If you had a truly useful PDA - Star Trek-level useful - what wouldn't it make easier? Should we just sit and wait till one spontaneously creates itself, or should we work on intermediate tools in the meantime?

change

[DoofusOfDeath]

Well, at least this is change I can believe in. As in, it's certainly not hard to believe.

Damn.

Re:change

[Hordeking]

Well, at least this is change I can believe in. As in, it's certainly not hard to believe.

Damn.

The more things CHANGE!, the more they stay the same. That's CHANGE! you can HOPE! for.

Re:change

[zappepcs]

I don't think that many people in American (or the world for that matter) thought that 'change you can believe in' meant exactly what you imply that it seems to mean. I think the only real change we got was the name plate on the desk in the oval office.

Re:change

[geekoid]

Really? Have you not been paying attention?
In the last month or so, much had changed.

The US's focus on science is back, forcing a religion on people via the government is gone, foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally, a renewed focus on alternate energies..and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.

I don't by in to any Cult of personality, but I can look at what's going on.

So I, for one, am pretty happy at the changes so far. You can bet the farm that if he does something I don't like I will call him out on it.

Re:change

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

So you're apparently fine with this decision, I take it?

Re:change

[Broken scope]

Its been a month already?

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

forcing a religion on people via the government is gone

The problem isn't the forcing of "religion" on the people, it's the forcing of any belief system. That is far from gone, you're just aligned with this presidents beliefs so you don't feel the sting. Others who were aligned with the last president do feel that they are having beliefs forced on them.

I'm not really for or against the man yet as I haven't seen any real results beyond a feel good cult mentality sweeping the nation but I do like the stopping of torture so I'm hopeful. All that said, you're still being fed and likely always will be one mans belief system rather than an adherence to a small set of immutable principles that govern all equally, which was the original goal of this little experiment we call America. Government has become far to profitable for that to return any time soon so prepare to have your beliefs determined for you and disagreement shouted down from both sides.

Re:change

[Hordeking]

In the last month or so, much had changed.

The US's focus on science is back,

How about that manned space program?

forcing a religion on people via the government is gone

Only to be replaced by forcing secular religion on people via the government, again.

foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally,

Because I'm happy to kowtow to the Republic of Ruritania and give a shit what France thinks of my domestic policy.

a renewed focus on alternate energies

No argument.

and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.

I suppose you have better ideas. Let's have your research, or at least your speculations.

Every president will do good things and bad things. GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. Socialized medicine? What next, momma gub'mint thinking for me? My opinion remains that a president is there to interface to the rest of the world, not run my life (why else would we have the 10th amendment?)

Re:change

[rssrss]

"despite everything the world continues to turn in its old corrupt way. And the same idea may now be crossing the minds of those who believed that electing Democrats into power would mean cleaner government, world peace and a high moral tone only to realize that maybe Washington is like a softdrink machine which dispenses orange bug juice no matter what buttons you push."

-- Richard Fernandez

Re:change

[Chyeld]

I sincerly hope that whomever you voted for wasn't someone you actually thought was going to be lockstep with you 100% of the time.

If they were, I'm sorry you were a fool.

If they weren't, quit being an ass simply because it's not 'your guy' up there making choices you don't agree with.

Re:change

[StikyPad]

Right, because Bush was in the habit of respectfully addressing the middle-east, he believed in single-payer healthcare, and he had been toiling endlessly to shut down Gitmo. Bush was such an ally of middle and lower income earners, he was on the verge of fixing our economy by giving out money "without preconditions", and, oh right, he was just wrapping up the War on Tactic^wTerror when he got kicked out of office by that stupid term limits thing.

Damn, some people wouldn't be happy if their unicorns shit gold that was only three 9s pure.

Re:change

[The Spoonman]

Others who were aligned with the last president do feel that they are having beliefs forced on them.

Yes, they're bitching that by including other religious and non-religious folks in the conversation for once that we're not being inclusive because we're not paying them exclusive attention. They want us to be inclusive as long as we only include them.

Re:change

[Wonko the Sane]

and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives.

Possibly the worst will be removing all parental rights.

Speaking of the 10th amendment, why have 7 state legislatures introduced declarations of sovereignty in the last few weeks?

Re:change

[Shakrai]

GW did some terrible things with our freedom

Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights to appease the far wing of his party. Oh, wait......

why else would we have the 10th amendment?

Has either political party ever taken the 10th amendment seriously?

Re:change

[mh1997]

The US's focus on science is back, forcing a religion on people via the government is gone, foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally, a renewed focus on alternate energies..and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies.

I don't by in to any Cult of personality, but I can look at what's going on.

So I, for one, am pretty happy at the changes so far. You can bet the farm that if he does something I don't like I will call him out on it.

You can add that people are also paying attention to the excuses that the new head of the IRS gave about his inability to pay taxes.

Re:change

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

You didn't read the parent of my post, did you? If you did, you just might get it. As it stands, you don't.

Re:change

[Malevolyn]

Call him out on taking Bush's side on the wiretapping bill, then.

Re:change

[Hordeking]

and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives.

Possibly the worst will be removing all parental rights.

Speaking of the 10th amendment, why have 7 state legislatures introduced declarations of sovereignty in the last few weeks?

I've been hearing far more rumblings of secession the past two years, as well. And this time it isn't confined to the South.

Re:change

[anagama]

What about my rights to my earnings? Considering the recent news about that single-bitch in CA who had a litter of 8, it's hard not to toy with the idea of restricting parental rights. Ultimately that would be a bad idea. Much better would be to simply limit the amount of government support a person can get for kids. In this way you don't limit a parent's right to play dog, but you don't stick all the rational people in the world with a massive bill. "Ya wanna have a litter? Fine, but you get to pay for it." I'd set the maximum level of gov't support at three kids. I'd prefer it to be one, but I suspect I'm on the extreme side in that regard. It really pisses me off that in all liklihood, that selfish litter bearer will be sucking up money from everyone else for absolutely no good reason.

Re:change

[Hordeking]

Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights to appease the far wing of his party. Oh, wait......

GW did some terrible things with our freedom, and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. QED.

why else would we have the 10th amendment?

Has either political party ever taken the 10th amendment seriously?

They haven't. Libertarians are pretty tough on that one, but they constitute an ideology, rather than a political party. The states better start taking it seriously again. It may already be too late.

Re:change

[Chyeld]

You are correct, my comment would have been more appro to one of HordeKing's, you were the end of the thread and I simply ascribed to you his words. I apologize. Regardless of whether the words are directed at you specifically or not through, the issue still stands.

I've heard more bullshit from the "anti-Obama" group in the past month about "Ha! Ha! This is 'change'..." every time he makes a decision that could even be mildly thought of as controversial than I think I heard during the entire campaign.

News flash for these people. You can't please everyone 100% of the time. The test of Obama's presidency won't be "Does he make decisions that Chyeld has always agreed with."

Re:change

[sumdumass]

Really? You think all those minor things amount to all that?

I mean seriously, do you think funding abortions now somehow stops the religious right? Do you think that an couple of executive orders.....

Wow.. I think you sense of what was screwed up in this country was blown way out of portion and your just a crazy kid.

Re:change

[CannonballHead]

I just heard about the CRC. That is a crazy scary prospect. Basically, let the government teach and raise and instruct (read: brainwash) your child. Great, any child can argue about a parental decision and it can be "overturned" if a GOVERNMENT WORKER agrees? Hmmm. Government worker. Basically, if my seven year old doesn't agree with my decision that he can't eat all the cookies, and a government worker agrees with him, I am forced to let him?

This isn't about the rights of a child, this is about the "rights" of the government to do what they want. And it's been going on for years and years in the public education district.

And the GP as some excellent points as well, especially the part about having the US's reputation be better. I'm not going to excuse any BAD behavior, but since when have all nations loved the US? What exactly are we trying to "regain" here, and at what cost? I don't want the US diplomacy scene to be like Obama's campaign scene... kissing up to a bunch of groups, saying what they want to hear, etc., in order to have a good (fabricated, based on rhetoric) image.

Example: For being so "change"-ish from the typical political scene, from other democrats, etc., he appointed his opponent (Clinton), he has appointed many key democrats, la la la ... basically NOTHING has changed except the name went from Republican to Democrat. And I'm not sure, ideologically, I like the Democrat better...

Re:change

[CannonballHead]

giving out money "without preconditions"

Ah yes, the solution to a recession: government giving out "free" money. Wonder who pays for that? France?

Re:change

[andyring]

Better light globally? You mean by pissing off all our trade allies by trying to restrict this "economic stimulus" spending to only American products?

Re:change

[Wonko the Sane]

It really pisses me off that the NWO tinfoil hat people are looking less and less crazy all the time

Re:change

[sumdumass]

The problem is that Obama was all things to all people. He was worse then Ron Paul who you could at least look at his speeches and see where he stood. Obama's speeches and history of actions typically were vague and open enough that this wasn't possible and he didn't fizzle out like Ron Paul did.

Anyways, I do find it funny because these issues are important issues to people on this site. Rewarding RIAAs laywers and appointing oppressive lawyers like the BSA to federal judgeship is something that effects geeks on this site more then funding abortions with tax dollars and the other issues he has supposedly changed.

The test of Obama's presidency, at least for a lot of us here, is going to be "does his cons outweigh his pros". And currently it looks like the answer is no. Change and hope was Obama's message- it appears the message wasn't clear enough for many to expect shit like this. It may have very well been a vote changer if it where.

Re:change

[sumdumass]

Dude, in the future, make you links larger then the number 7.

Your point is sort of too important to miss.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

I sincerely hope that you considered the possibility that I voted for myself.

Re:change

[Chyeld]

And currently it looks like the answer is no. Change and hope was Obama's message- it appears the message wasn't clear enough for many to expect shit like this. It may have very well been a vote changer if it where.

If the folk throwing a shit storm were the folk supporting Obama before, I'd agree. But everytime I hear shit, it's from someone who from the start was attacking Obama. I'm sure there were plenty of people out there who let themselves be blinded in their expectations, but most of them are NOT the people bitching and making snide remarks. It's the people who decided that the rest of us supported Obama not on our opinion of his ability to lead but because we somehow were 'culted' into believing he was the next coming of Christ that are bitching.

It's the ultimate straw man arguement. "Ha ha! Where is your messiah now!", when most of us went in clear eyed knowing that he wasing going to match our world view 100%.

I can tell you one thing though, he's a damn sight better a match at seeing the world the way I dothan the previous guy or the guys he was running up against (Dem or Rep).

Re:change

[sumdumass]

Inclusive means including people. Not catering to some to the point of excluding others. Just because the tide is in the opposite direction doesn't mean it isn't at play.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you retarded? Seriously? Because I don't want to waste my time typing if you're physically incapable of understanding concepts above a 3rd grade level.

Only to be replaced by forcing secular religion on people via the government, again.

Secular == Absence of religion. Absence of religion is not a religion. Atheism arguably is, but secularism is not. It does not have rituals, beliefs, and it does not deal with the metaphysical. It simply states that religion should exist separately from government, which is the principle our country was founded on. It's aim is that people have OMG rational reasons for passing laws instead of "last night my dog farted and it sounded exactly like 'gay marriage is an abomination.' I can only assume God was speaking through my dog's asshole, and we must now follow His will".

foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally,

Because I'm happy to kowtow to the Republic of Ruritania

Not saying "fuck you" to our neighbors every day, for no reason, would be a better description of our new foreign policy. Try doing that to your neighbor and see what happens. If nothing, repeat with every neighbor on your block. We don't live in a bubble -- what other people think matters because, at the very least, we rely on them to respect our property and boundaries. We can't just kill everyone who is not us, either on a local or global stage. And not just because it's immoral; we physically can't do it, and we would get our asses handed to us if we tried. Try to remember back to when we were just some pissants on a "new world" who were so sick of getting told what to do by some foreign asshole Monarch that we decided to kill all of their representatives and supporters in a Revolutionary War. Let's not be those assholes.

and give a shit what France thinks of my domestic policy.

It's not about whether or not France dictates our domestic policy, it's whether they're making good points regardless of who they are. Ignoring good advise because of the source is something kids do with their parents. When adults do it, we generally acknowledge that they're fucktards and will probably end up killing themselves because their european neighbor advised them not to piss on high power lines.

We already HAVE socialized medicine, it's just the least efficient form imaginable. We PAY for people to go to the ER, our insurance rates go up because of it, and our tax dollars are spent helping to cover hospital's losses. Every other industrialized nation has formal single-payer healthcare, and while some do better than others, they almost all do better than the US. This FUD about the government telling you what doctors to see, and when, is just that; FUD. Your HMO/PPO is already that bad (and if it's not, congratulations.. the rest of us aren't so lucky and we can't fucking pick because it's tied to our employer, or we're self employed entrepreneurs (you know.. "Americans") and we can't get ANY health insurance.)

Seriously, step out of whatever isolationist safe-room you live in, breathe some air that hasn't been cycled through your Chemical/Biological/Radioactive protective filters, and take note of the fact that our country isn't great just because we say it is. For a perfect analogy, look at our auto industry. It's basically a mirror of the US compared to the rest of the world. Our cars are of shitty quality, they're horribly inefficient, nobody wants to buy them, and the entire industry is teetering on collapse. Everybody else has improved their designs, created faster, quieter, more comfortable, and more efficient vehicles. The same can be said of our societies as a whole. We've left ours floundering in a deadlock between those who want the status quo, those who want progress, and what we get is something worse than either. We need to compete with the rest of the world, and to do that we need the things EVERY other industrialized nation provides its citizens, including healthcare, a decent grade school education, paid college education, and creating something to export other than entertainment would probably be a good bonus as well.

Re:change

[initdeep]

When you're reducing the amount of money the government removes from my paycheck by lowering my tax rates, no one pays for it.

if it also comes along with reduced federal spending and less pork barrel projects (they happen on both sides so dont think im picking on one or the other) then it also costs nothing.

thats the way to create change.

americans are debt spenders for the majority.

give em a $300 check and they pay off a little of their average $5k credit card debt.

give em $200/month by taking less tax dollars at the federal and state level (and reducing the government involvment in their life) and they will eventually start SPENDING that money after a few months on something other than bills.

they'll still carry their credit card debt to what they consider acceptable levels, but they will do so by spending every month.

this is not supposition, this is proven fact that any economist will agree with.
they may not agree with how you give them the money, but they will agree with the way the spending patterns are stated.

Re:change

[M. Baranczak]

pajamasmedia.com - weren't these the guys that hired Joe the Plumber as a war correspondent?

Re:change

[Chyeld]

sincerly hope that whomever you voted for wasn't someone you actually thought was going to be lockstep with you 100% of the time.

If they were, I'm sorry you were a fool.

If they weren't, quit being an ass simply because it's not 'your guy' up there making choices you don't agree with.

I sincerely hope that you considered the possibility that I voted for myself.

Unless your name happens to be Barrack ("AC") Obama, the statement still stands. Even if you were McCain, looking at the way your campaign was run, I'd still be right.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been a month already?

That's probably what the parent poster meant by "or so." An approximation; and without any allusion to accuracy.

Quit picking nits.

Re:change

[Sun.Jedi]

You can add that people are also paying attention to the excuses that the new head of the IRS gave about his inability to pay taxes.

Add Daschel to the list.

Seems to me, we should let Obama keep choosing his cabinet ... we'll have that nasty debt paid off in no time.

Re:change

[StikyPad]

There already IS a limit. EITC only lets you claim up to 2 children.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

It's impossible for the US to both "focus on science" and follow the copyrightist agenda - copyright has become a barrier to cutting-edge science (to a lesser extent than patents, but still). The restrictions on redistribution in copyright law must be abolished for progress.

Re:change

[Chyeld]

I just heard about the CRC. That is a crazy scary prospect. Basically, let the government teach and raise and instruct (read: brainwash) your child. Great, any child can argue about a parental decision and it can be "overturned" if a GOVERNMENT WORKER agrees? Hmmm. Government worker. Basically, if my seven year old doesn't agree with my decision that he can't eat all the cookies, and a government worker agrees with him, I am forced to let him?

Oh my FUCKING god. Is that the best FUD you could have come up with regarding this? That you are afraid your kid is going to call the government on you for not providing cookies?

Did you even read what you typed or are you just vomiting out whatever shit you think of and hoping some of it will stick?

This is something that has been law in many country since the 80's. Have you HONESTLY heard one peep from those countries concerning it? Any "All my children were taken away because I didn't bake enough brownies?" in the news?

Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just reading from some FUD manual?

Here is a quote

"The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child. This approach is different from the common law approach found in many countries that had previously treated children and wives as possessions or chattels, ownership of which was often argued over in family disputes. In many jurisdictions, properly implementing the Convention requires an overhaul of child custody and guardianship laws, or, at the very least, a creative approach within the existing laws.

The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.

The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child's viewpoint be heard in such cases. The Convention forbids capital punishment for children."

Where does anything you've claimed appear in that or derive from that? WTF are you on?

Re:change

[furby076]

And per Obama's rules he is not allowed to work on projects relating to his previous industry. So he is out of the RIAA loop.

BTW your post is not insightful, maybe funny - more like trolling/flamebait...except this is /. so it has to be insightful.

Re:change

[The Spoonman]

Exactly, but that's not what the fundies are saying. They're complaining that other groups are being acknowledged, and in doing so that they're being diminished in some absurd fashion.

Re:change

[StikyPad]

Not 7 state legislatures; 7 nutjobs out of 1000s of people in state legislatures have introduced these bills in committee. Not that I disagree with State's Rights, I just think these bills are kneejerk BS that will accomplish nothing. If you really want reverse the trend of centralism, stop following every law that Congress spits out and stop complying with every "incentive" to get highway funds.

Re:change

[Hordeking]

Here is a quote

"The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child.

And how does the state decide what is in the best interests of the child? A lot of the social workers I've heard of (a personal friend who got a visit one time, and I would consider her to be an excellent mother) are pretty gung ho and get a lot of leeway to simply remove children preemptively, only returning them after a lengthy fight.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, to have their privacy protected and requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.

So, aside from the obvious protections, this document does a poor job defining any limits. It ends up being State Vs Parents Vs the Child. A three-way fight.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing how many geeks supported Obama.

Not feeling too smart now, are you? You chose style over substance, again. Must explain the affinity for Apple, while we're on the subject.

Re:change

[Wonko the Sane]

At least in Oklahoma, this bill passed the House 97-3 last year, but the democrats in the Senate would not bring it to the floor for a vote.

Unless you are claiming that 97% of the representatives in the Oklahoma legislature are nutjobs, in which case you have a point.

Re:change

[anagama]

Is there a two child welfare limit? Is there a 2 child SCHIP limit? Is there a 2 child limit for whatever method people can dream up to spend my money?

Re:change

[asterion]

All belief systems are not equal, as you seem to imply. Here's mine in a nutshell, which I consider to be essentially American (although not exclusively) and superior to all other belief systems: Individual freedom and responsibility good, everything else, bad. That is for me and IMO should be for everyone (American or otherwise) the Prime F'n Directive. If you buy into that, I trust you even if you have other ideas I think are stupid. If you don't buy into that, I think you have bad software running in your head (probably fueled by "good intentions"), and I don't want you making decisions for me, or to have any power whatsoever.

The reasons why this "BS" is superior to other "BS"s are many, but here are a couple of highlights:

1. Produces best outcomes - smart, motivated, empowered individuals create wealth and drive progress better than Ministries of Fuckery.

2. Prevents tyranny - there is no path to tyrannical Ministries of Fuckery if this "BS" truly prevails.

That's my religion at a political/economic/social level, and if I could "force it" on you, I would. And fuck you if you can't take a joke.

Re:change

[Reziac]

Well, *I* could see it coming, and all I did was read part of one of Obama's books, and become aware of his political history (I didn't see any of his speeches/debates). That made him clear enough to me that none of his actions as President has surprised me in the least, and I expect there will be a lot more rude "surprises" in store for those who believed that "change" meant "change as WE want it".

Re:change

[Chyeld]

That was a quote from the wikipedia, not the actual document. You are welcome to read the actual treaty (here Which is in fact a treaty and therefore would require the nation itself to pass/amend the laws as necessary to enact it. Protections are for the law, not for the treaty. That is the whole point of having people sign on to the treaty and craft their own laws to match their culture rather than passing a "one law to rule them all".

And regarding who determines what's "best for the child", that's already the law in the US. So this treaty would change nothing in that respect. In other words all you have is FUD and the "OMG, but maybe something bad could happen if we really thought hard enough about scaring our selves."

BTW, in case you are looking for more FUD to spread about it, the treaty also bans capital punishment on children, prostitution, and child porn.

Can't wait to hear how not being able to chop their heads off is bad for children.

Re:change

[StikyPad]

There is a welfare TIME limit. I don't know anything about welfare beyond that. Most people are not on Welfare anymore, they're on "Workfare", which is EITC, and, as stated previously, limited to claiming 2 children.

