Slashdot Mirror


Obama Administration Promises "Thorough Review" of USTR Policies

After all of the uproar surrounding some of the Obama administration's recent decisions, trade officials have promised a thorough review of the USTR policies regarding transparency. In an effort to ensure that the review includes all possible angles, the USTR is urging groups to make other proposals as well. "KEI is very impressed with the USTR decision to undertake a review of USTR transparency efforts. They are taking this much further than simply reviewing policies on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or recent controversies over the secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations. The review offers the possibility of more transformative changes, including pro-active measures to enhance transparency, covering all aspects of USTR operations, including multilateral, plurilateral, regional, bilateral and unilateral trade policies and negotiations. We are also grateful that USTR is offering to have a continuing dialogue on this issues. KEI will offer additional suggestions on transparency to USTR, and we encourage others to do so also."

78 comments

  1. United States Trade Representative by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Informative

    From ustr.gov:

    The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is an agency of over 200 people, a highly committed group of professionals who have decades of specialized experience in trade issues and regions of the world. They negotiate directly with foreign governments to create trade agreements, resolve disputes and participate in global trade policy organizations. They also meet with governments, business groups, legislators and public interest groups to gather input on trade issues and explain the president's trade policy positions. The agency was founded in 1962 and has offices in Washington, Geneva and Brussels.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:United States Trade Representative by AlexBirch · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I kept thinking USSR.

    2. Re:United States Trade Representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it traditional for editors to use the full name once before using the uncommon acronym?

    3. Re:United States Trade Representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make the mistake of thinking that the editors here are competent.

    4. Re:United States Trade Representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The agency was founded in 1962 and has offices in Washington, Geneva and Brussels.

      In other words, it is another Cold War legacy that was originally created for spies, like the Peace Corps.

    5. Re:United States Trade Representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it traditional for editors to use the full name once before using the uncommon acronym?

      Not if that editor enjoys being pretentious and deluded with the notion that using obscure, unexplained acronyms makes one intelligent and the reader shamefully ignorant.

    6. Re:United States Trade Representative by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Isn't it traditional for editors to use the full name once before using the uncommon acronym?

      Not if that editor enjoys being pretentious and deluded with the notion that using obscure, unexplained acronyms makes one intelligent and the reader shamefully ignorant.

      I think you presume too much about our esteemed editors. I find it unlikely that ScuttleMonkey made a conscious choice to use obscure and unexplained acronyms to shame us - it's far more likely that he just wasn't paying attention, and didn't think about it.

      As you can see from my UID, I'm not new here.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    7. Re:United States Trade Representative by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      Not if that editor enjoys being pretentious and deluded with the notion that using obscure, unexplained acronyms makes one intelligent and the reader shamefully ignorant.

      Amusingly, they spelled out FOIA, which I bet almost every Slashdotter knows.

      So, they actually used the full name for a common acronym, but not for the obscure ones.

      For what it's worth, I knew USTR (I guess it isn't that obscure, but it's hardly common), but KEI had me stumped.

    8. Re:United States Trade Representative by Elektroschock · · Score: 1

      I know both.

      KEI = Knowledge Ecology International

  2. Initialisms by RockMFR · · Score: 4, Informative

    KEI: Knowledge Ecology International
    USTR: Office of the United States Trade Representative

    1. Re:Initialisms by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Initialism: a Wikipediaism for "acronym".

      Actually, to be precise, an initialism is an acronym which is pronounced by sounding out the letters. And I guess it must be common in some quarters, but I never heard it used until Wikipedia came along. Really not that useful a word. Wikipedians love their obscure terminology.

    2. Re:Initialisms by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      And acronym is an Americanism for abbreviation :)

      In most other languages, acronym is only used for initialisms that are pronounced as a word like laser or radar.

    3. Re:Initialisms by Ashriel · · Score: 1

      We do love our acronyms. Our military has its own special language comprised entirely of them.

    4. Re:Initialisms by skroops · · Score: 1

      And in most other languages acronym and abbreviation are not words.

    5. Re:Initialisms by ijakings · · Score: 1

      I don't know why you've never heard of it before, it's a perfectly cromulent word.

    6. Re:Initialisms by fm6 · · Score: 1

      The OED (a British dictionary, I believe) says otherwise.

      http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/display/50002101?keytype=ref&ijkey=BW.ifJFCYzhE6

      It also says it's an American coinage.

  3. Right, change my ass by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Blah blah. Fill in typical slashdot posting about how he's the same as the old boss, etc.

    What the fuck is with this site? Was there this much focus on every single fucking thing the Bush administration did? Or did the coverage then just focus on the really egregious shit?

    1. Re:Right, change my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall any other administration attempting these types of things and yet this one, while doing more than the rest, is getting lambasted for not being perfect at changing the whole game.

    2. Re:Right, change my ass by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, there really wasn't much difference between "every single fucking thing" and "really egregious shit".

      I'd say that this is worthy slashdot material. USTR probably spends a lot of time on only-vaguely-peripherally-related-to-slashdot steel and potatoes stuff; but they are also, as with ACTA, one of the likely candidates to be writing the (horribly dystopian) IP-related international agreements that are going to strongly affect a lot of topics of interest to slashdot.

    3. Re:Right, change my ass by spacefiddle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your name is quite ironic. Step back a sec and let's take a look at this:

      Your question on Bush - well, that might be somewhat subjective, but you can easily judge that for yourself by looking around /., yeah?

      I also see a really serious disconnect between the content of TFA and your doom-laden proclaimation of "typical posting ... he's the same old boss." Yes, the dept. blurb is provocative. But it's, you know, not always the most serious part of the posting.

      When "the other side," whomever you perceive them to be, close ranks; do not question the boss; blindly support; and generally don't watchdog their own: isn't that some of the crap we've all been screaming about for, um, ever? Yes, it's good to keep an eye on those who you feel are opposed to you. Y'know what, it's even more important to reality-check the ones who you put your hope in. And i think FOIA requests, frex, are well within the established interest zone of this site's denizens, innit? Or are you suggesting we just sit back and Trust Everything's Gonna Be Okay..? That's the path that leads to "America - love it or leave it!" T-shirts.

      I worry when anyone takes criticism of a public figure too personally. And i feel, thus far, your worry is unwarranted:

      Squirrely things have been noted in contrast to promises of transparency; pressure was applied; steps are being taken; watchdogs are being invited to participate.

      Isn't that how it's supposed to happen?

    4. Re:Right, change my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      ... are you suggesting we just sit back and Trust Everything's Gonna Be Okay..?

      Absolutely! You've got to let the Hope and Change(tm) have a chance to work so that the Magic Rainbow Unicorns(tm) will appear and usher in a new age of peace and prosperity for all. If you don't Trust you'll make Baby Obama cry. You don't want to make Baby Obama cry do you?

    5. Re:Right, change my ass by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Hey, I read your journal- you're certainly consistent.

      Journal by Reality Master 201 on 09:59 PM October 6th, 2006: I seldom bother checking the messages that I get on