Health care is not a handout; it benefits everyone. Taking children to get their immunizations, get checkups, etc., TODAY saves everyone lots of money in the long run -- and saves even MORE money if they go on to be uninsured (because we still have to pay when they show up in the emergency room).

There's no limit to what people can dream up, no. I'm not sure where that falls in the scope of this discussion though.

Re:change

[Reziac]

Also, remember that when the 2nd Amendment thing was recently up before SCOTUS, Montana's Sec'y of State (backed by 40-odd state legislators) put forth a resolution to secede if the 2nd Amendment was not upheld.

http://progunleaders.org/Heller/resolution.html

Re:change

[CannonballHead]

Lowering tax rates? I completely agree with that. Reduced spending? Also completely agree.

Unfortunately, I disagree with the current administration's and Congress's (which is primarily in the hands of the Democrat party at the moment) ideas about spending and tax cuts... they tend to dislike the latter and really want the former.

Tax cuts and reduced federal spending and reduced pork is something I will support wholeheartedly. Yes, pork comes on both sides, but I have to say that it doesn't look like it's getting better than before... rather, it looks like it is getting worse.

Re:change

[Hyppy]

The EITC is only a small portion of the state-funded benefits from breeding.

Re:change

[Culture20]

Rewarding RIAAs laywers and appointing oppressive lawyers like the BSA to federal judgeship is something that effects geeks on this site more then funding abortions with tax dollars and the other issues he has supposedly changed.

I would argue that the rewards more unilaterally effect us geeks, but that the other issues are still more important to us (even though we split down the middle on them).

Re:change

[CannonballHead]

Cookies was an exaggerated and over-simplified example. I assumed people would get the gist of what I was saying. On the other hand, you combat it by saying it apparently is primarily focused on not cutting heads off of children, apparently presuming that I support the "parental right" of decapitating children. Hm.

The main issue is the LACK of limitations. For example:

1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child's place of residence.

"Best interests." "Best interests" is used all over the place. Well, we already know what they probably think about *gasp* teaching religion or *gasp* teaching abstinence, and other such horrific things. It's in the child's best interest to have sex before marriage!!! ... etc.

Or how about homeschooling? Many states already hate homeschooling and think it's horrible for the children, somehow. So, what's in the child's best interests if the parent refuses to let them go to public schools? Hmmm. That alone (government deciding how and what children are taught) is scary, as the education of a child is a HUGE deal.

Or how about section 12?

1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

Freely express the views, as long as the child is "capable" of forming "his or her own views." What views? What exactly is a "matter affecting the child" ?

Or section 13:

1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice. 2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Ummm. Basically, parents can't "make" their kid be quiet?

Next.

1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.

Great. Parents are allowed to "provide direction" (not even "direct" but only "provide direction" consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. Let's say the child doesn't like church. What then? Or let's say you're an atheist and the child DOES like church. Too bad, you can't say he/she can't go to church and let himself be taught all those lies, it's his or her own choice. You can only provide direction, you can't actively direct. Government, on the other hand, can direct (public schools do NOT simply "provide direction," they are DEFINITELY involved in actively directing).

There are a ton of areas that this leaves open. Sex education ("neglect" of it not being allowed) as deemed "necessary" by government; science education as deemed "necessary" by the government, etc. Basically, if a parent disagrees with what th

Re:change

[StikyPad]

Really? Please share. It's a rough economy and I'm down for some babymaking, especially if it'll earn me a few bucks.

Re:change

[Ogive17]

a renewed focus on alternate energies..and not just on a specific ideology regarding alternate energies, but a focus on a broad swath of alternative energies

I find this funny because 2 days ago I saw his "clean coal" ad on tv that ran during the election. Promoting clean coal seems like a step backwards.. or a lie to get more votes.

An article on /. a day or two ago pointed out how the US is now leading the world in power generated by the wind, sure it's not as impressive if you use per capita but the fact that it had grown 50% since 2007 tells me we were already on the right path prior to Obama taking over.

Re:change

[Chyeld]

You do realize that 100% of the things that you are attempting to FUD over here are already the case in the US?

In other words, it's here. It's NOW. Have you suffered any harm yet? No? Perhaps that's because you are frothing mad over non-issues.

Re:change

[anagama]

No it doesn't save money. It costs money. It saves money to have a reasonable number of ankle-biters where "reasonable number" means "number you can afford on your income without a handout".

What you meant to say is that under our current system of giving away stuff to the irresponsible, it costs somewhat less to provide healthcare services along the way, than it does later on. This in no way addresses the fact that we have a system that encourages irresponsible behavior at my expense.

My position is that people can have as many kids as they want as long as I don't have to pay for it. It is wrong and immoral to make me cover the costs incurred by breeders. Nobody is stepping up to buy me a new motherboard to tinker with every month, why the heck should I pay for people who want kids?

Re:change

[sumdumass]

If the folk throwing a shit storm were the folk supporting Obama before, I'd agree. But everytime I hear shit, it's from someone who from the start was attacking Obama. I'm sure there were plenty of people out there who let themselves be blinded in their expectations, but most of them are NOT the people bitching and making snide remarks. It's the people who decided that the rest of us supported Obama not on our opinion of his ability to lead but because we somehow were 'culted' into believing he was the next coming of Christ that are bitching.

I know a lot of people who would have voted for the green party or libertarian instead of Obama but they did vote for him for those reasons. That would fit your definition of attacking Obama from the start but they did vote for him. I'm voted against him however so I have no personal attachment and probably fall into the placard you are describing. However, they are the ones who are upset and appear outrages, I'm just cynical and being a prick about it.

It's the ultimate straw man arguement. "Ha ha! Where is your messiah now!", when most of us went in clear eyed knowing that he wasing going to match our world view 100%.

Well, sort of. But most of the railings I see is where people are commenting on the "change and hope message". That is something they were roped into believing for whatever reasons. I think the Messiah thing is over played too. He attempted to appear like a greek god not the second coming although there were people who acted as if he was.

I can tell you one thing though, he's a damn sight better a match at seeing the world the way I dothan the previous guy or the guys he was running up against (Dem or Rep).

I can agree with that. I don't agree with Obama's outlook though. I don't see it as being different enough to warrant all the attention. It's more of a clintontonian type view (yea, I just made that up) which led us into the path that resulted with the last leader. For instance, I agree that Club Gitmo should be closed because it's a symbol of things that should not be but I don't agree that the members should be brought into the US and put in the US court systems. I also think the global warming is a scam, it may be a scientific reality but it has been politicized and hijacks for ulterior motives that have little or nothing to do with the science. Just a few months ago over 600 scientists who contributed to the IPCC stood up and walked out of a meeting stating that their work is being misrepresented and that it doesn't say what the IPCC is claiming it does.

I also don't like the false hope that seems to be going around. Obama ordered the EPA to review if it could allow California to set stricter standards on automakers. But this is somehow being promoted as a reversal of their previous position. Perhaps the previous policy has a sound footing and nothing will change. Especially when all car manufacturers are losing money and having troubles at the moment. Then there is the entire review of the science of the bush administration which is claimed to be supporting science again. However, he is canning NASA missions which is to be expected seeing how the democrats have a history of cutting NASA funding the most (the 1993 funding cut where the democrats controlled both houses of congress and the administration was more then the 3 cuts before and 4 cuts after combined). Then you have to look at the global warming science where it's being pushed by a zealot who admitted to exaggerating things because he believed the ends justified the means.

In short, most of what he has done is minor compared to what he presented himself as and they haven't really panned out yet but people are acting like he started the earth rotating in the opposite direction. People have elevated this person to some position he doesn't deserve to be in and sooner or later, their high will crash and most won't think much more of him then they did Bush.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

and Obama will surely do terrible things to other aspects of our lives. Socialized medicine?

Are you kidding me!? Socialized medicine would be a good thing. How do you perceive that as a 'terrible thing'?

Re:change

[witherstaff]

Sure am glad that Obama won't go along with an attack on any of our constitutional rights

Even before he took the mantel he reversed his commitment against telco immunity and gave immunity.

I'll be surprised if Obama actually sheds ANY of the executive powers that Bush gave that branch.

Re:change

[Toonol]

Exactly, but that's not what the fundies are saying. They're complaining that other groups are being acknowledged, and in doing so that they're being diminished in some absurd fashion.

Is that what they're saying, or is that how you're interpreting what they're saying?

Re:change

[Toonol]

Good for you. That's a decent set of beliefs.

The idea that all sets of ethics or personal philosophies are of equal value is terribly harmful. Believing that all cultures and belief systems are of equal value negates any concept of cultural progress and ethical truth.

Re:change

[Omestes]

Let's say the child doesn't like church. What then? Or let's say you're an atheist and the child DOES like church. Too bad, you can't say he/she can't go to church and let himself be taught all those lies, it's his or her own choice.

Where is the problem with that? When I was around 10, I told my parents that they could take their church and shove it, they respected that. If I had a child who decided that they wanted to be religious, I would respect that as much as my parents respected me NOT wanting to be.

I see nothing wrong with letting children make up their own mind about what mumbo-jumbo they want to believe, as long as it isn't forced on them (by the parents or any other party)

Or how about homeschooling? Many states already hate homeschooling and think it's horrible for the children, somehow. So, what's in the child's best interests if the parent refuses to let them go to public schools? Hmmm. That alone (government deciding how and what children are taught) is scary, as the education of a child is a HUGE deal.

Homeschooling is often just a way to maintain the "ideological integrity" of the child, please read that as "brainwashing". It also generally serves to "keep children clean from outside influences", please also read this as brainwashing, and as a stupid means to keep the kid from developing critical dissent from whatever crap the parents are trying to fill them with (generally some form of lunatic fringe religion). I'm confused by this, if your indoctrination is so damn strong and correct, then why would you be afraid of other ideas?

On a more psychological level, school serves for more than teaching your kid how to read and write. It also socializes the child, equipping them with the mores and norms of the greater society, the norms and mores that we all require to successfully interact within that society. Children need this psychologically, or they do suffer actual psychological illnesses.

Re:change

[Hyppy]

HHS administers many of the programs, however recently block grants have been provided to states for them to create and maintain their own programs. Look around for the ACF sub-department, and theTANF grants.

Re:change

[Mister Whirly]

So there are a few RIAA lawyers in higher positions. Is it a big deal? Maybe.
Is it such a big deal I would risk having Roe vs. Wade overturned, keeping Gitmo open for torture, keeping the ban on stem cell research, etc. to make sure it wouldn't happen? No.
Accept the fact that no matter what you think of Obama, he is not going to do what you wish he would all the time.

Re:change

[Shakrai]

Even before he took the mantel he reversed his commitment against telco immunity and gave immunity. [nytimes.com]

That's the moment that he lost my vote and my support. I actually took a week off work and spent it out in Ohio campaigning for him against Hillary. Boy, did I feel like a dumbass afterwards.

I'd donated almost $500 to his campaign too. After the FISA betrayal I wrote them a letter and asked for it all back. They actually gave it to me too. I had a scanned copy of that check as my wallpaper for several months afterwards to remind me of the folly of believing anything that a politician says. I donated every penny of my returned donation to the EFF -- figured they needed it more than he did.

Re:change

[The Spoonman]

Nope, it's what they're saying. When atheists complain about christian institutions getting funding in direct violation of the founding tenets of our country, the christians pop up and say they, and other religious groups, are being oppressed. But, when you acknowledge those other groups, the christians get pissed because you've now diminished them because they're not getting 100% of the spotlight.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt due to all the trumpeting of his name everywhere. Seeing this, I'm disappointed but not surprised. Let's be honest, most of you Obama supporters really only jumped on the bandwagon after hearing his catch-phrase of "Change" and "Hope", and watching the latest Obama girl videos on youtube.

I was pretty convinced he was a phony with the back and forth feigned attacks between him and Hillary, who he's now taken on as his secretary of state(surprise surprise). They had the same political platforms down to a T, so it's no wonder all the distraction. And by coincidence, it was Hillary, catering to females, and Obama, catering to the minorities.
Not once did I see or hear him take a stand or make a compelling argument against ANYTHING that was going on.

I can tell you one thing though, he's a damn sight better a match at seeing the world the way I dothan the previous guy or the guys he was running up against (Dem or Rep).

1. How long has it been and he's already managing to make huge fuck-ups?
2. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel. Just to name a few vastly superior candidates.

Don't get me wrong - I'd still love to see this guy make good on his "promises", but I won't count on it.

Re:change

[DoofusOfDeath]

The problem isn't the forcing of "religion" on the people, it's the forcing of any belief system. That is far from gone, you're just aligned with this presidents beliefs so you don't feel the sting. Others who were aligned with the last president do feel that they are having beliefs forced on them.

Laws the prohibit murder force a belief system that opposes flat-out Laissez-Fair Darwinian survival of the fittest. Should laws prohibiting murder be stricken, since they force a belief system on the population?

How about laws prohibiting rape? Those enforce the belief system that satisfying mens' libidos and/or desire for violence aren't the highest good. Should we abolish those laws?

Or how about laws in general, which run contrary to anarchists' belief system. Show all laws be stricken?

Re:change

[Garridan]

I liked Obama from the get-go. I voted for him in the caucuses, and was a delegate for him in my district. And then, something happened -- he picked the number one enemy of the people among the Democratic Party for his running mate. I dislike Hillary and her politics, but I'd rather see her than Biden as VP. From that point forward, I've been very skeptical about anything I hear coming out of Obama's mouth. He makes beautiful speeches about change, and hope. But what's Biden doing?

Biden has always been a huge proponent of the war on drugs, up to writing the law that created the position of Drug Czar, he's been a strong supporter of a number of unconstitutional laws "to protect us from ourselves", and he's always been a friend of big business. And look where it's gotten us? This man believes that corporate rights are more important than human rights; that our freedom is less important than our safety, and he wants to decide what "safety" means. Biden is a fuck, and Obama is an ass for picking him for a running mate. What's especially scary to me is that Biden is a professor of constitutional law -- typically the "angel" that should sit on the shoulder of every law student.

Re:change

[Chosen Reject]

Actually I voted for myself and I'm not even 100% lockstep with the guy I voted for.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

And speaking of Dothan, how about those low-voltage Intel mobile processors??

Re:change

[Copperfield]

Wait... Didn't we just spend the last 8 years being lectured daily on how dissent is patriotic?

Double standards are so confusing sometimes.

Re:change

[NormalVisual]

Individual freedom and responsibility good, everything else

Ideas, intriguing, newsletter, etc.

Re:change

[NormalVisual]

Ask anyone who's ever been in the US military or been a military dependent how good socialized medicine is. You get a great level of care when your provider has a guaranteed paycheck and doesn't have to give a damn about his reputation.

Not saying it couldn't work, but my personal experiences with it are fraught with a lot of unnecessary pain and discomfort, with no legal means of holding the incompetent fools accountable for it.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

GW did some terrible things with our freedom

Yes, that sucks. I wonder what else GW did? Wait, I know..
How about the ILLEGAL WAR OF AGGRESSION ON IRAQ while feeding lies about WMDs and Saddam being the new Hitler, with it's current death toll in the hundreds of millions? Also, he was hoping to wipe them out with a few nuclear missiles while everyone was in the dark.
I don't see how this can casually slip the mind of many Americans.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't hold out too much hope that he'll do what I 'wish' ever. I'm not surprised by this, it's pretty much what I expected. Disguested, yes. Suprised, no.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that torture will or has already stopped. Just because Obama claims an end to that era, he hasn't proven it. Yes, I am talking about the impossibility of proving in the negative; but after 8 years of the government demanding that we prove in the negative that we're not traitors, not unpatriotic, not thieves, not pirates, etc. etc.; I feel like being a total dick, and saying that *nothing* about the old regime has stopped until we see conclusive proof that it has.

But yes, I'm hopeful too.

Re:change

[Keen Anthony]

No, we spent the last 8 years being lectured daily on how dissent is most certainly *not* patriotic; and is even likely to be treasonous.

Re:change

[webheaded]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pro-joe-plumbers-trip-to-israel-scares-the-establishment-media/

Yup, they clearly aren't biased or retarded at all. A very nice and upstanding establishment. :p I mean, Joe the Plumber definitely wasn't a gimmick or something.

Re:change

[lgw]

The law against murder is not a law against a belief in murder: showing murder in movies, advocating for the legalizing of murder, making statements like "anyone who does X should murdered" are all OK. Writing a file system is questionable.

Re:change

[couchslug]

"How about that manned space program?"

That's space tourism.

If we wanted to learn about space we'd spend that money on (many) unmanned probes.

Re:change

[Keen Anthony]

Unlike you, I had to gradually warm up to Obama. I saw him as being the lesser of many evils. I was excited when Obama won, and I was really hopeful that "Change you can believe in" would be more than just a slogan.

Perhaps my expectations are too lofty, but I'm an old news junkie and political cynic. For all the excitement I showed that night, I expected that this talk of "change" and "fresh ideas" would translate to the smartest government we have ever seen, packed full of rock stars from every field of science and technology; somewhat light on politic savvy, but heavy of brilliance, and with the disruptive, youthful energy and creativity necessary to reject the old way of doing things in favor of something daring and new.

But Obama stacked his administration full of political old-timers; career politicians from the Democratic Old Guard and career lobbyists. There were notable exceptions, but by and large, the administration we're getting doesn't represent change. How can it? They are the same people from across the last two administrations. Their beliefs are still the same, as are their personalities and their tactics. What kind of change could they possibly create? This campaign looked and felt like a Macintosh, but it seems like it might really just be a Zune.

Re:change

[lgw]

Well, they're *highly* biased in their belief that blogging is more honest and professional than traditional news media these days, and that a random plumber makes a better reporter than your typical j-school grad. There is, unsurprisingly, a lot of web-based reporting that claims that web-based reporting is better.

I don't see anything wrong with that, after watching the American media go completely in the tank for a political candidate (this is different from Pravda how?) and watching the AP run stories with obviously photoshopped pictures, or ridiculously obvious lies (picture contradicts story), because their only editorial review process was to make sure the story was critical of America.

Re:change

[khellendros1984]

I would prefer Gitmo was kept open, but carefully monitored. I would prefer Roe v. Wade to be overturned. I would prefer the ban on embryonic stem cells to stay in place. I most certainly would prefer different judge appointments. I'd say he hasn't been doing what I wish in any way.

Re:change

[Lord Kano]

Anyways, I do find it funny because these issues are important issues to people on this site. Rewarding RIAAs laywers and appointing oppressive lawyers like the BSA to federal judgeship is something that effects geeks on this site more then funding abortions with tax dollars and the other issues he has supposedly changed.

Lawyers are an odd group. They can destroy the lives of each other's clients and hold no personal ill will after the fact. Obama is a lawyer too, he doesn't give a damn about what bad things these ambulance chasers have done.

It's an enormous deal to me that my tax dollars are being used to fund overseas abortions. It's an enormous deal to me that he wants to use my tax dollars to fund domestic abortions as well.

The test of Obama's presidency, at least for a lot of us here, is going to be "does his cons outweigh his pros". And currently it looks like the answer is no.

We were trying to tell these fucktards that. They had tingly feelings creeping up their legs when the Obamassia spoke. They were chanting the Change mantra and wouldn't listen.

What's the worst part of it? He's probably going to fuck up so badly that it'll be another 230 years before another black president is elected.

LK

Re:change

[Lord Kano]

forcing a religion on people via the government is gone

Gone? It was never here.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

Because God knows, when you take away all those benefits, like in, say, most of Africa, people stop having children on the spot. It's all because they're encouraged by the health care.
Maybe in four years time, someone will run on a "pro-motherboard, anti-child" platform, and then you can vote on him/her.

Re:change

[anagama]

As I said, I don't really care if people chose to overbreed, I just don't want to pay for it. I'm sure some of my tax dollars go to the problems caused by overbreeding in the third world, but compared to the portion extorted from me for our homegrown breeders, it is hardly worth thinking about. As I said way earlier, I'm not suggesting licenses for a "birth-right" -- people can have all the kids they want, as long as I don't have to pay for it.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

I supported Obama. I also saw some of this coming before I voted. I saw Biden's name and knew some of this would be a problem.
I am a member of EFF and send a monthly contribution. I've already written in the Whitehouse.gov form exactly what I think of these appointments, for all the good that will do. I think everyone should go out there and do that. We could also get a form letter/site together and start mass mailings to different senators and the white house.
Other than that, all of you who are also EFF members, we should go ahead and get ready to start urging the EFF to be on the lookout.

Re:change

[mgblst]

foreign policy changes have already started getting us into better light globally,

Yeah, because you live on this planet alone, don't you fucker. When are you stupid people going to get it that it is important to get on well with your neighbours.

Re:change

[Kjella]

Possibly the worst will be removing all parental rights.

You do realize that the two UN nations that have not passed this is USA and Somalia, right? Even the most retarded backwater countries see the point they're trying to make but not you, the point is that children are not your property like your pets. Just because they're in your custody does not make them your slaves, they retain certain human rights even though being minors in your custody clearly limits many of them. Basicly childrens rights:

+ Human rights
- Custody
+ Rights of the child
= Balanced set of rights

A lot of these rights are straight out of the US Bill of Rights:
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression (...)
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
1. States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.
1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, (...)
(i) To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;
(ii) To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and (...) to have legal or other appropriate assistance (...);
(iv) Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess guilt; to examine or have examined adverse witnesses (...)

As for the child's best interests, it does recognize the parents' interest many times over but when those are at odds the child's best interest takes precedence. That means that when settling a custody dispute it's not mom and dad's best interest but the child's best interest that decides. That means that if child protection services are considering taking away your child they're putting the child's interests ahead of the parents. How the fuck ELSE do you want it to work? "The mother is seriously maltreating the child but taking it away from her would be emotionally scarring for her so we'll let her keep it anyway." and screw the kid? I think most courts realize that orphanages and foster homes aren't ideal and a limited resource, but if they're still better than the alternative so be it.

While the treaty repetedly states the parents' role, it is true that the treaty leaves open the option to completely and utterly remove custody from one or both parents after a legal process. After gross physical or sexual abuse, you think that's strange? Realize that there are situations where it's absolutely correct and necessary to take away all parental rights, while it certainly could also be situations where that is wrong. You can't codify that in a treaty to "always" or "never", you have to just draft up some guidelines.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that Obama was all things to all people.

No, the problem was Obama was all things to all stupid people.

Re:change

[Wonko the Sane]

The "child's best interests" is too broad and contains too much potential for government abuse.

How the fuck ELSE do you want it to work?

Our current laws already outlaw child abuse. The only thing this treaty would accomplish is to give the state complete control over child rearing.

Re:change

[Dekortage]

It's an enormous deal to me that my tax dollars are being used to fund overseas abortions.

You must be talking about the Global Gag Rule (a.k.a. Mexico City Policy to its supporters) which Obama recently overturned. You shouldn't believe everything you hear in the news. U.S. funds did not pay for abortions overseas before the GGR, and they won't now. Check the 1973 Helms Amendment and subsequent clarifications by the government. The Global Gag Rule took it a step further, and said that if a health clinic accepted U.S. funding for any reason (obviously not abortions because that was prohibited), then it couldn't use any of its OTHER funding sources for abortions -- even if that funding was from its own government, or its own fundraising, and even if abortion was legal in its country. In fact, if it accepted U.S. funds but did not offer abortions in any way, its funding would be cut if staff merely told women of other clinics where abortions were available.

I think abortion is wrong, but the Global Gag Rule has been a terrible piece of legislation, and dramatically misrepresented by most media sources.

Re:change

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Freely given, freely accepted.

    Agreed that some of the "change" comments are getting out of hand.

Re:change

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to how the other half felt for the last 8 years...

Re:change

[Hordeking]

I see nothing wrong with letting children make up their own mind about what mumbo-jumbo they want to believe, as long as it isn't forced on them (by the parents or any other party)

Does this opinion apply to mumbo-jumbo fed by the public school systems? Or are you just applying this to non-secular situations? Schools/gov't don't let kids just walk out of schools because they disagree with

Or how about homeschooling? Many states already hate homeschooling and think it's horrible for the children, somehow. So, what's in the child's best interests if the parent refuses to let them go to public schools? Hmmm. That alone (government deciding how and what children are taught) is scary, as the education of a child is a HUGE deal.

Homeschooling is often just a way to maintain the "ideological integrity" of the child, please read that as "brainwashing". It also generally serves to "keep children clean from outside influences", please also read this as brainwashing, and as a stupid means to keep the kid from developing critical dissent from whatever crap the parents are trying to fill them with (generally some form of lunatic fringe religion). I'm confused by this, if your indoctrination is so damn strong and correct, then why would you be afraid of other ideas?

Wow. Pot. Kettle. Black.

If you ever read Animal Farm, Orwell makes the a case that the state is just as guilty of this. "Maintaining ideological integrity" as you put it can also be called "indocrination". This is a tactic governments use all the time to reinforce their authority and sanctioned viewpoint. "Keeping children clean from outside influence" is also known as "prevention of thoughtcrime".

Before you go spouting off about how religion is the tool of the devil and whatnot, remember that governments act as their own religion, and wish their own sanctioned ideology (whatever is current at the time) to override everything else.

Don't believe me? Look at Germany. Homeschooling is illegal there. Why? Because Germany wants to control the indoctrination of the children, using a law passed in 1938 under Adolf Hitler (before responding, this is not a reducto ad Hitlerum argument). Think the European Union is going to help? Not bloody likely. According to the quotation in the wikipedia article (I'll summarize) the children are technially the plaintiffs, and "children are unable to foresee the consequences of their parents' decision for home education because of their young age". The practical outcome of this is something like "The children want this, but they don't know what's best for themselves" so the state gets to decide. There's some more bullshit about one society and children having to learn to get along with it. Long story short, german law says the state gets to indoctrinate^Wbrainwash^W"maintain ideological integrity" in the kids, not the parents.

Before public schooling became absolutely compulsory in most western countries, kids were either homeschooled, schooled in small groups, or learned in the school of hard knocks. Society didn't crumble under all of this. A lot of people think it was better then.

On a more psychological level, school serves for more than teaching your kid how to read and write. It also socializes the child, equipping them with the mores and norms of the greater society, the norms and mores that we all require to successfully interact within that society. Children need this psychologically, or they do suffer actual psychological illnesses.

Note also the rise in socialist policies and tendencies in recent times. I don't think that's a coincidence. Socialist nations tend to exert tighter ideological control over the youth to ensure a steady supply of compliant individuals. And as demonstrated by the Soviet Union, people who don't agree with the established ideology at the moment are also suffering psychological illnesses (they'd have to be crazy to disagree with God^H^H^Hthe Government!)

Re:change

[supernova_hq]

What's so bad about this, really?

Over and over again on slashdot, I see people complaining that these lawyers are being hired by the government. Well guess what, it's a GOOD thing! Now before you go and mod me flamebait, read my reasoning.

Lawyers are paid legal tools, they don't give a crap about their client's cause, as long as they win. These lawyers don't give a crap if you download movies, but will fight for what-ever their client says to fight for.

You have to think of lawyers like handguns. Gangsters use handguns to kill innocent people, so they MUST be evil. But law enforcement also uses them to FIGHT these evil people.

Who would you like these obviously talented (though currently wasted) lawyers to be working for, the RIAA or the government?!?

Re:change

[Tycho]

In regards to the adequacy of homeschooling, may I direct you to this font of knowledge advocating homeschooling:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

On the other hand there is site:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page

This site, RationalWiki, which was set up to viciously mock and debunk Conservapedia and other similar sources with similar content as well. I think that RationalWiki does does a pretty good job at this.

Wait a minute

[Bakobull]

So the lawyers brought these lawsuits not the RIAA. I didn't realize Donald Verrilli brought these lawsuits to protect his copyrights. I don't blame the lawyers for this anymore than I would blame the soldiers for fighting Bush's war.

Re:Wait a minute

[geekoid]

But you need to look at the lawyers behavior in doing their job.

Look for NewYorkCountryLawyer to reply in this thread. He put's it better then I do.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have the scruples to dismiss yourself from the case of suing a dead man for copyright infringment, I'm not so sure I want you running the f*(#ing country, but hey thats just my opinion.

Re:Wait a minute

[LordKaT]

It's all about influence. The more influence you can inject into a government, the more you'll see laws that favor your business model.

Re:Wait a minute

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Yeah, because Verrilli had no choice but to file those lawsuits, right? Or is it because being a copyright lawyer was his only way to attain a college education?

   

Re:Wait a minute

[JustNiz]

You're right that its the RIAA not the lawyer, but it still marks him an opportunistic worm that has no scruples.

Re:Wait a minute

[dmomo]

These lawyers have a vested interest in keeping this war going as long as possible.

The soldiers of Bush's war probably want to go home and see their family.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't blame the lawyers for this anymore than I would blame the soldiers for fighting Bush's war.

Yes, but would you want the enemy's soldiers guarding your home base?

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

I still blame both.

A lawyer can choose when to and not to accept a client. The solders have little choice that does not involve shooting their military career in the foot. Choosing to comply in order to avoid personal hardship over the interests of the American people, however, is still a choice each soldier has made.

Re:Wait a minute

[Yvanhoe]

I think the good question is : what kind of contact, relation and common interest do they still have with their former clients ?

Re:Wait a minute

[ianare]

As opposed to what ... politicians ?

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

you just described 99% of all lawyers

Re:Wait a minute

[Kamokazi]

There's a key difference here, mate:

Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier!
Soldier: No sir, I don't want to.
Commander: Then get out of the military.

RIAA: Hi lawyer, would you like to sue people for us?
Lawyer: No, I only accept legitimate cases.
RIAA: Okay then.

Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.

Re:Wait a minute

[MozeeToby]

Except that people who sign up for the armed services make a years long commitment to serving and defending their country. That meas that even if they don't agree with the current mission they made a commitment follow legal orders to the best of their abilities.

The RIAA lawyers, on the other hand, signed up to make money. They were asked to do something that 95% of people out there would identify as ethically wrong (or at least questionable) and yet they didn't walk away. They have a choice in the matter, and they made the choice to continue frivolous lawsuits against people who are often clearly not guilty of anything.

Putting these people in charge of criminal law is just going to lead to situations where people are arrested for something they didn't do, but when the police realize that they just start digging into the persons past so that something can stick, even if nothing should. Don't tell me it doesn't happen, we've seen numerous stories on /. where these situations arise, off the top of my head would be the guy with the amateur chem lab in his basement.

Re:Wait a minute

[The Moof]

The RIAA didn't create the legal tactics with the lawyers being their drones following instruction. The lawyers came up with the tactics and loopholes and abused them to the fullest extent. They also walked a very fine line on the legality of what they were doing. You want someone who practices law like that to be in a position of authority in terms of justice?

Also, the soldier analogy is terrible. Soldiers get arrested for going AWOL. There are a few options to get out of service on a moral basis, but I imagine they're difficult to pull off (interesting approach taken by this guy). There also also repercussions for doing so. Lawyers just turn a client down and don't get paid.

Re:Wait a minute

[Malevolyn]

Don't forget all the innocent people, and backing illegal evidence gathering methods. MediaSentry? And there's probably a legal minefield around SoundExchange. I mean, why is the RIAA gathering money on artists they don't own? How is that legal? And how to licenses come into this? Couldn't I sue the RIAA for collecting royalties on my music that I've licensed under a noncommercial, free-to-distribute Creative Commons license?

Re:Wait a minute

[pipboy9999]

There's a key difference here, mate:

Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier! Soldier: No sir, I don't want to. Commander: Then get out of the military.

RIAA: Hi lawyer, would you like to sue people for us? Lawyer: No, I only accept legitimate cases. RIAA: Okay then.

Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.

So the Law profession is the exact opposite of every other industry? Every employer I've heard of fires you when you tell your boss you refuse to do what the company has set forth as policy.

You can safely bet that if I tell my boss that I'm going to turn down supporting a new application because I don't believe in promoting horrible products, I'd be out the door by lunch.

Re:Wait a minute

[Fast Thick Pants]

And being a mafia hitman was the only way Sammy the Bull could attain a new Camero, but it's still no excuse.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the military quite works how you think it does.

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please... difference is, soldiers do it for honor and courage, and for the weak. Lawyers do it for profit and greed, no matter how dishonorable and cowardice the goal.

Re:Wait a minute

[Kamokazi]

It's not absolute like that, no, and there are other branches, and you can request assignments, but in many cases your only choice would be to either go or quit. A lawyer or lawfirm can turn down cases.

Re:Wait a minute

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Lawyers can turn down cases and keep their job.

I love it when somebody thinks our all volunteer military is somehow full of pitiful victims who are being railroaded into shooting innocent women and babies by their evil overlords. What a load of tripe!

When you join the U.S. military, you take an oath with full understanding of the meaning of that oath. If you don't, you're a fool who deserves whatever you get, but that's a separate argument. If people join because they think they'll get free travel, pretty uniforms, college tuition, and so forth, they're joining for the wrong reasons. Again, having served in Iraq, I have no pity for those types. Service is a calling. There is no other way to describe it. Freeloaders and opportunists need not apply.

So, you don't want to go fight when ordered to do so? Too bad. You swore an oath to do it and were given all kinds of opportunities to get out beforehand. Still object on moral (i.e. conscientious objector) grounds? Fine. You'll get your discharge and can go your own way. If you refuse to do the job you were hired (and sworn) to do, you deserve to be kicked out. You damn sure shouldn't have been inducted in the first place because you joined for the wrong reason.

Re:Wait a minute

[dontmakemethink]

Posting RIAA lawyers to high government jobs makes no more sense than tobacco lawyers. Did they merely do the job put before them with due diligence? Sure. But the lawyers in the attorney general's office should have more scruples. Similarly, a lawyer defending a tobacco company should give up all hope of running for public office.

Re:Wait a minute

[Kamokazi]

But you're still a lawyer. If you get dishonorably discharged from the military for refusing an assignment, you're no longer a soldier.

And in many situations, lawyers are able to pick and choose cases...much moreso than a soldier is able to pick and choose assignments.

I'm not saying all the RIAA lawyers are heartless bastards out to get innocent people. What I'm saying is the comparison to a soldier isn't really valid.

Re:Wait a minute

[jpmorgan]

Yes, because lawyers don't work in corporations, they work in firms. And these people are all senior partners.

Re:Wait a minute

[bleh-of-the-huns]

There's a key difference here, mate:

Commander: Go to Iraq, soldier!
Soldier: No sir, I don't want to.
Commander: Then get out of the military.

You are incorrect here.. very very incorrect. If you are ordered to do something or go somewhere, and you disobey.. you get a court martial.

You sign up for the military, you do as you are told till your obligation ends, then you get out.

Re:Wait a minute

[Kamokazi]

Woah...if this was directed at me, that isn't what I was insinuating at all.

I was just saying the GP's comparison of a lawyer to a soldier is invalid, because lawyers have a LOT more choice in which cases they take.

Re:Wait a minute

[Kamokazi]

No, that's exactly what I was stating, just in generic terminology. You don't do what you are told, you get kicked out of the military. The specifics are unimporant, just the end result.

Re:Wait a minute

[mcgrew]

The soldiers of Bush's war probably want to go home and see their family.

I know a man stationed in Afghanistan who doesn't want to come home. Of course, if I was married to Lucy Furr I'd probably rather be in Afganistan being shot at, too.

Re:Wait a minute

[CodeBuster]

You want someone who practices law like that to be in a position of authority in terms of justice?

The Department of Justice is becoming a running joke following the depredations of the Bush administration and apparently continuing now in the Obama administration, albeit with different priorities and "bad guys". Now that GITMO is closed down where will the inquisition turn next? Seriously, the thought that the Department of Justice might now become the lapdog of the MAFIAA is really sickening. They ought to change the name to "Department of Victor's Justice" or "Department of Injustice" in order to more accurately reflect how politicized the notion of "justice" and it's department has become in the United States today. It is almost enough to make one long for the days of the old west, when most everyone was armed to the teeth and the tomfoolery that passes for justice these days was not easily tolerated by a populace with itchy trigger fingers.

Re:Wait a minute

[techno-vampire]

Sorry, but no. A soldier (or sailor, for that matter) has two choices: go where they're told or go to prison. Quitting is called "desertion" and if you try it, you'll spend time behind bars before being dishonorably discharged and losing many of your civil rights, such as the right to vote.

Re:Wait a minute

[techno-vampire]

You want someone who practices law like that to be in a position of authority in terms of justice?

No, I don't, and this makes me very happy that I can say that I didn't vote for BO. The fact that he's picking unethical shysters like this to run the DOJ tells us quite a bit about what kind of change he's really planning. I hope you Democrats bought yourselves a lot of lube; you're going to need it.

Re:Wait a minute

[Reziac]

Then does the RIAA get to jail any lawyers who refuse to be part of its extortion scheme??

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never been sued, have you?

Re:Wait a minute

[Kamokazi]

Okay, so it's even worse. The point is, the soldier-lawyer comparison is shite.

Re:Wait a minute

[Dragonslicer]

As opposed to what ... politicians ?

As opposed to other lawyers.

No, wait...

Re:Wait a minute

[Kamokazi]

No, the whole fucking point was that the soldier-lawyer thing is a bad comparison. Apparently some people don't read very thoroughly.

Re:Wait a minute

[swillden]

No, that's exactly what I was stating, just in generic terminology. You don't do what you are told, you get kicked out of the military. The specifics are unimporant, just the end result.

Well, the two end results -- looking for a job vs getting your three squares for free in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary -- are quite different.

Re:Wait a minute

[c_jonescc]

Actually, I think it's important for lawyers to try to exploit loopholes and try absurd tactics.

Our legal system is precedence based. By finding loopholes and trying them out in court we're actually fine tuning our system in a much better way than trying to preemptively legislate and define all possible outcomes.

By presenting loopholes into the courts, those loopholes get squeezed out. Our law is better for challenges to the ambiguous.

Yes, it takes a devious person to actually try these things out on a grandmother or teenager, and wreak havoc on lives, but it's also a necessary part of how are laws become defined and used for the future.

Re:Wait a minute

[Cowmonaut]

If I had mod points they would be yours. The job requires a politician (because of all the other politicians) and someone who knows the law. This guy fits the needs exactly, he just isn't the White Knight people were hoping for.

Re:Wait a minute

[Reziac]

I know, I was just adding another reason why it's a complete mismatch. :)

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

These lawyers have a vested interest in keeping this war going as long as possible.

The soldiers of Bush's war probably want to go home and see their family.

Nobody forces you to be a lawyer. Since these cases were CIVIL matters, ANY lawyer can turn them down for any reason or none at all.

To hell with what the soldiers think of any war. They signed up to be soldiers, which means they go where they're told & follow their orders. They are not paid to have an opinion about the orders, if they wanted to have one, then they should have gone into politics.
I might feel different if there was a draft, but right now it's a 100% volunteer army.

Re:Wait a minute

[adolf]

That's not precisely true.

I was in the US Army once, for about four months. (My contractual commitment was four years active, four years reserve.)

It's possible, though not easy or straight-forward, to leave (or be removed from) the military -- without judicial consequence.

Of course, it goes down on your permanent record, and will show up on background checks and such. But: This hasn't stopped me from having clearance in sensitive military manufacturing facilities as a private sector contractor, working on -- of all things -- security systems.

(I'd post this anon, but anyone who would care about it already knows.)

Re:Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

"put's"?!

Re:Wait a minute

[VJ42]

I thought soldiers had a duty to refuse unlawful orders. Certainly the Nuremburg defense is no defense at all, should it come to a courts marshal.

Obama IS changing things around...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, as per his campaign agenda he *is* changing things in DC.

He's putting Hollywood's interest ahead of people's. After electing Hollywood frontman as the country's vice president what else would you expect !

Pattern recognition

[Clever7Devil]

I suppose putting the attack dogs for anti-competitive businesses in the DOJ is better than putting tax evaders in charge of the IRS...

Re:Pattern recognition

[olddotter]

Not sure about that. I already don't trust the IRS. I'd like to make the Justice Department more honest.

Re:Pattern recognition

[oh_my_080980980]

Better than an attorney general who can't tell you that water boarding is torture, even though it has been defined as such since World War II!

Re:Pattern recognition

[plasmacutter]

I suppose putting the attack dogs for anti-competitive businesses in the DOJ is better than putting tax evaders in charge of the IRS...

Actually I find it an interesting move, much like obama's move to appoint a republican senator, freeing up a seat in a state governed by a democrat.

By recruiting these people he's denying that manpower to the forces of "evil(TM)"

Re:Pattern recognition

[VJ42]

I suppose putting the attack dogs for anti-competitive businesses in the DOJ is better than putting tax evaders in charge of the IRS...

Surely putting someone who knows all the tax loopholes at the top of the taxation system is a good move ;p

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

You best be trollin'

With two lawyers

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

as President and Vice President, what do you expect? Perhaps all of that Hollywood support from actors and musicians bought something from Obama and Biden.....

Re:With two lawyers

[keithjr]

Umm, pretty much every President and Vice President has been a lawyer by trade before entering politics.

Re:With two lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush 43? Nope
Clinton? Yep
Bush 41? Nope
Reagan? Nope
Carter? Nope ...

Re:With two lawyers

[tripdizzle]

So true, we need to start electing engineers. While lawyers focus on ideological agendas, engineers focus on efficiency and effectiveness. (Just an observation, of course there are ideological engineers and efficiency-focused lawyers, but as a whole, lawyers are looking out for themselves and engineers try and see the big picture and how everything is interrelated.)

Re:With two lawyers

[JCSoRocks]

Not to mention the fact that the white house would end up being turned into the most ridiculously awesome technologically advanced robot the world has ever seen. For defending the president - of course.

Re:With two lawyers

[gnick]

Umm, pretty much every President and Vice President has been a lawyer by trade before entering politics.

[citation needed]

If you start at Washington, about 3/4 of our presidents were ex-military (31 according to wikipedia).

Most recently, Carter was ex-Navy. Reagan was an actor. Bush #1 was ex-Navy. Clinton studied law but was basically a career politician. Bush #2 was (kind of) ex-National Guard and then an oil man. Yes, Obama studied & taught law.

When you say "pretty much every President...", who exactly are you referring to?

Re:With two lawyers

[Shakrai]

So true, we need to start electing engineers

The last time we did that it didn't work out so well......

Re:With two lawyers

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

I think Obama can be characterized as a career politician as well.

Re:With two lawyers

[tripdizzle]

He was a farmer, teacher, and career politician. He had a generic science degree, no specialized field of study (or in-depth knowledge of any subject). Not an engineer by any measuring stick I know of.

Re:With two lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

What jack-ass modded this Informative!?!

Where's the (-1 blatantly wrong, called out for it, and exposed as ignorant) mod?

Re:With two lawyers

[jacks0n]

We have a more recent precedent for engineer-as-leader:

Hu JinTao http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao

Re:With two lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

I typically substitute (-1 Flamebait) for the missing (-1 Pwned). It seems I have to do that a lot.

Re:With two lawyers

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Not an engineer by any measuring stick I know of.

So being a nuclear engineer isn't being an engineer in your book? What's next? Is oral sex not really sex?

Oh, sorry...right party, wrong president.

Re:With two lawyers

[tripdizzle]

Taking an intro course nuclear power doesn't necessarily make you a nuclear engineer, just as receiving an intro to circuitry class doesn't make you an electrical engineer.

Re:With two lawyers

[tripdizzle]

I am speaking of elected leadership, not assumed leadership.

Re:With two lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty much every president? About 16 of 44 specifically lawyers. About 12 were lawyers in addition to other occupations. Which given the times they lived in pointed more towards them being educated. The 1700 and 1800's weren't exactly the time of general education.

So, by trade that leaves between 16 and 28 presidents that weren't lawyers by trade - education maybe, but not necessarily by trade. That's not counting VP's.

You do know this right? You weren't just spouting off your mouth because people are never happy unless they have something to complain about right?

Re:With two lawyers

[sumdumass]

I don't think you could get around that.

From his start, he employed dirty tricks and had help from invisible friends working behind the scenes. I mean if we start by looking at his start in politics and how he screwed over the person who put his name in the hat in the first place. And it should be noted that this page is heavily biased in Obama's favor. But then later, when he decided to go after a higher seat, all the sudden a judge decided to unseal a messy divorce case just before the elections making Obama virtually unapposed.

My favorite is how he justifies his position and speech defeating an abortion bill inspired by a nurse in Illinois who was outraged that when a baby was aborted then delivered alive, the doctors put it in a closet to allow it to die "of natural causes". It's no wonder that he reversed the positions on using tax payers money to fund abortions within the first week of office.

I don't think anyone can make the case that Obama isn't a career politician.

Re:With two lawyers

[CodeBuster]

and why not? Obama has already admitted in writing that he is "beholden" to the unions for their support and assistance over the years. Now is the time for all of the big Democratic Party donors to cash in their chips. That must be what they mean by "change we can believe in". People should have listened to us Libertarians before they voted for the biggest Federal Government in our nation's history, now all we can say is, "see, we told you so".

Re:With two lawyers

[dkleinsc]

A better example would be this guy (especially relevant now).

Re:With two lawyers

[Brandybuck]

Engineers make lousy politicians. Why? Because they think they can fix anything. They have a deep seated hubris in believing they know how everything works and how to make everything run better. They are used to be in absolute control over their environment. But people are not devices, and society is not a network.

The last two engineer presidents we have had: Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. Both were noted for economic crises. They thought they could engineer the economy, and ended up making things worse.

I want someone in office who is fully aware that the imperfections in the world are NOT failures, but natural order of things.

Re:With two lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

So true, we need to start electing engineers. While lawyers focus on ideological agendas, engineers focus on efficiency and effectiveness.

...while in the role of engineers. People focus on different things when in different roles. It stands to reason that, if the majority of politicians are not already efficient and effective, that's probably because those traits are not helpful in becoming and remaining a politician.

Anyway, Slashdot is full of engineers. I don't know about you, but I've definitely seen a strong libertarian agenda espoused in these comments over the years. Engineers don't seem to be immune.

(Just an observation, of course there are ideological engineers and efficiency-focused lawyers, but as a whole, lawyers are looking out for themselves and engineers try and see the big picture and how everything is interrelated.)

Everyone is looking out for themselves; those who don't do so don't survive for long.

Re:With two lawyers

[tripdizzle]

That would be cool. we havent had a libertarian in office since the founding of this country.

Re:With two lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama and Biden

I initially read that as "Osama and Bin laden." Frightening.

Re:With two lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Reagan was an actor.

Reagan was also a military officer in WWII. Granted, he was more or less in the "propaganda corps," but he wore a uniform nonetheless.

Re:With two lawyers

[base3]

Engineer officer on a ship or submarine, even a nuclear powered one, while an important job requiring intelligence, is not the same thing as an engineer as defined by law in most states.

Re:With two lawyers

[zolaar]

Tell that to all the jerks who pad their CV's and make honest job-seekers like me look like chumps.

Re:With two lawyers

[tripdizzle]

I can see where you're coming from on this, but I guess I look at it from a view where when you know you can't fix something, you realized tinkering with something you don't know much about, you should just leave it alone. I see this as the relationship the government should have with the economy, you don't know how to fix it, you have never been able to fix it, so just stay out of it. Any government interference just lengthens the amount of time it takes for the market to reach an equilibrium.

Re:With two lawyers

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Don't forget how he booted the journalist who wrote a piece on his Saul Linsky connection right off of his campaign's plane.

Sweep away imperialist barbarism

[Anonymous Coward]

with international socialist revolution!

Re:Sweep away imperialist barbarism

[jameskojiro]

Yes and make all media belong to the glorious state!!!

And make it high treason to use any state owned media unless you get permission from the commissar and pay a usage fee to the state.

YAY!!!!! Where do I sign up!!!

Could be good...

[geeper]

if they try to enforce some bad things. Currently, Joe User isn't really bothered by this but as it becomes more commonplace it will get more attention from normal people. They could be getting enough rope to hang themselves.

OIW

[LoyalOpposition]

Obama is wonderful! He's taking RIAA's and BSA's lawyers away from them and giving them productive jobs, and now the RIAA and BSA won't be able to sue helpless people!

-Loyal

Re:OIW

[sumdumass]

The scary part is that we have more to lose from the government then we do from the BSA and RIAA. This is sort of scary when you consider the type of firepower the government is stocking up on. I mean people who have taken single mothers and blind grandmas to court and dragged them around quite capably. Now we can rest assured that knowing that the government now has people skilled in this area. It sort of balances the power out that has been lopsided towards the people for the last 230 plus years.

Now that's change we can believe in. HOPE and all that shit.

Re:OIW

[DrLang21]

They won't have to sue helpless people. They'll just let the State arrest them instead! (Not sure if you were being sardonic)

So, what you're saying...

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

Cheney|Halliburton = Biden|RIAA

Re:So, what you're saying...

[evilkasper]

Do you think we can get Cheney to take those nice folks at the RIAA on a hunting trip?

Re:So, what you're saying...

[JCSoRocks]

That's a taxpayer funded vacation I could get behind. The only downside is we'll need to buy him a lot of ammo. We already know how good he is at aiming... and apparently those lawyers are bloody resilient.

Re:So, what you're saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheney|Halliburton == Biden|RIAA

Did you mean comparison?

Re:So, what you're saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

I love analogies, let me try one:

Halliburton / Iraqis : RIAA / Americans

Re:So, what you're saying...

[DigiShaman]

I liked it better when it was Cheney|Halliburton. At least they provided JOBS and not a LAWSUIT!!!

Re:So, what you're saying...

[Atario]

Biden was head of the RIAA? You learn something new every day, I guess.

There may be some good come of this

[mcgrew]

With those who've sold their souls in those positions, maybe they'll make things so bad that the public sits up and takes notice and demands reform to our seriously dysfunctional copyright laws.

So I, for one, welcome our new plutocratic overlords. At least, I think I do...

Re:There may be some good come of this

[DrLang21]

I hate to be pessimistic, but I find this doubtful. The government has become very good at making sure the public in general is too content to make any serious noise. If no one is demanding change to laws when 15 year old girls are getting charged with creation and distribution of child porn, the creation of "free speech zones", people are being searched and detained at airports for forgetting to take off their cell phone at the security check point, and the government is basically admitting to torturing unlawful enemy combatants (read POWs), then they sure as hell aren't going to give a rats ass about a few people getting the pants sued off them for uploading mp3s. Until large groups of citizens are willing to get arrested, bludgeoned by police, and publicly humiliated like they were in the civil rights movement and the women's suffrage movement, there will be no extraordinary change.

Re:There may be some good come of this

[lgw]

Not to get you off of your rant, but you should recognize that there's a real difference between "unlawful combatants" and "POWs". POWs wear uniforms. The uniform is the best device ever created for the protection of civilians. There are many international treaties protecting the rights of POWs, but none protecting the rights of those who go to war without wearing a uniform (well, that's an oversimplification, but the key is that you're not blending in with non-combatants while fighting). Creating such a strong incentive to wear a uniform is a *very* important measure to protect civilians.

Re:There may be some good come of this

[DrLang21]

I've heard this, and from a legal stand point, I get it. But you can call them whatever you want. The fact is, we are at war with terrorism. They were imprisoned as combatants in that war. All real world logic would indicate that that would make them prisoners or war. The uniform argument is crap. Not wearing a uniform is a tactic of gorilla warfare. Using civilians as camouflage is certainly unethical, but that's no different from when the German army in WWII retreated into the cities among civilians, yet we treated them (generally with some scattered exceptions) with the utmost respect. You can call them whatever you want, but logic dictates that they are POWs. Law often ignores logic and reason.

Re:There may be some good come of this

[walshy007]

both 'unlawful combatants' and 'POWS' are afforded the protection of the geneva convention, I've had this argument with other people, and in the end the only thing that shut them up was linking to a copy with the appropriate part referenced, but people are either protected as a POW or as a civilian, there is no magical invented status whereby they are not protected.

I will hunt through the documents again if you wish, but I do have better ways to spend my time.

Re:There may be some good come of this

[lgw]

Not wearing a uniform is a tactic of gorilla warfare.

And if you every tried to get a gorilla to wear a uniform, you'd know why! I still have the scars ...

If you knew enough about anything military to even spell guerrilla, you'd know that whether you call them "guerrillas", or "pirates", or "brigands", or "spys", those engaged in war fighting without both a uniform and a clear chain of command back to a government (current, deposed, or proposed) have and deserve no rights.

Logically, there *must* be a *strong* deterrent against "using civilians as camouflage", becuase the damage done to civilians is so very much greater when this sort of shit is tolerated in any form. Similarly, organizing a militery unit not in the service of the government but for the purpose of simple robbery and extortion should brutally discouraged. The vast majority of horrific acts committed by armed organized groups of men have been done specifically without uniforms or ties to governement (often to spare the guilty leaders from accountability). That shit calls not just for "no tolerance", but for "brutal retribution".

Now, if you want to argue about the status of many of the "unlawful combatants" at e.g. Gitmo, there's certainly some real argument to be had there. But there is no uncertainty that armed, organized groups of men will commit mind-boggling atrocities if there's no one in power to be held accountable for their actions, and that must be discouraged by extreme measures. If we want to be a country that never tortures anyone, period, that's fine, but swift execution of a pirate, brigand, or spy has been accounted as justice throughout history.

Re:There may be some good come of this

[Anonymous Coward]

If you knew enough about anything to even spell "ever", "spies", "military", and "government", you'd have a much more readable post.

Re:There may be some good come of this

[DrLang21]

If you insist that those we are fighting are not are not part of an organized movement, then you have to hold that we are in fact not at war, the "war on terror" is a farce, and this whole fiasco is merely a policing action outside of the borders of US territory. As such, those captured (read arrested) are entitled to a speedy trial under standard civilian courts, and entitled to the same rights as any other criminal prisoner in the US. It's probably pointless to point out here that there is no uncertainty that armed, organized groups of men will commit mind-boggling atrocities if there is someone in power to be held accountable for their actions. This holds true throughout past and recent history. You can't sit here and argue about the poor ethics of the bad guys when we're abandoning ours to deal with them. You can't have it both ways. The very concept of "unlawful enemy combatant" is just a shady way to get around international conventions and the US Constitution.

Re:There may be some good come of this

[lgw]

No, that doesn't follow. Our government exists to protect the rights of our citizens. We make treaties with other nation regarding POW treatment in order to protect the rights of our citizens: "we'll be nice to you're citizens if we capture them, if you'll be nice to ours". The penalty to a governemnt for ignoring such treaties is that your citizens will lose such protection, so governments that care for the rights of their citizens cooperate in this area.

It's a simple system of incentive and punishment. What do you do with an opponent who doesn't cooperate? If you treat those prisoners the same way you treat the prisoners of an opponent who *does* cooperate, you've remove any incentive to treat your citizens well - and that was the point of the excercise!

Now, you may argue from some moral basis "we want to be good people, so we'll treat unlawful combatents well, even though that encourges torture of our citizens when the are taken prisoner". Depending on your moral code, that may be reasonable from a moral basis, even though it's poor politics. You may also argue "it's better to be loved than feared" and so we should be as nice as possible at all times: the political term for that is "weakness". Creating a perception of weakness in the hopes of gaining the perception of benevolence isn't always bad, of course. IMO that's basically what we're doing - we're treating prisoners from an opponent who clearly has no treaty agreement with us in a far more fair and humane way than the norm. Meanwhile our opponents kill our captured citizen soldiers on video, mutilate their corpses, and drag them through streets.

Still, that's all political gamesmanship. Morally, torture is bad. By treaty, treaties only protect those who have entered into treaties! The category of "unlawful combatant" captures those who have not, alongside those who have broken such treaties.

Another excellent decision from Him

[Anonymous Coward]

If our Dear Leader likes these picks, then I like them too.

From all of the negative comments I read, I can only conclude that pirates are racist.

Re:Another excellent decision from Him

[strikeleader]

He says drinking his koolaid...

Re:Another excellent decision from Him

[Anonymous Coward]

nig-arrrrrrr!

Re:Another excellent decision from Him

[Sebilrazen]

OH YEAH!

Re:Another excellent decision from Him

[Atario]

Now just one goddamned minute.

I am fucking sick and tired of this moronic "Obama supporters are brainwashed Obama cult worshipers" crap you and others of your ilk love to insinuate (in an annoying display of projection, I might add).

What you have seen has been enthusiasm. What you have seen has been hope that maybe, just maybe, we'll finally have someone with some semblance of adulthood and a brain in the most powerful office in the world. That if we're lucky, we might not continue hurtling off the cliff. I know that compared to what we've had to put up with in the shape of Republican Rule, the visions of actual largely beneficial government workings must seem like fucking heaven.

But let's not forget that we progressives have had problems with some of Obama's moves from even before the inauguration (remember Rick Warren?). We will no doubt continue having problems from time to time with some moves, like this one. Nobody's perfect, but we'll keep pushing for it.

But we do imagine that the complaints might actually have some effect (unlike the Republican Wall Of Deaf Ears).

Only they are to blame

[Giant Electronic Bra]

People can dress it up all they want to, but when you pick up a gun and follow orders it doesn't absolve you of responsibility for what you do. I know the majority of the people in the world just plain worship violentism, but that doesn't change a thing. There is no glory in fighting and killing is wrong, period.

And even the law isn't so blind as to be able to be otherwise. Invading Iraq was immoral and illegal and ALL of the people who participated in it, from top to bottom, committed a crime. Pure and simple.

Some things may be understandable, even forgivable, but that does NOT make them right.

Re:Only they are to blame

[anagama]

Wish I hadn't posted already cause I'd mod you up. Well put.

Re:Only they are to blame

[prisoner-of-enigma]

There is no glory in fighting and killing is wrong, period.

If someone is bent on killing you and the only means you have to defend yourself is with deadly force, is it wrong to exercise that force? Or would you stand on your morals and be slaughtered like an animal?

Your lofty rhetoric doesn't stand up to real-world scenarios, I'm afraid.

Re:Only they are to blame

[sumdumass]

Immoral I can let slide because it is selective in it's interpretation. Not everyone carries the same morals and not everyone lets the same things pass as morals. However, legal or illegal is something that is bound by law. The war was not illegal and your continuing to make that statement doesn't make it so.

As a sovereign nation, The US doesn't need permission to act on anything. To date, all claims of illegality rely on some hidden idea that we have no sovereignty. Perhaps you could explain why we aren't in control of our own country and aren't sovereign or finally shut the hell up about the illegal bullshit.

Re:Only they are to blame

[initdeep]

wish i had mod points because i'd mod you both down for being morons.

the day violence ends in the world is the day the military will gladly put down its weapons and walk away.

however, sticking your fucking head in the sand leads you to be assraped like france in world war 2 and then crying to other countries to come help you.

how do yo think all of the women in Iraq feel about now, since suddenly, they have a large number of representatives in their governemnt?
sure, it was mandated, but now, they may finally be accorded the RIGHTS that people in other countries TAKE FOR GRANTED and are routinely denied to islamic women in the modern world.

I'm pretty sure (since i'm related to a bunch of them) that they are pretty darn happy about this new prospect.

And it wouldn't have happened without outside interference.

so amazingly, moral issues aren't always black and white like morons try to make them.

your "immoral war" happened to lead to a shift in how an entire class of people are treated.
and the shift was for the better.

pull your head out of your ass and realize that there are no absolutes in the world.
none.
period.

Re:Only they are to blame

[anagama]

I think the end of the cold war and the instigation/dreaming up of a new enemy, as warned by past generals and presidents, is ample evidence that it is ludicrous to believe that "the military will gladly put down its weapons and walk away."

Now that we have a huge standing army and military/industrial complex for the last 60 years, it will never be dislodged. It will only grow in importance.

The founding fathers would cry to see what we've made of America.

Re:Only they are to blame

[clarkkent09]

I think you got your Iraqs and Afghanistans mixed up. Iraqi women are worse off since the invasion and subsequent rise of religious fundamentalist's power than they were under Sadam's secular regime: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7282064.stm

Re:Only they are to blame

[clarkkent09]

As a sovereign nation, The US doesn't need permission to act on anything. To date, all claims of illegality rely on some hidden idea that we have no sovereignty. Perhaps you could explain why we aren't in control of our own country and aren't sovereign or finally shut the hell up about the illegal bullshit.

The explanation you're asking for is that the US is bound by the international treaties which it signs, and they become part of the US law. If the US did violate the UN Charter by invading Iraq, and lets face it it's obvious that it did, then this is in fact an illegal act by the US law and by the international law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War Even Richard Perle has conceded that the invasion was illegal: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027255087.html

Re:Only they are to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

As a sovereign nation, The US doesn't need permission to act on anything. To date, all claims of illegality rely on some hidden idea that we have no sovereignty. Perhaps you could explain why we aren't in control of our own country and aren't sovereign or finally shut the hell up about the illegal bullshit.

Dude, Iraq was a sovereign nation recognized by the US. If one sovereign nation takes military action against another sovereign nation, it is usually considered illegal. The constitution says something about honoring treaties with foreign powers, you might want to look it up. So what is bullshit is claiming that there's no need to get permission since there's no one that could grant permission - what the US did was to not honor treaties, which is illegal. There are, however, circumstances under which such breaking of treaties would be considered legal - if the concensus is that the country against which military action is about to be taken, has already broken the treaties or threatens to, taking action is legal because the treaty ceases anyway. The typical "proof" of that concensus is a UN mandate since that also binds member states not to later accuse the country taking the action of breaking a treaty illegally. That is why the US wanted to get it because if the US is seen as not upholding treaties, other nations won't uphold treaties with the US either.

Perhaps it's easier for you to understand if you imagine that you live in a place with no laws forbidding trespassing but you and your neighbour have agreed on where your property ends and his begins and that the two of you will not trespass on each other's property. If you then decide that you will trespass on his property anyway, you neither can nor need to seek permission from anyone since there's no one to grant you permission but what you're doing is breaking the treaty between the two of you. Others will then take note and all of a sudden any treaties you've made with other neighbours will become worthless.

Re:Only they are to blame

[Dragonslicer]

And even the law isn't so blind as to be able to be otherwise. Invading Iraq was immoral and illegal and ALL of the people who participated in it, from top to bottom, committed a crime. Pure and simple.

Not matter how big of mistake the Iraq invasion was, not every soldier is guilty of a crime. I can't imagine any war crimes tribunal finding any soldier guilty just for being a member of the military. "I was just following orders" is not a valid defense only against specific actions (e.g. shooting civilians); "being there" is not a specific crime.

Re:Only they are to blame

[zx75]

If someone is bent on killing you and the only means you have to defend yourself is with deadly force, is it wrong to exercise that force? Or would you stand on your morals and be slaughtered like an animal?

Yes. Sorry, but I don't buy into the no-win game, life is not zero-sum and there is always a better solution. No matter what philosophy or moral position you hold to there is ALWAYS a contrive scenario that will force you to decide between morality and something else you value.
Catholics: In a situation where childbirth is very likely (or guaranteed) to kill both the mother and child, is abortion acceptable?
Kill or be Killed: If the person wanting to kill you is using human shields do you sacrifice an innocent life to save your own? your family? what if they have 10 shields? a hundred? a million?

If there is no point where you will stand up and say "I will sacrifice myself to uphold this moral position" then you in fact have no more morals than an animal. If you will do anything, go to any lengths to save yourself then you are a clinical psychopath.

It just so happens that you and I draw the line at different places. To you killing is acceptable is certain circumstances, to me it is not under any circumstances and that is the moral position that I will die to uphold. However like everything it is a double-edged sword. If someone knows that you are willing to kill to defend yourself then if you come into conflict they know that they must use deadly force to defeat you. If they know that no matter what happens I will not kill, then in order to overcome me deadly force is not required and in such a manner my life may be preserved.

Re:Only they are to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no glory in fighting and killing is wrong, period.

Yeah, those Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fighting for their lives and killing Nazis, that was just WRONG!

Good grief, grow up and quit living by slogans. The world is more complicated than you would apparently like to believe. There's times when failing to fight and kill is wrong, if by doing so you are empowering evil.

Re:Only they are to blame

[sumdumass]

The explanation you're asking for is that the US is bound by the international treaties which it signs, and they become part of the US law. If the US did violate the UN Charter by invading Iraq, and lets face it it's obvious that it did, then this is in fact an illegal act by the US law and by the international law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War Even Richard Perle has conceded that the invasion was illegal: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027255087.html

What part of Sovereignty do you not understand? First, as being a sovereign nation, the US as well as any other sovereign country is able to act independent of other nations. You right that we are bound by international treaties insomuch as they have been ratified and made into law. But as a right of sovereignty, any sovereign nation can change it's laws at will. But more to the point, the First gulf war was never ended. The armistice was an agreement upon conditions that Iraq failed to uphold. When you fail at your obligations, then the conditions behind them disappear too. These conditions were the cease fire that stopped the fighting from the first gulf war.

However, that is all pointless too. A sovereign nation has a right to defend itself. Bush's proactive defense strategy was an exercise of that right. No other nation can stop that while the country is sovereign. Other nations can take up arms or appose it but that's the extent.

This is why the US is not a member of the international criminal court (ICC) and your own link to the UN specifically says that UN Charter required the UN security council to rule on a war being illegal before it is. That has not happened and probably won't happen because the US and UK have Veto powers in the security council. So the UN charter argument falls flat on it's face because of the charter itself. The UN charter also give every state the right to self defense and the Bush preemptive defense doctrine is in and of itself, self defense so the argument fails there too.

To date, no official body with the Authority, internationally or domestic, to rule on the legality or the war has ruled it illegal. That statement of it being illegal is little more then hopeful dreams from anti-war or anti-American factions attempting to gather support and sympathy for their cause.

Re:Only they are to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a friend who works with the clinically insane, and some number of them are rather violent. He has two black belts out of a certain kind of necessity, and he frequently uses his abilities to restrain uncooperative patients who, at any random moment, might suddenly try to kill him.

To say that there is no answer to killing intent but to kill is to take the easy way out, and it leads to a spirit of resignation: since people want to kill, everybody has to fight with lethal intent -- what a world, what a world. My friend, on the other hand, through carefully controlled violence, manages to stop his patients from injuring staff and themselves, as well as preventing unnecessary sedation and restraint. By now, many patients simply recognize him as "top dog" on the ward and, their mental problems aside, have learned that violence achieves them nothing with him (though he's actually received at least a half-dozen broken bones and thrice as many lacerations and bites on the job, he knows not to grouse about it within their earshot). Whenever he's around, many of the "timers" behave themselves.

This wouldn't work if my friend didn't have an exceptionally even temper and a genuine desire to help the patients. He is willing to carefully disable someone on many more occasions than it would take to settle down a rational person, so that the patients might learn that their violent behavior ("temper tantrums," he said at the coffee shop one night after having been bitten on the thigh) won't always get them what they want.

My friend isn't even that unique, in honesty; his experience is just the anecdote that comes to mind for me (out of respect for him, we both shall remain anonymous here). Yes, it's paternalistic to imply that one person or group can justify violence, however controlled, against another person or group and, in so doing, work toward the betterment of all. Nevertheless, that is my contention: it IS possible to "do good" with violence.

I sympathize with the pacifist stance; I really do. War is sickening, whether waged on a global scale between nuclear powers, between cultural enclaves in Central Asia, or between two people on the street. Still, until we find a panacea for violence, a firm hand will be a necessary part of peace-waging. My motive is to ensure that the intentions that guide violent force are as constructive as possible.

Re:Only they are to blame

[sumdumass]

Dude, Iraq was a sovereign nation recognized by the US. If one sovereign nation takes military action against another sovereign nation, it is usually considered illegal.

The key word is usually. However, Iraq's sovereignty was limited to it's armistice agreements ending a war that he started with an ally and we went to war to stop. The war was already there- his compliance with the armistice wasn't.

The constitution says something about honoring treaties with foreign powers, you might want to look it up.

The constitution doesn't say something, it says something specific. It says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Now I shouldn't need to break it down for you but I will in case you don't understand it. The president and only the president has the power to make treaties only if two thirds of the senate agrees with the treaties.

Now, Article VI (6) says that the constitution and the laws made pursuant to it are the supreme law of the land. All treaties made have to be made under the authority of the US. This means that no treaty can be made that defeats the constitution. But the treasties that were made stand above the constitution which mean if it is legitimate, then it is law of the land.

However, no treaty has been rules to of been broken. Claims that they were have been bandied about but no governing authority has come to that conclusion. The notwithstanding part was added to the constitution because at the time of it's construction, we were bound by treaties that may have been voided by the adoption of the constitution. This is why there is a separation between "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States". It recognizes obligations previously held while requiring all future treaties to be made within the authority of the constitution. An example of this might be a treaty with Germany making all visiting national subject to the protections in the constitution and a later amendment defines the constitution and bill of rights to only apply to citizens. The treaty would survive and German nationals would retain the benefits and protections that citizens do.

So what is bullshit is claiming that there's no need to get permission since there's no one that could grant permission - what the US did was to not honor treaties, which is illegal.

What treaties did the US no honor? There are none that we are bound by. Some Clain the UN charter or the International Criminal Court. First, the UN charter says that no wars can be judged illegal unless the UN security council makes the decision. It has never done so. The UN charter also provides that every nation has the right to self defense.

Second, the US has never adopted the Rome Statute that created the ICC and we are not bound by it regardless of the mad dutch judges who assert authority over anything unilaterally. We haven't adopted it because we would have to amend the constitution to do so. To note also, no supporting member nation of the ICC has even attempted to rule on the legality of the war.

It seems that you are just repeating rhetoric spouted by Anti-war idiots and people who are Anti-American. I don't blame you, you probably didn't know enough to know better or more likely are a citizen of another country that has drafted treaties that we aren't obligated to.

There are, however, circumstances under which such breaking of treaties would be considered legal - if the concensus is that the country against which military action is about to be taken, has already broken the treaties

Re:Only they are to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

There are people who would rather die than kill, I hold that this is their right and they can exercise it if they so wish. I do not REQUIRE that people safeguard their own lives with lethal force, just that people do not deny ME of my right to do so.

Re:Only they are to blame

[clarkkent09]

What part of Sovereignty do you not understand? First, as being a sovereign nation, the US as well as any other sovereign country is able to act independent of other nations. You right that we are bound by international treaties insomuch as they have been ratified and made into law. But as a right of sovereignty, any sovereign nation can change it's laws at will.

I don't remember US pulling out of the UN? Sure it could, but it didn't and while it doesn't it is bound by the UN charter like any other member. Presumably its continuing membership means that it is benefiting from it somehow, otherwise it would have pulled out? You can't have it both ways, belonging to an organization but ignoring the rules which are a condition for the membership in the first place.

But more to the point, the First gulf war was never ended. The armistice was an agreement upon conditions that Iraq failed to uphold. When you fail at your obligations, then the conditions behind them disappear too. These conditions were the cease fire that stopped the fighting from the first gulf war.

And Germany invaded Poland because some German border guards were shot at by the Poles, right? Now you are just being an apologist for the Bush administration. They can't say we wanted to take over Iraq for a long time for various strategic reasons and 9/11 gave us the public support we needed, so they have to say something. If you think the reason we invaded Iraq is that weapons inspectors had some difficulties monitoring it's non-existent WMD program then you are living in a funny world.

However, that is all pointless too. A sovereign nation has a right to defend itself. Bush's proactive defense strategy was an exercise of that right. No other nation can stop that while the country is sovereign. Other nations can take up arms or appose it but that's the extent.

Sorry, I had to laugh at "the proactive defense strategy". Self defense has its limits. According to your line of thought the ultimate act of self-defense would be to nuke every other country preemptively so nobody could ever threaten us. I hope you don't really believe that Iraq was some kind of a realistic threat to the US? Might is right might be the reality in the world but you are arguing that this is a good thing.

This is why the US is not a member of the international criminal court (ICC) and your own link to the UN specifically says that UN Charter required the UN security council to rule on a war being illegal before it is. That has not happened and probably won't happen because the US and UK have Veto powers in the security council....To date, no official body with the Authority, internationally or domestic, to rule on the legality or the war has ruled it illegal.

True but not really saying much. If ICC had pronounced the invasion of Iraq illegal, or if there was a UN council resolution to that effect then this wouldn't be an issue worth discussing at all. The fact that they didn't though has more to do with the US power than with any legal issues. If a criminal is so powerful that he has a veto power over his own indictment then he is not a criminal, right? Something can be illegal (as in prohibited by law) even if no court ever makes a ruling on it.

Re:Only they are to blame

[sumdumass]

I don't remember US pulling out of the UN? Sure it could, but it didn't and while it doesn't it is bound by the UN charter like any other member. Presumably its continuing membership means that it is benefiting from it somehow, otherwise it would have pulled out? You can't have it both ways, belonging to an organization but ignoring the rules which are a condition for the membership in the first place.

What part of the UN charter takes the sovereignty of the US away? What part of it denied the US to act and what procedure was followed to declare that the US acted in violation of the fucking charter? Do you even know what sovereignty means? Did you even read my post or the links you provided?

And Germany invaded Poland because some German border guards were shot at by the Poles, right? Now you are just being an apologist for the Bush administration. They can't say we wanted to take over Iraq for a long time for various strategic reasons and 9/11 gave us the public support we needed, so they have to say something. If you think the reason we invaded Iraq is that weapons inspectors had some difficulties monitoring it's non-existent WMD program then you are living in a funny world.

And if England and France would have enforced the armastice that ended WWI, WWII would never of happened. However, none of that has anything to do with right now. Fuck dude, there were a ton of reasons we had for going into Iraq. The presence of them only goes to show that we restrained ourselves until a time when it wasn't in out interest. That doesn't make anything your implying true over anything else. We took as much of Iraq's shit as we could, then we demanded them to honor their armistice agreements, when they didn't, they became void. You don't have to apologize for stating the truth, the fact that you don't like something doesn't make it untrue, you are not the god damned arbitrator on reality. Got over it and get back into the real world.

Sorry, I had to laugh at "the proactive defense strategy". Self defense has its limits. According to your line of thought the ultimate act of self-defense would be to nuke every other country preemptively so nobody could ever threaten us. I hope you don't really believe that Iraq was some kind of a realistic threat to the US? Might is right might be the reality in the world but you are arguing that this is a good thing.

BOy, your a really smart one there aren't you? Do you often impress your friend with wit like that? Maybe you should stop hanging around the short buses. The idea behind the proactive defense, which isn't anything new to bush and if you were one quarter as intelligent as you think you are, you would know about it already. It goes like this, there is a problem, your can deal with it before it gets worse or after all hells broken loose. Preemptive is addressing the threat before it escalates out of your favor. Now go educate yourself a little Mkay.

BTW, Yes, Iraq was perceived as a threat to the US. The previous administration and most of the US senate said so all through the decade leading up to the war. Are two administrations and most of the congress and senate liars or something? If you had some insight back there to why all those people were wrong, you should have convincingly showed it. You didn't so you might as well either admit you using hindsight or going to war is on your hands for failing to inform the government of their errors. ?Chances are, you knew nothing as was simply guessing.

True but not really saying much. If ICC had pronounced the invasion of Iraq illegal, or if there was a UN council resolution to that effect then this wouldn't be an issue worth discussing at all. The fact that they didn't though has more to do with the US power than with any legal issues. If a criminal is so powerful that he has a veto p

Re:Only they are to blame

[Stormie]

If someone is bent on killing you and the only means you have to defend yourself is with deadly force, is it wrong to exercise that force?

The thing is, by enlisting in the military, you are not saying "I am willing to exercise deadly force to defend myself from people bent on killing me."

You are actually saying "I am willing to exercise deadly force to defend myself from people bent on killing me. I am also willing to exercise deadly force to murder innocent civilians if it is profitable or politically advantageous for the incumbent government for me to do so."

If that conflicts with your personal moral code, you should not enlist in the military. Because you never know what orders you might be ordered to follow. For every Pearl Harbour there's a naked Vietnamese girl running down the road with her skin on fire.

Re:Only they are to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not wrong to exercise deadly force; however there is no glory in it. Similar to the RIAA and any business that engages in shady practices for their own benefit. People's purpose is to live, businesses' purpose is to make profit. Sometimes we all engage in unsavory acts to promote our own cause--we may feel it is right, but that doesn't make it moral or glorious. We are threatening the recording industry's current max-profit business model so they are reacting in what they perceive as their best interest.

"Those damn kids with their file sharing and loose IP feelings were going to kill my profits. I HAD to exercise force to get my interest in the DoJ."

As a Brit...

[Xest]

I'm currently more interested in this as a real test of the Obama administration's sincerity:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7870049.stm

If Obama can't come forward and say to us "Yes, your courts can now open that evidence" then it is evidence of one important fact. Obama is a fraud.

He cannot possibly on one hand talk of bringing those guilty of torture to justice and then prevent us doing so on the other.

I think that it's actually our government that's playing up here because they do not want it coming out in the open that our security services were equally guilty of assisting in torture, but all Obama needs to do to make that clear is come forward. By the sounds of it our foreign secretary hasn't even approached the Obama administration yet and if that's true then it's a local issue, if that's not true then the world has bigger problems.

If he can't then yeah, I think he's a fraud and yeah, I think these RIAA appointments possibly are more than just a case of hiring experienced lawyers (i.e. did they work for the RIAA because they believed the cause, or for the money?).

I truly hope it's not too much to ask to at last have an important world leader that can walk the walk not just talk the talk.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[mcgrew]

All art, as all science and engineering, is built on the achievements of those who came before. Engineers have it easy, as patents only last 20 years and I'm told are often easy to get around.

Copyrights are forever when compared to an artist's life. I cannot legally build on any work produced in the last hundred years.

This AP story illustrates the folly of our system.

On buttons, posters and Web sites, the image was everywhere during last year's presidential campaign: a pensive Barack Obama looking upward, as if to the future, splashed in a Warholesque red, white and blue and underlined with the caption HOPE

Designed by Shepard Fairey, a Los-Angeles based street artist, the image has led to sales of hundreds of thousands of posters and stickers, and has become so much in demand that copies signed by Fairey have been purchased for thousands of dollars on eBay.

The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.

The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.

"The Associated Press has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission," the AP's director of media relations, Paul Colford, said in a statement. "AP safeguards its assets and looks at these events on a case-by-case basis. We have reached out to Mr. Fairey's attorney and are in discussions. We hope for an amicable solution."

There is a comparison of the two works, and it's obvious (to me as a content creator anyway) that the Fairey image is fair use.

As to your incredibly ignorant remark, it is exactly like the guy who said "Looks like the days of drunken bums is over" when they passed prohibition. Copyright law is getting worse and worse, and people are responding by ignoring it, just as they ignored laws against alcohol. It WILL reach a breaking point.

I should not have to pay for a digital copy of Jimi hendrix' work. The man is dead and has been for decades. It should be in the public domain as the Founding Fathers wished and as is written in the US Constitution.

Say it ain't so!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean there are some lawyers who represent clients for money? It can't be!

Yeah, things are really going to change

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Not only is the RIAA now apparently synonymous with the Justice Department, but we STILL have renditions and we still have a President that believes he has the authority to spy on us (and by extension of the same logic essentially ignore any law or any provision of the Constitution by the same argument).

It was unacceptable when GWB did it, and it is STILL unacceptable and it is still the responsibility of the citizens of the US to put a stop to it.

But hey, Barak Obama is a great guy, we don't need civil liberties.

Fools.

Re:Yeah, things are really going to change

[prisoner-of-enigma]

we still have a President that believes he has the authority to spy on us

Actually, it's not just the President, it's also the Supreme Court. Or haven't you heard that it upheld FISA? Quit frothing. The government has no right or desire to spy on you. It does have the right to listen in on phone calls made from outside the U.S. to parties inside the U.S. if and when the call originates from a known or suspected terrorist. If you're getting calls from Al Queda, I don't give two damns what your end of the conversation sounds like but I damn sure want the other end listened to. If you don't like that, don't get calls from terrorist and you'll be just fine.

"Domestic Spying." What a load of crap. It's neither domestic nor is it spying. Quit trying to make it something it's not in order try and stir people up.

Re:Yeah, things are really going to change

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but it's never going to happen because too many people don't care, and too few people will have guns by the time that changes. I'm not even going to suggest that Obama will be the one who brings this country to the brink (though my political leanings are such that I suspect he'll be a contributing factor).

But seriously, who actually thought that a politician from the most famously corrupt state in the union was going to serve anybody's agenda but his own?

Illinois: Vote early, vote often and for whoever pays you the most, and don't forget the dead because they're citizens, too.

See the forest, not the trees

[Simonetta]

When grasping the fact that the copyright barons are taking over the Justice Dept, remember that there is fundamental shift happening in the media industry.

The media industry is basically a 20th-century phenomenon. The technology of the 20th-century created a structure where the best musicians of the world sold their musical in the format of fixed recordings through a centralized company. The recordings are the product. Under this structure, the musicians (and actors) become stars or mini-deities.

  The main idea here is that the recordings (of music or filmed performance) are the product that is sold on concept of a fixed price regardless of the 'artist' or the quality of the performance. The unnoticed aspect of this model is that there is NO interactivity between the recordings and the people who buy the recordings.

  The 21st-century entertainment media model is one of increasing interactivity between the recording and the person buying the recording. Starting with crude television-based video games in the 1980s, there has been a strong increase in the amount of interaction between the person 'consuming' the entertainment product and the entertainment product itself. The RIAA/MPAA can't reproduce this interactivity, neither can the companies who create fixed product (audio CDs, films). But this interactivity is becoming the key aspect of the entertainment experience that people (especially young people in their teens and twenties) are willing to pay for.

  The more that the RIAA/MPAA are successful at forcing people away from obtaining low-cost fixed recordings, the more that they drive their core consumer base into interactive entertainment products that they don't control. They don't seem to realize this, primarily because the RIAA/MPAA companies are stuck in the 20th-century. The Slashdaughters generally grasp this concept, but they are mostly young and technologically oriented. They are the demographic most likely to copy RIAA/MPAA product, this is true, but they are also the first people to move beyond RIAA/MPAA product to meet their entertainment needs.

  As the economic structure of the 20th-century fades, then so will the influence (and bullying ability) of the global media companies. As long as the RIAA/MPAA lawyers don't understand or control the emerging fields of interactive entertainment, it doesn't matter if the control the US Justice Department. They will remain 20th-century wolves chasing 20th-century sheep.

Re:See the forest, not the trees

[Anonymous Coward]

I like what you wrote, however, justice isn't blind and is very much bought and paid for.

Re:See the forest, not the trees

[Sun.Jedi]

That is a wonderful post.

I haven't purchased a CD for myself in over a year. I didn't make a big deal of it with the family, but I did say over the recent holiday season, that I prefer not to and gave standard /. reasoning as to why. My 16 year old daughter, the CD junkie for the last 5 years, asked me not to buy her CDs anymore. [jaw-hit-floor]

She is not using .torrent, nor iTMS; she is happy enough to school sneakernet (whatever, I don't care), or ...get this ... just listen to the radio.

Progress.

Re:See the forest, not the trees

[CodeBuster]

it doesn't matter if the control the US Justice Department. They will remain 20th-century wolves chasing 20th-century sheep.

Do not be so sure. There is arguably no better vehicle for bullying ordinary citizens than the power of the Federal government made manifest in the Department of Justice run by minions who have an axe to grind. It would not surprise me in the least if these RIAA tainted appointees use the power at their command to crush ordinary citizens at the behest of their masters in the entertainment industry. The MAFIAA has already demonstrated that they aren't interested in truth or justice with their lawsuits, only money and settlements at all costs in a scorched earth campaign to keep the revenues flowing and damn the consequences.

Re:See the forest, not the trees

[plasmacutter]

They don't have to understand it.

In 1998 they passed a tiny little clause which gives them full regulatory control with which to crush it to death in the womb.

They have been doing just that ever since, and those allowed by their holy grace to survive are regulated into faceless conformity by license terms dictating the tiniest minutia of their construction.

PVR-PLUS will never, ever happen.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[russotto]

Just what creative element is AP claiming copyright of? The camera angle? Nothing else had anything to do with AP.

ROFLMAO

[Shivetya]

Talk is cheap, actions haven't followed all the hype.

Lets see, Iran is now openly declaring we have to respect their nuclear right. North Korea is again launching test rockets towards Japan.

Yeah, looks like newly found world wide respect.

Throw in, the French laughing at our bail out ideas... I have seen the manure recently (read: two nominees toasted, two more that should have been, and the labor one is on her way out already) but I haven't seen the flowers or unicorns. Instead of substance we get interviews with him about his substance use (read: tobacco)

Science at the forefront? Looks like to me that building water slides in Louisiana is more important (read the stimulus bill he so solidly supports). What science? Must be the 50 plus million to the arts. Go read it http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/hr1_engrossed.pdf (warning it is like only page and half of the 600 page bill)

Don't know where you've been but nothing has changed except for how fast the back peddling has become or where it comes from. If this is change I am not sure it is what we really wanted.

Obamaa

[jalet]

why doesn't tagging this with "obamaa" reports my tag as being "obama" instead ?

Re:Obamaa

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the Slashdot tagging system is broken (like meta-moderation and the user pages).

Workaround: press the space bar after you've written your tag.

Biden is why I had a hard time voting for Obama

[haplo21112]

Him being VP and the possibility that Obama my be in the frame of mind on these issues made it very hard to vote for this team. Just the thought that Biden is a heartbeat from being President gave and still gives me nightmares.

Re:Biden is why I had a hard time voting for Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Having Palin an even weaker hear-beat away from being President made the choice a no-brainer.

Re:Biden is why I had a hard time voting for Obama

[Copperfield]

If you really want to get scared just remember that we are only 2 heartbeats away from President Nancy Pelosi.

Repayment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wondered where he got all the money - most expensive campaign, most expensive inauguration etc. etc. Is this repayment then?

Panties in a bunch..

[sbeckstead]

Don't know why you guys all have this knee jerk reaction. A lawyer is a lawyer, one bulldog looks pretty much like another. These guys rarely share the opinions of their handlers er I mean clients. And if he's a good lawyer I want him where he is. Cause these are the bozo's we get to sic on the former Bush Administration guys.

This is not necessarily bad

[Locke2005]

Lawyers are hired guns. Does anybody think the RIAA lawyers actually believed in the cause they were litigating over? No, they were doing what they were told. Redirecting some of the most competent RIAA lawyers' efforts into more productive work could actually be a good thing.

wtf?

[DragonTHC]

This isn't change!

Very interesting

[BCW2]

Anyone else notice the bias around here?

Years of pointing out the Orrin Hatch is the most evil Senator in Washington and all this time Biden was his evil twin? Of course now that the Dems are in charge everyone thought there was really going to be a change? *snerk, giggle, guffaw*

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[Locke2005]

I should not have to pay for a digital copy of Jimi Hendrix' work... It should be in the public domain as the Founding Fathers wished and as is written in the US Constitution. Wait... the Founding Fathers were Hendrix fans?!? Damn, those guys really were ahead of their time! ;) (Yes, at the time of the founding of the US, unauthorized republication of European sheet music and books was rampant. Ben Franklin probably participated in this pirating... can anybody cite actual proof?)

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[sbeckstead]

"Copyrights are forever when compared to an artist's life."

Well if I live to be 90, you only have 75 years more years to wait before you can grab the sweat of my brow for your own purposes.

"I cannot legally build on any work produced in the last hundred years."

Patently false, you cannot legally build on someones work without paying for the privilege. Saying wow that's a pretty good ride, and then complaining that the ride isn't free is disingenuous at best. Besides the longer I can keep some hip hop freakin' idiot from corrupting my work the better as far as I'm concerned. Or even some politico with an agenda I hate from stealing my graphics. Art isn't really where the innovations come from anyway if you think that copyright is stopping progress you are in the wrong business.

Pirate Party

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why the US pirate party is so important to the future of world politics and humanity.

And baby makes three

[Hordeking]

FTA:

The DNA would be submitted to the State Patrol and the FBI databases, which are used to match suspects with unsolved crimes. Under the bill, authorities would destroy samples and DNA profiles obtained from people who weren't charged, were found not guilty or whose convictions were overturned.

Can someone explain to me how a state law will force the FBI to destroy/delete these records, being that the states don't really have jurisdiction over the FBI?

"Matching suspects with unsolved crimes". That sounds dangerously like a fishing expedition to me. Maybe if they had a suspect already in mind, I wouldn't have a problem with this. Of course, if they did have a suspect in mind already, they could simply ask him for a sample (you know, like how they already do it). If he refuses, that's because he has a 5th amendment right to protection from self-incrimination.

before you get the pitchforks and torches..

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we are reading this the wrong way, instead of thinking 'they appointed one of the bad guys' we should be thinking 'they appointed someone who did his job and respected the laws of the country even when he had to work for the bad guys.'
Its not perfect but certainly an improvement over 8 years of disdain for the law.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[SydShamino]

I should not have to pay for a digital copy of Jimi hendrix' work. The man is dead and has been for decades. It should be in the public domain as the Founding Fathers wished and as is written in the US Constitution.

While I agreed with everything else you said, I don't think this argument is correct.

Copyright should be based on a fixed duration, such as 25 years, perhaps with a registration or notice requirement for it to take effect, and perhaps with a low-cost renewal option (for perhaps another 25 years).

Copyright should not be based on the author's life, because that A) drastically lowers the value of late-life art compared to early-life art, and B) makes it economically viable to murder artists whose works you would like to misappropriate.

We can solve this problem with significantly shorter fixed durations, requirements that works must contain a copyright notice to have initial coverage, and a fee to extend copyright to weed out the thousands of copyrighted works that lose all value after a very short time (while making it possible for works that still have value to keep making value for their owners for a slightly longer time).

Don't blame me...

[Daswolfen]

...I didn't vote for him.

I guess the 'Change' Obama promised is either only 'change' left in my pocket after paying for all that crap San Fran Nan and the looney left are pushing or the 'change' from a Republic to a Socialist dictatorship.

Re:Don't blame me...

[JonJ]

Oh fuck off. Your "Liberals" are just cleverly disguised conservatives. Anyone who believes that the Democratic party in the USA is anything but an alternative conservative party hasn't been anywhere else in the world. Repeat after me: You have no fucking socialists. Morons. Hell, where I come from, our conservative party would probably be to the far left in the US of A.

Re:Don't blame me...

[Daswolfen]

No.. you go fuck yourself. Anywhere else in the world DOESN'T MATTER when talking about US politics. The definitions change over time and by location. And your right in one respect. The correct term is Marxist.

I don't know where you are from (and frankly I don't care), but it sounds like some place that a few hundred kilotons of good stuff needs to be delivered.

What amazes me

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Is I didn't (so far) get 500 responses along the lines of 'you dishonor our sacred warriors!' [rolls eyes].

I mean, I don't have anything really against people who are in the Armed Forces. Glorifying the whole thing though just seems dumb. Certainly doesn't promote peace!

That's what happens when you vote for Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

You hated Bush, so you gave the government to the RIAA and BSA.

Nose. Cut. Spite. Face.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[sholsinger]

So... if I had the person who invented product x killed, then I could reproduce it exactly without paying licensing fees to his family? (Although they could really use it because his death was rather unexpected and untimely.)

Conflict of interest issues

[nurb432]

are so 90's

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[mcgrew]

Patently false, you cannot legally build on someones work without paying for the privilege.

It isn't a privelege, it is a RIGHT spelled out in Article 2 Section 8. Copyrights are only there to "promote the useful arts". What I write or paint or record does NOT belong to me, it belongs to humanity. It is supposed to go into the public domain after a "limited time". All I own is a "limited time" monopoly on its distribution, nothing more.

Besides the longer I can keep some hip hop freakin' idiot from corrupting my work the better as far as I'm concerned..

An archetect might say the same thing, but I have the right to do anything I want to a property I own. And we ALL own ALL intelectual "property". If you don't want some "hip hop freakin' idiot from corrupting" your work, don't do it to begin with.

Art isn't really where the innovations come from anyway

Despite the fact that your statement there has no bearing on the argument, I should remind you that archetecture IS art. You could not build a skyscraper in 1800.

if you think that copyright is stopping progress you are in the wrong business

Copyright itself is a very useful structure when properly implimented, and does indeed promote the arts. When it is poorly implimented, as it is now, it is a hindrance to progress.

The answer is none to simple

[Giant Electronic Bra]

See, the way I see it, your response is perfectly understandable, but it fails to make sense when you take a more holistic view of things.

One cannot effectively defend oneself unless one is PREPARED to defend oneself. That might at first glance seem to be merely a sensible thing to do, be prepared (hey I was even a Boy Scout once, lol).

The problem is that being prepared consists of being armed. Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else. Thus they must arm themselves. Thus even the mildest form of defensive thinking leads directly to an arms race or the conditions for an arms race.

More than that, it leads to a kind of thinking which inevitably involves the logic of power, and the rule of power is the rule of force. Inter armis legis non. No law can exist between armed parties willing to defend their interests by force except force. Either the force of the other party, or the force of some third party.

So peace fails, even amongst well meaning peoples, because first they subscribe to the doctrine of self defense. Second they must arm themselves, 3rd their armed state precipitates a need for all other parties to be armed, and then no authority can exist which is not armed force. Finally that armed force will sooner or later be used. Thus the doctrine of self defense, innocent as it seems on the surface, is the seed which ultimately leads to war and violence.

Even when violence does not proceed directly from the logic of power, it creates a corrupting effect on the thinking of the armed individuals. First they reason that collective security is better than individual security and the full panoply of the armed state comes into existence. People in large numbers acting in a mass in the armed state do not subscribe to any of the recognized moral principles of normal society to any high degree. This is a situation always extremely hazardous to peace.

Finally the corruption goes even deeper in the sense that to arm oneself is in essence a threat, and thus each person in this armed society is essentially at a fundamental level saying to all of the others "I reserve the option to get my way by force." Granted that most people will not want to exercise that option, but it always exists and it has an inhibiting effect on people's willingness to reach a real and genuine accommodation with one another based on mutual agreement and shared benefit.

Thus my position is that the doctrine of self defense is actually antithetical to the best interests of all individuals in the real world. Not in some moralistic philosophical sense, but actually in the real world as it is.

Re:The answer is none to simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never before seen a post more deserving of the word "specious."

Re:The answer is none to simple

[Anonymous Coward]

So correct. I don't think the strategy the grandparent proposes is an evolutionarily stable strategy.

Re:The answer is none to simple

[Sabriel]

Thus my position is that the doctrine of self defense is actually antithetical to the best interests of all individuals in the real world.

Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else.

Anyone who's ever noticed that a swift kick to the groin will incapacitate most males and some females has armed themselves. You can't NOT arm yourself in some fashion, given the usual set of working appendages and enough brain cells to rub together.

The doctrine of self-defence is actually a pretty good stance to take in the real world, which has other threats besides civilised humans. When was the last time you sat down with a rabid dog, hungry crocodile or maddened wasp and discussed the merits of absolute pacifism?

Where this can break down is when people lose sight of the goal for the goalposts - but that's not a failing of the doctrine but rather its implementation.

Re:The answer is none to simple

[Giant Electronic Bra]

I'm not asserting that an unarmed person is defenseless. Sure, some people are quite capable of inflicting damage with their bare hands. I don't really think that is exactly comparable in most circumstances to being armed with say a gun. The difference is so large that it has a different character.

And I can appreciate the utility of weapons in the role of TOOLS, for hunting, defense against animals, recreation, etc. I've owned guns for those purposes too. Of course the real world is not perfectly clear cut. I could shoot someone with my "target" pistol. It isn't a perfect world, but we can make it better, and less weapons makes a better world.

But see the problem is that the DOCTRINE of self defense IS flawed, because it fosters the conditions under which violence, especially large scale violence, and injustice occur. I don't believe that some kind of perfectly peaceful society will ever exist in the foreseeable future, human nature won't allow it, nor that we will all somehow be able to lay down every weapon we have tomorrow. But if we can acknowledge the evil inherent in the way we think about these things now, then we CAN make it better. We can have far less weapons in the world, and far less violence.

What if we just plain stopped manufacturing weapons? The world spends more money on these things than on health care, education, etc every year right now. How about if we divide that by half? And then in half again? The guns we have now will last 100's more years. It is pretty easy to start again if that's what we want to do, guns aren't exactly rocket science.

Re:The answer is none to simple

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else.

How is someone a threat just by being armed? You're confusing ability with intent. I have the *ability* to kill you with my bare hands. Is my existence now a threat to you? To everyone? See how completely stupid your argument seems when faced with something as uncomfortable as a logical analysis?

Your idiocy reminds me of a female reporter interviewing a Boy Scout scoutmaster about teaching Scouts how to use a rifle on a rifle range. She was aghast that chillllllldrreeeenn were handling firearms. The scoutmaster responded (quite reasonably) that scouts were being taught gun safety, marksmanship, and respect of firearms. She then blurted "but you're equipping them with the skills needed to be mass murderers!" The scoutmaster responded (again, quite reasonably) that the reporter was "equipped" to be a prostitute, so by her own logic she must *be* a prostitute. There was no further comment from the female reporter.

Thus my position is that the doctrine of self defense is actually antithetical to the best interests of all individuals in the real world.

OK, fine. Go practice your "position" in a nice, peace-loving country like Iran or North Korea. You'll be killed (because self-defense is "antithetical" to you) and we won't have to worry about your emotional angst cluttering up the real world. And if we all did exactly what you suggest (give up the doctrine of self-defense) then the world would be taken over by the North Korea types and we'd all be in barbaric despotism. You have the ability to throw stones (metaphorically, of course, since I know you abhor any type of violence) at the system *because* the system exists to protect your right to throw stones (again, I apologize for the horrific display of metaphorical violence in this sentence). If the system of self-defense were removed, your ability to dissent would go right along with it. You strive for a nirvana that is not possible, the place where all the lunches are free and nobody ever has to pay the tab.

Stalin had a wonderful phrase that described people like you: useful idiots. The sad thing is, I bet you vote.

Re:The answer is none to simple

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Gosh golly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. I wish you violentists would go educate yourselfs, at least learn some logic and rhetoric before you try to use it.

Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else.

How is someone a threat just by being armed? You're confusing ability with intent. I have the *ability* to kill you with my bare hands. Is my existence now a threat to you? To everyone? See how completely stupid your argument seems when faced with something as uncomfortable as a logical analysis?

Conceivably yes, you could be a threat to another person armed or not. Once you arm yourself you ARE a threat because you ARE asserting that you will use force! So exactly what 'logic' was it that you were using? If you are armed YES YOU ARE A THREAT TO EVERYONE ELSE. That is EXACTLY the point! Do you happen to rise to the level of being enough of a threat that other people feel compelled to do something about it? Probably not. But I guarantee if you get together with a couple 100 other people and start piling up guns, the FBI will come and wipe you out. Why? Because it is unacceptable to have that kind of threat around. Not that I approve of the FBI having guns any more than I do anyone else having them, but the point is made.

Your idiocy reminds me of a female reporter interviewing a Boy Scout scoutmaster about teaching Scouts how to use a rifle on a rifle range. She was aghast that chillllllldrreeeenn were handling firearms. The scoutmaster responded (quite reasonably) that scouts were being taught gun safety, marksmanship, and respect of firearms. She then blurted "but you're equipping them with the skills needed to be mass murderers!" The scoutmaster responded (again, quite reasonably) that the reporter was "equipped" to be a prostitute, so by her own logic she must *be* a prostitute. There was no further comment from the female reporter.

Lol! This is actually funny. First of all this reporter in your story never asserted that children taught to use guns ARE mass murderers, and thus 'her own logic' by no means claims her to be a prostitute, so the whole logic of the thing is just non-existent. Second of all in MY version of the story the reporter comes back with "And if I dress your daughter up like a whore, what will you think of that?". At which time the scout master waved his gun and said "Then you better watch out because I'll kill you if you do that." Yeah, logic. Good stuff.

Thus my position is that the doctrine of self defense is actually antithetical to the best interests of all individuals in the real world.

OK, fine. Go practice your "position" in a nice, peace-loving country like Iran or North Korea. You'll be killed (because self-defense is "antithetical" to you) and we won't have to worry about your emotional angst cluttering up the real world.

Oh, yeah, of course, all opinions are welcomed in the good old USA as long as they don't disagree with yours, and if they do then I'm supposed to crawl off to someplace else and not show my odious self in your oh so correct presence. What a load of horse shit. Grow up. And let me ask you, have you been to North Korea? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure if either one of us went to North Korea that we'd just the heck be living in North Korea! Who exactly would be out to kill us? I think plenty of people live there, and I'll bet you good money 99.9% of them are not armed.

And if we all did exactly what you suggest (give up the doctrine of self-defense) then the world would be taken over by the North Korea types and we'd all be in barbaric despotism.

Yes yes, tired old straw man argument #1, heard it a million times, ho hum... I suppose you actually KNOW that this would happen? I'd love to know how you know that? Been reading some secret North Korean world domination plans, have we?

so how are you feeling

[Iowan41]

about your false messiah, now? We told ya so. and we still have 'rendition', and we still have Gitmo. Plus 21 lobbyists in the administration, nearly every appointment a tax cheat, and 1.2 trillion dollars in kickbacks to party activist organizations and donors. Change we can do what again in?

You have illustrated the fundamental point

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Precisely. By arming yourself and participating in the logic of power, which is ultimately ONLY the rule of force and can logically be nothing else you have created the violence.

Once you arm yourself, you now MUST logically arrogate to yourself the 'right' to use violence, and thus demote all others to the condition of being subservient to your will.

"The US [substitute any name you want here] doesn't need permission to act on anything". You must see the utter contempt for the equality of the rights of all others inherent in this statement. You illustrate perfectly ALL that is wrong with this entire world view, I couldn't have done it better myself.

Moreover your entire statement taken as a whole illustrates the path of reasoning which inevitably follows from the initial flawed assertion. The other is not like me, my actions are always just, I am not bound by any obligations to you, only I have the right to decide what I do, and I'll back that up with violence. What? Does that violence make you right? Is your willingness to kill to get what you think is right a license to impose your viewpoint on the rest of us? I assure you many people will disagree with you, and now you have given them little recourse except to either submit to your tyranny or resist it with their own force.

Peace is not some kind of condition that just happens, peace is a process, it is a state of mind and spiritual development. It is a path that must be followed. You have the choice and the consequences of ALL OF YOUR ACTIONS are always your responsibility and yours alone. You don't have to like that, but it is objectively true and any moral theory that denies the objective truth of the real world is bankrupt and without merit.

Re:You have illustrated the fundamental point

[sumdumass]

Precisely. By arming yourself and participating in the logic of power, which is ultimately ONLY the rule of force and can logically be nothing else you have created the violence.

Once you arm yourself, you now MUST logically arrogate to yourself the 'right' to use violence, and thus demote all others to the condition of being subservient to your will.

"The US [substitute any name you want here] doesn't need permission to act on anything". You must see the utter contempt for the equality of the rights of all others inherent in this statement. You illustrate perfectly ALL that is wrong with this entire world view, I couldn't have done it better myself.

Only if you view the world through rose colored glasses and twist it's appearance to suit your own ideals.

The basic idea of sovereignty is to be independent of others in your own governance. Even without arming yourself you a nation can be sovereign and act in that way. Take Japan for instance, it was largely disarmed after WWII but it retained it's sovereignty and acted accordingly to that. The idea of one aspect that you disagree with invalidating the entire premise is completely wrong. Or are you suggesting that no country should be a sovereign nation independent of others? I'm will to bet that you also don't think it is good for the US Or england or China or Russia to require other countries to do certain things against their will and the will of their populous. But that what your advocating as what is wrong with the world right now- sovereignty, the ability to reject the will of other countries and act independently of them.

Moreover your entire statement taken as a whole illustrates the path of reasoning which inevitably follows from the initial flawed assertion. The other is not like me, my actions are always just, I am not bound by any obligations to you, only I have the right to decide what I do, and I'll back that up with violence. What? Does that violence make you right? Is your willingness to kill to get what you think is right a license to impose your viewpoint on the rest of us? I assure you many people will disagree with you, and now you have given them little recourse except to either submit to your tyranny or resist it with their own force.

Clearley you need to lay off the drugs.:0... Seriously though, the right of sovereignty doesn't suppose justification or validation. It is simply an inherent ability of a free nation to govern it's own actions. Nothing makes the acts of a sovereign nation just but the act itself. The act itself doesn't speak to sovereignty outside that a nation has a right to act in it's own interests.

Now don't get confused here because it's obvious that your confusing sovereignty with the actual act. Sovereignty is self rule where the laws and government of on nation is independent of another. This means that the US can't force the UK to paa a law changing the speed limit or to goto war with Australia or something. It can ask them and negotiate with them for their alliance but both countries would be acting independent of each other. When a state loses it's sovereignty, it loses it's right to self rule. If the US lost it's sovereignty to say Russia, it means Russia could impose laws that are direct violations of our constitution and all legal frame works supporting it and we would be expected to follow it. Currently, the US cannot surrender it's sovereignty so we cannot be bound to any other nation further then the voluntary compliance with such rules or obligations. This goes true for most of the sovereign nations out there. Canada for instance, until 1931 with the passing of the Statute of Westminster and some claim it wasn't until the 1980's when it ratified it's own constitution. That meant that until then, England could order laws to be made and bind Canada to them. Currently, this can't happen unless Canada agrees to accept those laws willfully and because they have that freedom, t

Re:You have illustrated the fundamental point

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Don't mistake the right to act because of sovereignty as justification of the act.

What right? The "right" to hold guns to other people's heads? It is ONE world, one human race. No "right" exists that deprives another.

As I said, all claims of illegality rely on some hidden idea that we have no sovereignty. Legal and illegal has nothing to do with your like or dislike of an act. Don't confuse the two and don't conflate what you want with how it is.

Really? And then by what "hidden idea" do you suppose it is by which the laws of this country may be imposed on anyone who doesn't agree with them? This argument is fatally flawed on the face of it. Law is a tool of necessity. We collectively, the people, all of the people, have exactly the right to have what laws we need, local, national, or international. And we all, as individuals or as nations have the obligation to live peacefully with each other and abide by those just laws. No one group, regardless if it calls itself a "sovereign nation" or anything else is above that law.

Life would be a lot worse off if we didn't have our sovereignty and while you probably won't spend enough time in it to see what the possibilities are, you should know that they won't come to pass as long as we remain a sovereign nation.

My opinion is that where you are going wrong is in somehow believing that there is some kind of "us" and some kind of "them". Nobody is suggesting that people should be stopped from doing what they want to do, except and unless it interferes with everyone else's equal rights. When have I ever suggested that the people of the United States should be submitted in their place on the Earth to someone else's law? There are times and places where WE need to abide by the greater law of the whole, that doesn't give the rest of the world any right to interfere where it isn't justified, and the same rule applies to us.

Read the words that the founders of this nation wrote down. REALLY read them, understand that they are not the words of one people for itself. They are words for all people in all places at all times. If we really actually believe them, if we live them, then what are we doing condemning the people of other countries for wanting to be free to live the way THEY want to live as well. Just because it is different from the way you want to live and the way you THINK they should live does not give us the right to interfere with them.

Finally, look at what it has cost us all to live by this philosophy that our narrow interest is above that of others, that we can ever justify armed force. Surely even if you are not convinced that ultimately peace demands the giving up of all weapons, you can still see what this kind of thinking has done to the world. The treasure we have WASTED in a vain pursuit of security and our own interests has damaged the very Earth, impoverished 2 thirds of humanity and threatens every day to destroy us all with nuclear annihilation. Is that security? Is it peace? Is it SANE? Because in the end, all philosophy aside, if it isn't working then it is indeed INSANE to keep doing it.

Re:You have illustrated the fundamental point

[sumdumass]

What right? The "right" to hold guns to other people's heads? It is ONE world, one human race. No "right" exists that deprives another.

You are a complete idiot. The right is the right of sovereignty, the right to act independent of any other countries authority. That right can be used for good or bad but it in and of itself is neither. Like I said before, go figure out what the fuck Sovereignty means.

Really? And then by what "hidden idea" do you suppose it is by which the laws of this country may be imposed on anyone who doesn't agree with them? This argument is fatally flawed on the face of it. Law is a tool of necessity. We collectively, the people, all of the people, have exactly the right to have what laws we need, local, national, or international. And we all, as individuals or as nations have the obligation to live peacefully with each other and abide by those just laws. No one group, regardless if it calls itself a "sovereign nation" or anything else is above that law.

Again, your showing your ignorance. Obviously We as a people have not agree to anything your pissed about otherwise it simply wouldn't have happened in the first place and you wouldn't be getting your panties in a knot right now struggling to understand the concept of sovereignty. The "we as a people" end at the borders of the countries. The we as a people past that is only enforceable under voluntary situations unless those people are willing to use force to stop the transgression. That is the problem with people like you, your so wrapped into the "Oh no, not violence" that you don't understand that violence or the threat of it is the only way to enforce something onto someone who doesn't share your views.

My opinion is that where you are going wrong is in somehow believing that there is some kind of "us" and some kind of "them". Nobody is suggesting that people should be stopped from doing what they want to do, except and unless it interferes with everyone else's equal rights. When have I ever suggested that the people of the United States should be submitted in their place on the Earth to someone else's law? There are times and places where WE need to abide by the greater law of the whole, that doesn't give the rest of the world any right to interfere where it isn't justified, and the same rule applies to us.

Your opinion is as worthless as your understanding of sovereignty. There is an "us" and "them". The "us" is this cournty, the "them" is the other countries and anyone who doesn't have a direct role in the governance of this country. Europe cannot vote or whatever and unilaterally impose restrictions on the US outside of anything they directly control. The US can't either. The only way that can happen is if one nation or political boundary losses their sovereignty. Now every sovereign nation has a right and duty to act in it's own interest or they will suffer the loss of their sovereignty and resign to being the colony of another nation. This isn't rocket science here. An act forcing their power over another has to happen to subject them to their will. This act can be peaceful or violent, it all depends on the people inside the political boundary.

Read the words that the founders of this nation wrote down. REALLY read them, understand that they are not the words of one people for itself. They are words for all people in all places at all times. If we really actually believe them, if we live them, then what are we doing condemning the people of other countries for wanting to be free to live the way THEY want to live as well. Just because it is different from the way you want to live and the way you THINK they should live does not give us the right to interfere with them.

I have read them and I most likely understand them far more then you ever will. The founding fathers fought to gain their sovereignty at the cost of

Re:You have illustrated the fundamental point

[Giant Electronic Bra]

That is the problem with people like you, your so wrapped into the "Oh no, not violence" that you don't understand that violence or the threat of it is the only way to enforce something onto someone who doesn't share your views.

Exactly. My point is so made there are simply no more words to be said. Maybe you should actually visit some of these other countries some time. Put yourself in other people's shoes for once in your life, it will really be an eye opening experience. How would you feel if someone said to you "well, I'm going to MAKE you do what I want with this gun?" Hmmmm? Think man, just once, think!

Re:You have illustrated the fundamental point

[sumdumass]

Your point wasn't made but you think it was only after I went to your argument 4 posts into the reply. You really need to get a grip and pull your head out of your ass.

Other countries and other people in other countries have nothing to do with a right of sovereignty for this country. It has everything to do with their own sovereignty and they should act accordingly. You have never understood the argument being made, you never attempted to, and for the most part, I still doubt you have the smallest fucking clue about what sovereignty is. Like I said, To date, all claims of illegality rely on some hidden idea that we have no sovereignty. If you would figure out what the hell sovereignty means, you would understand the argument and statement. Until then, you will just be a retarded asshole who loses arguments with sumdumass. Is it wrong of me to expect you to think before you speak? Or for you to actually know a little about what you intend to discuss?

tag these "messiah" please

[r00t]

It's perfect.

Prior to him getting into office, Slashdot was full of Obama worshippers. They really thought he was going to be a president for nerds. Suckers!

BTW, since this post surely hits too close to home for many, please keep an eye on the moderation.

Re:tag these "messiah" please

[swb]

I'd really like to talk to a sincere (non-bandwagon) Obama supporter and ask if this is really what they wanted and how it represents change.

I'd be thrilled to hear just one admit that the hype was hype and that reality won't be anything like it.

Re:tag these "messiah" please

[Valdrax]

Hey, I'm a big Obama fan, but I never once believed he'd be an improvement on copyright. There are no friends in Congress on that issue. On the one hand, you have Democrats with strong ties to Hollywood. On the other hand, you have Republicans who are just pro-big business in general, and IP is one of America's biggest export industries. No one gives a crap about the average citizen on this issue.

Re:tag these "messiah" please

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I knew it was a toss up between torture or music. The torture issue is life threatening for me from quite a few angles - I'm in the military. Ethically, it's been bugging me like you wouldn't believe - not that I've personally done anything wrong, but because I can clearly see that our side is doing something wrong. So I elected to vote for Obama. I also signed the petition for appointing a special prosecutor. On the music issue, I've been basically boycotting the music industry for quite awhile now, so I can just keep it up.

Re:tag these "messiah" please

[Atario]

please keep an eye on the moderation

I'm looking, but I'm not seeing any "-1, Straw Man" mods.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[mcgrew]

I don't think the artist's lifespan should have anything to do with it. All music, movies, books, etc that were created when I was young and Hendrix was alive should be in the public domain by now whether their artists are dead or not.

Patents only last 20 years, why should copyright be any different? I think 20 years is a perfectly reasonable time frame. With a few exceptions (Asimov's Foundation being the most notable I can think of), if you haven't made a profit off it in 20 years you're not likely to in the future. Hasn't Blade Runner made its costs back by now.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[mcgrew]

Copyright should not be based on the author's life

I agree. Hendrix' work shouldn't be in the public domain because he's dead, it should be in the public domain because it's 40 years old, way too old IMO to still have copyright.

Imagine if engineers had to wait 100 years for a patent to expire, you would never have had a fuel injector in your car. Patents only last 20 years, why should copyrights last any longer?

Dead people have rights too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh yeah. I'm all outraged... or something. Heaven forbid we have a professional lawyer working for the Attorney General.

Bullshit

[Giant Electronic Bra]

Where is the assertion that this supposed authority devolved onto the Presidency is limited in any way shape or fashion?

Beyond that the assertion you make that "nobody wants to spy on me" flies totally in the face of every bit of evidence we have as to what is actually going on. Furthermore I would have to be a babbling idiot totally devoid of any knowledge of history not to know that every single time the government has acquired the means to spy on its citizens it has happily used that power to the maximum possible extent.

Fools like you are welcome to just toss their rights on the trash heap of history if they wish, but some of us are not so unwise. The end result of any such stupidity WILL be tyranny.

THE fundamental principle which preserves our rights collectively and individually is the principle that when the rights of one are trampled that all the others are obliged to stand and defend them. As soon as you fail to do that you have destroyed any guarantees of any kind you have that your own rights will continue to be respected as well.

We instituted a government of laws and set up a structure of such laws in order to stop exactly this kind of thing. Mark my words, to let this stand as it is is the beginning of the end of our Republic. Defend it or loose it.

RIAA's Lawyers != RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not confuse who exactly is evil here. The RIAA is. The RIAA people who started and didn't stop the litigation campaign. The lawyers were just paid cogs in the RIAA yourmoney machine. Lawyers argue for whomever pays their fees. I'm sure these highly skilled, if morally fickle barristers are willing to bend all their talents to championing their new bosses' causes! :)

"acknowledged" means money against me?

[r00t]

I don't want to pay for abortions. Why should I?

That's way more than groups being "acknowledged". That's real financial support for something that many people believe to be the murder of an innocent human being.

(and yes it is happening: when you give money into the general fund of a group that funds and promotes abortion, you're paying for abortion)

Re:"acknowledged" means money against me?

[The Spoonman]

I don't want to pay for religious institutions because they promote continuing ignorance and superstition which is drawing the world into ever escalating conflicts that result in the murder of millions, so why should I? Because I grok that compromise is needed. Since religion doesn't allow compromise, I can see how that could be a problem for you. You would then be able to understand that your statement inflicts your particular religious views on those who don't believe in them. Perhaps if your religion would stop fighting so hard against teaching kids good contraceptive methods, there wouldn't be as much of a need for non-medically necessary abortions.

But, regardless of all of that, the US is a secular nation, not a religious one and so religious opinions don't have play in setting policy or allocating funding. If you'd prefer to live in a country like that, there's plenty of them in the Middle East..

Re:"acknowledged" means money against me?

[Omestes]

I'm paying for myriad "faith based" programs, and vouchers for religious schools. I don't want to either. I'm also paying for a bunch of silly wars that I find... well... silly. Right now I'm paying for a bunch of corrupt corporations who I'd rather see die than get a single cent from me as well.

Thats government for you. It isn't about you, your religion, your political ideologies. YOU have nothing to do with it, never have, never will. Government is about the society, not the individual. Its about the BIG picture. We, as individuals are not a part of that picture, unless we're very rich, or are buying politicians hookers.

This is how it SHOULD be. Since I'm guessing we disagree on about 90% of policy decisions, so if government was for you, it would be working against me. The same goes for the opposite, a government for me would be oppressing you.

Just because we believe in our political ideologies, does not mean they are right, or should be forced upon everyone. Good government comes to its policies after we have fought and argued a bit.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[sbeckstead]

Article 2 section 8 of What? The only article 2 section 8 I could find was about the executive branch of the government.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if I agree with this. The point of copyright is to protect the content creator's ability to earn income on their own work. If the creator dies, there should really be no reason to keep copyright on their work, since they no longer can receive the income. Copyright should also not be transferable, since the point is to protect the artist (as opposed to the distribution company, marketing company, estate, etc..)

Rubes

[Anonymous Coward]

You all got taken for a ride. Anyone want to invest in my Ponzi scheme?

Excited to see them added to the DOJ

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see them get in. I hope the ties they have to the RIAA, et al, bring all sorts of calamity to the citizens so they'll wake up. Maybe then next time the voters will ask the right questions about "CHANGE" and "HOPE." I hope everyone who voted for him gets ALL they asked for and more. Surely all the good he does will outweigh all the bad.

arms make people polite

[r00t]

At a shooting range or gun-related event, people are really nice to each other. They don't get in fights.

At the international level, notice how there has never been war between a pair of countries with nuclear weapons.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[mcgrew]

My mistake, it's article 1, not 2.

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Posted here

And Your Point Is?

[BigAssRat]

Damn. I am glad I do not live in your country. And apparently you are glad you do not live in mine. If you think that Obama is NOT left wing enough, then I am glad you don't live in mine either.

Re:And Your Point Is?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that Obama is NOT left wing enough, then I am glad you don't live in mine either.

It's not a question of "enough". It's a question of knowing what left and right *are*.

Obama is a moderate right winger with a few leftish issues. He's not a left winger, nor is any major party politician in the US.

The fact that you don't understand that just shows that you are a deeply ignorant person, not that the OP wants Obama to be a rabid left-winger as you've been programmed to respond by the rabid right wing media in this country.

Re:And Your Point Is?

[Daswolfen]

Hey Coward.

Maybe YOU should learn what conservative and liberal REALLY mean. Now conservative or right wing have different meanings in different countries, but since we ARE talking about US politics, then we will use the current definition of a politically conservative. CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

Left (Liberal) Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

If you look at Obama's voting record (when he didn't vote present) then it is decidedly left. In fact, his record was farther left than Bernie Sanders, the only self-described socialist (although Pelosi and Reid are leaning that way).

Your claim that I don't 'understand' is ludicrous at best. We are discussing US politics,not global. Obama has surrounded himself with radical left wing people all his life. He is a student of Saul Alinsky. In his own book he states he deliberately sought out Marxist teachers in college.

I KNOW what far left is. It is communism. It is Marxism. It is Maoist. Its leaders are people like Chavez, Hu, and Castro. Its heroes are Stalin, Guerra and Marx. And you can add Obama to that list. He is leaning that way.

Re:And Your Point Is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe YOU should learn what conservative and liberal REALLY mean.

I know perfectly well what they mean.

Now conservative or right wing have different meanings in different countries, but since we ARE talking about US politics, then we will use the current definition of a politically conservative. CONSERVATIVES tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

You are so far out of touch with reality that it's stunning.

The right wing does not at all in any way favor economic freedom or free markets. That would be *Liberal*, or the center. You know, what you can be right or left *of*. They oppose reasonable government restriction on business yet support severe controls on the population in favor of big business. That's what right wing *is*, Sparky. Your failure to grasp the primary defining characteristic of the right is staggering. Fascism, Corporatism, Feudalism and other similar *necessarily* big government philosophies are the canonical examples of the Right. This is in fundamental conflict with Classical Liberalism which is the philosophy which promotes freedom, both economic and social. Which is the center. The Left is yet another different thing.

Now, "conservative" is a pretty much meaningless term. Once upon a time, it meant one who supported the Aristocracy, the King and the Church/State combination to be used against the people and their freedom.
Current usage in America means and extremist religious radical who attempts to redefine "traditional values" to push their radical approach to Christianity on a nation that was founded on the principle that that is inherently in conflict with the concept of liberty. Keep in mind, America is Liberal to the core. It was designed explicitly to be the crowning jewel of Liberalism.

As the Left began to coopt the term Liberal, and the right began to demonize it, "conservative" came to mean "Liberal", but that was long ago. Now it means "extremist religious radical". It's too bad if you don't like that, but it's nonetheless a fact.

So you have failed to differentiate between "conservative" and "right wing" as well as trying to redefine several Liberal or *Center* concepts as being "Right".

You clearly do not have even the foggiest idea of what these terms actually mean, nor do you have a clue where they came from or how they have changed in meaning since then.

Left (Liberal) Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy.

"Left" and 'Liberal" are two completely different things. In America, they're often used interchangeably, but since there is no other term which means what "Liberal" does, it's important to keep in mind the vast difference between these 2 concepts

If you look at Obama's voting record (when he didn't vote present) then it is decidedly left. In fact, his record was farther left than Bernie Sanders, the only self-described socialist (although Pelosi and Reid are leaning that way).

No, his record is center right.
When you try to make everything relative and ignore that America has been swung hard right then you can make meaningless ignorant statements like that, but "Left" has a meaning which isn't dependent upon how far out of touch with our traditional values the rest of the country has become.

Your claim that I don't 'understand' is ludicrous at best.

No, it is a quite obvious and extremely well supported statement of fact. You think that "Left" equals "Liberal". You think "Right" equals "Conservative". These are not just wrong, they demonstrate an amazingly deep level of ignorance of ba

not your fundie

[r00t]

Pardon me, but I have a secular dislike of killing innocent human beings.

I'm not sure if that changes anything though. Why should my taxes pay to kill the innocent?

It's one thing to allow this killing. Actually paying for it is simply outrageous.

Re:not your fundie

[The Spoonman]

Pardon me, but I have a secular dislike of killing innocent human beings.

Then, did you vote for the people who wanted to continue the war in Iraq or against? Since they're usually pro-"life", I'm assuming you must've.

I'm not sure if that changes anything though. Why should my taxes pay to kill the innocent?

That's your opinion. It's not even the one of the catholic church, which believes that the soul doesn't enter the fetus until the quickening. Or at least it did..then it didn't, then it did, then it didn't...And, seeing as that religion is based on another religion that doesn't have a particular vehemence against abortion, if your opinion's based on religion how do you determine which variation of the "truth" to base your belief on? And, I don't believe they're an innocent. It's a lump of cells until the brain kicks in. I'm not going to keep funds from people who need it for medical treatment.

It's one thing to allow this killing. Actually paying for it is simply outrageous.

The organizations do other things, too. Console your conscience with knowing that you're funding things like contraceptives and education that will prevent abortions from being necessary in the first place.

Re:not your fundie

[khellendros1984]

if your opinion's based on religion how do you determine which variation of the "truth" to base your belief on?

Because religion doesn't have to come from an institution. Why the hell do I need an organization to tell me what I believe?
I'm strongly in favor of teaching children (around the beginning of middle school) sex ed classes about the biology, then contraception a couple years later (9th grade or so, I guess). I absolutely recognize the problem of young people not recognizing their options concerning reproduction.

Re:not your fundie

[Dekortage]

You don't. The government didn't pay for abortions before, and it doesn't now, no matter how the media chooses to represent things.

Re:not your fundie

[r00t]

Then, did you vote for the people who wanted to continue the war in Iraq or against? Since they're usually pro-"life", I'm assuming you must've.

I see where you're going. There is a difference of scale (many more killed by abortion), timeframe (ongoing for decades or a matter of a few years), and innocence (mostly not vs. 100%).

if your opinion's based on religion

Again, "not your fundie". I dislike religion greatly.

And, I don't believe they're an innocent. It's a lump of cells until the brain kicks in.

OK. I can agree with it being a lump of cells until the brain kicks in. The brain kicks in at 8 weeks. Abortion in the US is legal at infinite weeks, though practically limited to about 42 weeks because one can't keep a baby inside forever.

In the US, 41% of abortions are after 8 weeks. This is after "the brain kicks in". I hope you will agree that these are innocent humans getting killed.

I'm not going to keep funds from people who need it for medical treatment.

This is almost never the case with abortion. Abortion is nearly always done with a perfectly normal pregnancy. The reasons for this violence against innocents are purely selfish. (boyfriend left, didn't want to stop going to parties, didn't want the body changes, etc.)

Re:not your fundie

[nog_lorp]

This is almost never the case with abortion.

That is too bad, but irrelevant. Federal funds are spent for "coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment" only. All other cases are irrelevant to the argument. What you are talking about is explicitly "Keeping funds from people who need it for medical treatment, or because they were victims of abuse", which is deplorable.

Shorter copyright unlikely (unfortunately)

[sjbe]

Copyright should be based on a fixed duration, such as 25 years, perhaps with a registration or notice requirement for it to take effect, and perhaps with a low-cost renewal option (for perhaps another 25 years).

I agree with your argument from the standpoint of what *should* happen. I'm rather pessimistic though on whether it will happen. The US has, for better or worse, based a lot of the economy on intangible goods. This means that those who produce those intangible goods and make a lot of money from them (media, software, etc) are in a powerful position to influence the laws in ways favorable to them and arguably detrimental to society overall. Call it the cynics version of the golden rule ("he who has the gold makes the rules").

The only ways I can see to break this problem is with a well funded and well executed PR/lobbying campaign that embarrasses our lawmakers into action or some sort of ruling from the Supreme Court that these excessive copyrights terms have become unconstitutional. In the former case most of the parties with the money and an interest in copyright that are those who are FOR longer and more stringent copyright "protections". As far as the Supreme Court goes, they've ruled several times that determining copyright length is the responsibility of Congress. While that doesn't mean they won't change their mind in the future, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will be much help anytime soon.

Even public interest groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation aren't working on shortening copyright as far as I can tell. They're too busy fighting off even more egregious legislation like the DMCA and dealing with DRM issues if indeed they are interested in shorter copyright at all.

Re:Shorter copyright unlikely (unfortunately)

[plasmacutter]

I agree with your argument from the standpoint of what *should* happen. I'm rather pessimistic though on whether it will happen. The US has, for better or worse, based a lot of the economy on intangible goods

This disastrous decision to turn the US into a dot-com company (made in the dot-com era) has already been put into effect.

As doctorow has pointed out, this policy was intended to make up the balance of trade, which means domestic law means nothing, and our quaint and victorian laws are given the attention of an occasional scoff by the world's fastest growing markets.

The disaster has already happened, it's time to stop inflcting pain and move along. It's time to repeal anti-circumvention law and roll back the duration of copyright protection.

Wrong archivements mentioned

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't Mr. V that tried to "lie" to the judge about the 8th circuit binding precedent he could not find.
It was a RIAA-vulture name Richard "RIAA-RICH" Lance Gabriel that is now a judge too that only won by misstating the law to the judge and being able to con him to accept his misrepresentations
.
Mr. V. was only called in as emergency rescue after the presiding judge in Thomas realised that he was conned by RIAA and declared a mistrial.
Verilli was there to argue against the judges decision.

A tsk that Mr. V by the way was unable to archive. The new trial is sheduled for March this year

So this guy definetly did not sued anything out of Jammie!

He is just another loser that had his friends in politics give him a job so he is out of the fying pan when the judges that were conned by RIAA-vultures in the last ~5 years start to hit them with sanctions for their criminal(?) wrongdoings in those ~40000 cases!

--
A_F

No, Jesus is my Messiah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright law isn't our only concern. And I frankly never saw any of these "worshipers" though I heard a lot of people call Obama supporters that.

Yes, I'm disappointed by this move. But I would be a lot more disappointed if McCain & Palin were in office, giving everything away to the oil companies, fighting for the "free" market for the monopolies and oligopolies which screwed us into this recession, "protecting" us from having universal health insurance, and continuing so many of the screwed-up Bush policies like keeping Guantanamo Bay open.

I never saw an actual Obama supporter who thought that Obama would be perfect. In fact, I knew that I would dislike several things he was going to do. I just felt that he had more common sense than most and would do more good than harm. No one else, and that very definitely includes Ron Paul, would even come close.

So no, I don't like this act. I never expected to like this very much. And I honestly don't think McCain would have done any better. Did you ever see him argue for copyright reform? I saw him (and Hillary) argue for increased enforcement. Who was the better candidate on this issue, exactly? Even many libertarians argue that IP is like real property ...

To those who voted Dem...

[sombragris]

I know, I know, Reps are all for greedy corporations, but Dems are all for government intrusion in your life.

This was predictable. To all you who voted Dem, this serves you right.

Payback time

[m509272]

Gee what a surprise. Huge support from the entertainment industry to get Obama into office. Did everyone think there wasn't going to be a cost to this? What a refreshing CHANGE.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[sbeckstead]

Ok, so I see that the government reserves the responsibility of securing my copyrights but I see no where in this document that you have a right to seize my works and pervert them for your purposes.

Inherently I understand what you want but it is at odds with my desire and according to the Constitution inalienable right to secure my good works and the profits from them for me and my posterity. The pursuit of happiness being inherent in the desire for security both financial and physical.

So there are laws and perhaps they are a bit excessive, however you can, and many people do derive works from other peoples art and industry by simply securing a license, the value of which is determined by the public at large's desire for that work.

However I support and always will support an artist's right to a prohibition on a work derived for a hateful purpose or a political purpose which the artist does not support.

Children v. Republican Cranks

[Valdrax]

Two questions:

1) What exactly is objectionable within the UNCRC? All it says is basically that children are people, not property; children have a right to be with family, to see both parents if they're divorced, to free speech, to privacy, and to be free of abuse. If this is all horrible in your mind, then your notion of parents' rights aren't very far from those of slaveholders.

2) So, why 7 state legislatures have introduced declarations of sovereignity? It seems to be a fringe Republican movement.

I found it odd that more than half of the states involved were blue states. So, I went to look at each bill and found the party affiliation of all the sponsors:

OK: Single Republican sponsor. Asserts 10th Amendment in general. Cites New York v. United States. Omits mention of South Dakota v. Dole. Key introduces it every year as a publicity stunt, apparently.
MI: Single Republican sponsor. Direct rip-off of Key's bill from OK.
AZ: Sponsored by 27 Republicans and 5 Democrats. Direct rip-off of Key's bill from OK.
MO: Sponsored by 2 Republicans. Bill rejects federal abortion law, asserting the 10th Amendment.
MT: Single Republican sponsor. Bill talks about exempting Montana from the commerce clause on guns. (*snicker*)
NH: Sponsored by 4 Republicans. Bill text talks about "Jeffersonian principles" and states rights.
WA: Sponsored by 7 Republicans. Bill text unavailable.

None of them have been passed, most have failed to pick up any respectable number of sponsors, and the Arizona one is the only that has any prospects of passing. Even if it does pass, it (1) is nothing but a gesture of protests with no actual legislative effect -- note that it doesn't actually refuse conditioned federal funds -- and (2) is nothing but smoke in the wind. It's not like every other state that asserted a 10th Amendment claim wasn't declaring their sovereignty too, and you see how well that went for most states.

No, you want an explanation? It's obviously a crank conservative movement to assert states rights as soon as they're no longer in power in the federal government. You didn't see a lot of conservatives howling about the Bush administration trying to go after medical marijuana and legalized euthanasia when west coast states tried 10th Amendment claims, did you?

"States rights" is pretty much the cry of the party who's losing in Washington. Very few people actually believe in it as a theory to be applied universally, and frankly they're not making the law.

Re:Children v. Republican Cranks

[Wonko the Sane]

1) What exactly is objectionable within the UNCRC?

The stated objectives are very good and noble ideas. The objectional part is the extent that this treaty could be abused by the government. It gives unelected social workers unchecked authority to second-guess any parental decision. The best measure of a law is not how much good it could do if properly implemented, but how much harm it could cause if abused.

"States rights" is pretty much the cry of the party who's losing in Washington. Very few people actually believe in it as a theory to be applied universally, and frankly they're not making the law.

Pretty much every libertarian since Thomas Jefferson has argued for this to be applied universally. If they were making the laws, then we wouldn't be in this mess we're in right now.

Re:Children v. Republican Cranks

[Hordeking]

No, you want an explanation? It's obviously a crank conservative movement to assert states rights as soon as they're no longer in power in the federal government. You didn't see a lot of conservatives howling about the Bush administration trying to go after medical marijuana and legalized euthanasia when west coast states tried 10th Amendment claims, did you?

I thought the Bush administration was wrong in this, and I'm really conservative in general. Don't paint such broad strokes.

"States rights" is pretty much the cry of the party who's losing in Washington. Very few people actually believe in it as a theory to be applied universally, and frankly they're not making the law.

I screamed "States rights" every time I heard about some frivolous law being passed by the Republicans when they were in power. If you really look at it, Republicans and Democrats (as far as parties go), are largely ideologically the same. And when there's only one candidate (symbolically), there's only one choice. It doesn't matter which party is winning or losing, since the winning one is going to trample states' rights anyway.

The states have rights because the United States is a state composed of smaller states. You should never say "The United States is". This is not a singular. Properly it's "The United States are". There's a very good reason for that. Look it up.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no right to stop somebody from doing what they want either. That includes taking something that you have provided them (either directly or indirectly) and doing whatever they choose to do with it. If you don't want me to repeat what you said, don't say it. Once you say it, I can repeat it or change it or write it down or sell it off to others or burn it. That's is the bit *you* don't seem to get. Copyrights was the middle ground chosen by the founders and corrupted by Disney.

Slashdot honeymoon with Obama over?

[blind biker]

Reading the posts here, I have the impression that either
a) the Slashdot infatuation with Obama has suddenly ended (a few still grasp to straws, but quite desperately)
b) or it never really existed, but the silent majority was somehow intimidated into keeping a low profile.

Either way, it doesn't matter. Seems that a bit of sanity has returned. For an example of insanity on this issue: a week after Obama was elected president, I have noticed an old friend of mine on Gmail Chat. We went into a e-mail hiatus about 2 years ago, but I was glad to see her name in the chat list, so I contacted her. I wanted to know what's new, how is her family, what's going on with her job, how's her health and such - you know, the important things in life. Instead of answering that, she asked "What do you think of our new president?" I was shocked, because she was presenting Obama like her own achievement, like an ornament she personally should be proud of. I told her that I don't really know the man, but since the great majority of people in power are affected by narcissistic personality or at least slightly psychopatic. His masterful handling of the media and charismatic speeches makes me even more suspicious (I have never seen a charismatic person that wasn't also extremely destructive). So, if I really must have an opinion on a man I barely know, those would be the guidelines.

Her reaction was probably akin to a devout Muslim whom someone told that Muhammad was a paedophile. I realized that Obama has become a God-like figure to this friend. This worried me a bit, but when I realized that the phenomenon is more widespread (several of my US acquaintances showed symptoms of Obama-worship), I started to worry a great deal more.

Good to see Slashdot as a whole still maintains a clear head.

George Foreman will be in big trouble!

[bgalbrecht]

If the US ever ratifies this, George Foreman will be in big trouble:

The Convention acknowledges that every child has certain basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping and have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

I didn't say they would

[Giant Electronic Bra]

But neither will I glorify their actions nor pretend that what they did was right. It was wrong. There is no such thing as escaping the responsibility for your actions. When you lift your hand, when you act in the world it is YOUR will that carries out that act.

It is far past time when human beings stopped playing the game of passing responsibility for what they did onto anyone else.

Nor does the mere lack of prosecution make something legal.

I fail to see the relevance

[Giant Electronic Bra]

It is sort of like saying that Ghengis Khan once spared a city, so he must be a nice guy.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning people for being part of a society which bases itself on and glorifies violence above almost everything else. I AM criticizing that society, at its most basic and fundamental level, and it is harsh and deserved criticism. It is also a loving act because only by exposing the illness of society can it be cured.

As for nuclear weapons, I'd say they are illustrative of the extreme degree of the illness of our society. Such a weapon need not be used in war in order to be effective, in fact nuclear weapons are so vile that they do plenty of harm just by existing. Nor is the fact that they have not been used YET in the 63 years we have had them in our hands any great assurance that they will not be used in the future.

If the thrust of your argument is that peace is achieved by arming ourselves to the hilt I can only say that argument is weak indeed. Beyond weak, in my opinion it exposes the lack of any credible justification for maintaining stockpiles of weapons at all.

Change naturally creates fear, but change, the deepest possible change is exactly what is required if humanity will survive. Change or death, the choice is in all our hands. Choose.

Re:I fail to see the relevance

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda tired of your grandiose words.

Let's assume nobody arms themselves. Okay, maximal gain for all. Utopia. I love you.

Okay, now one guy or one small group arms himself. Wow, HUGE gain for him.

What's everyone else going to do? So that strategy of cooperation provides the best gain for everyone, but is easily exploited. It is not an evolutionarily stable strategy.

You know, the difference between the dreamers and the doers is that the dreamers plan for a dream world, while the doers plan for a real world. You're planning for a dream world. To be sure, I yearn for that world. I'm sure everyone has at one time or another. But I'm not holding my breath.

I'm not going to make you wake up. I'm not sure anybody can. But you're just going to be a smooth talker or cult leader at best.

The Good News Is...

[MacWiz]

At least, they won't be suing college kids anymore. If Obama keeps his word about lobbyists working in the fields they lobbied, none of these people should be allowed to participate in any cases involving the RIAA, copyright infringement or royalties.

RIAA lawyers nice guys?

[jwkckid1]

FWIW and in my own opinion only, from my close following of the RIAA and MPAA's legal history, thanks to Ray and others, I cannot see how anyone could find any RIAA lawyer, given their legal tactics and poor success in court, to be a Nice Guy/Nice guys. Frankly as other judges have already found, the RIAA's legal abilities, and most especially the RIAA's tactics to be far less then ethical, and certainly not friendly. However that said, the RIAA's clients want a junk yard dog type lawyer of legal team, but they also need to be very compitant, which it seems more than clear the RIAA's legal council, members are not. Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

Until the comet hits

[Jane Q. Public]

and there is no line power and (after a few years) no batteries left, and you can't do basic math in your head anymore.

That might sound like an exaggeration, but: when was the last time you asked a 12-year-old how to divide one number by another? If a comet really did hit, the 12-year-olds would rapidly mature and take the places of all those adults who died of stupidity. It behooves us to make sure then know how to calculate.

Re:Until the comet hits

[nog_lorp]

Civilization ends, cities lie in ruins. Famine decimates the populations. There are no power sources. Shit, I can't do maths!

But seriously, it is ridiculous to posit that using a calculator permanently prevents you from doing basic math. The fact is, anyone doing math does basic math in their head all the time, even when they have a calculator somewhere. I don't dig my calculator out of my backpack unless I have a mass of rote work to do or some strange function I want to explore. As lazy as I might be, any loss in speed could be recovered within a week or two of not using a calculator.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to complement your post with some reading material which can provide a lucid insight into the arguments that support the idea that (regardless of what your general opinion on copyright law is) the current implementation of copyright law is deeply flawed, having into account its original purpose (like you said, to secure a temporary monopoly of distribution of a work in order to promote the useful arts and sciences): http://free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf

Don't worry, you can read it first, aknowledge the added value his work provides to society and pay the author afterwards if you feel he deseves it, like I did.

"Content creators" nowadays often assume that their works are created in a vacuum/ivory tower and that whatever they create is automagically unique and original and thus they have some sort of (god-given? gov-given?) unalienable eternal ownership rights over anything they may have thought up (or that vaguely resembles anything they may have thought up). That's one part of the problem.

The other part of the problem is the entertainment and scientific publishers which are increasingly becoming irrelevant in terms of usefulness (I can safely say that they are nowadays "hampering" in terms of usefulness), which are, of course, violently struggling for a "bail out".

I'm not American, but I'm kinda curious to see how Obama is going to deal with this (so far, the prospects aren't good). I can only wish you good luck.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. And just to clarify: I too am a "content creator", but I require payment before doing my job (basically, patronage system), instead of expecting everyone else who wants to have access or build upon my works to pay me money.

And, yes, I'm only payed for the work I currently do, like I should. I know it's a crazy concept: expect people to be constantly productive as opposed to giving one contribution and just reaping the rewards ad infinitum.

"Plundering the public domain for profit". Wow, that sounds like a sweet job description.

Re: don't want to pay for abortions

[Dekortage]

I work with several international nonprofits, and I know a lot of people who write grant proposals, as well as folks in USAID and various foundations who review proposals. The U.S. government does not simply dump money into the general fund of any organization. Instead, it defines a very narrow destination for that money: you will work on Issue X (e.g. HIV), in Region Y (e.g. Uttar Pradesh in India), for Time Period Z (e.g. September 2009 through August 2011), using Methodology A (e.g. abstinence education). Furthermore, you will report on your efforts with weekly summary reports and quarterly detailed analysis, and we will drop by whenever we feel like it to inspect. A lot of folks in the nonprofit world complain about all the strings and boundaries placed on the money and the work, but hey, it is the government's money, and they have every right to ask this. But none of this is going into anybody's "general fund."

Now, you're probably referring to the Global Gag Rule that was recently overturned. To quote an earlier post:

U.S. funds did not pay for abortions overseas before the GGR, and they won't now. Check the 1973 Helms Amendment and subsequent clarifications by the government. The Global Gag Rule took it a step further, and said that if a health clinic accepted U.S. funding for any reason (obviously not abortions because that was prohibited), then it couldn't use any of its OTHER funding sources for abortions -- even if that funding was from its own government, or its own fundraising, and even if abortion was legal in its country. In fact, if it accepted U.S. funds but did not offer abortions in any way, its funding would be cut if staff merely told women of other clinics where abortions were available.

Furthermore, shutting down clinics due to the GGR has been enormously stupid: the rates of safe abortions have dropped, but they are offset dramatically by the rise in unsafe witch-doctor-style abortions. And since these clinics are generally one-stop health centers that provide a huge variety of services, cutting off all their US aid means cutting back on things we can all support, like malaria medicine for kids or prenatal checkups for pregnant women or HIV counseling for infected couples.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[Anonymous Coward]

..Disney, who themselves created Mickey Mouse as a derivative work and have been since plundering the public domain for profit (Cinderella et al.).

There, fixed it for you.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[mcgrew]

I see no where in this document that you have a right to seize my works and pervert them for your purposes.

They are not yours!!! There is no such thing as intellectual property. Period. There is a limited time monopoly on distribution, nothing more. Once your ideas leave your head, you have set them free, as if you uncaged a bird.

Inherently I understand what you want but it is at odds with my desire

Your desire is immaterial. Do you desire a pony as well?

and according to the Constitution inalienable right to secure my good works and the profits from them for me and my posterity.

The Constitution does NOT give you rights to your posterity. Read the damned document some time; it is written to about an 8th grade level and is not hard to comprehend. Nowhere does it state what you claim it does.

The pursuit of happiness being inherent in the desire for security both financial and physical.

Then give me all your money. NOW. If money=happiness and it's my right, cough up.

However I support and always will support an artist's right to a prohibition on a work derived for a hateful purpose or a political purpose which the artist does not support.

Your support is irrelevent. If you don't want your painting, book, or song used by nazis then don't write them, simple as that. That is the reality of the Constitution. I linked a copy at Cornell University in an earlier comment, just read it.

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[sbeckstead]

Ok, I see the problem, pronoun trouble. You seem to think that if you can see it it is yours. Well all I can say to you at this point is. "Get off My Lawn!"

Re:Not a bad move IMHO

[sbeckstead]

If I can See It It is MINE. is a pretty juvenile attitude. Also not what a civilized nation should be producing. I would expect this attitude from a very primitive culture. You sir are not cultured.

RIAA + BSA = DNA ???

[freaker_TuC]

I think you'll have to check a gene or two, because we're not that far yet required offering our DNA samples to the RIAA or the BSA. ... but wait .. in time ;)

Presidents should have public background tests...

[freaker_TuC]

Linus for president!

I'd might think a president should be chosen for his capacity, to increase both economy and social welfare. As soon there is a possibility for an (hidden) agenda based on their profession, only a few of the trade will win but many will loose ...

I've got the feeling a lot of people are taking their problems at the leafs instead of the roots, while being satisfied with that.

Didn't de HFA offer non-exclusive contracts ?

[freaker_TuC]

I've been thinking lately to write about the situation in Belgium around this; since we are not allowed to create free music *and* think commercial in the same time!

You release CC+ music? Sorry, you're denied of any royalties of commercial productions you make!
You release commercial music? Sorry, you're denied of using other licenses to promote your productions!

It's one vicious circle which never ends .. And it's all exclusivity contracts supported by the government because the people do not know enough how these kind of shady deals get settled.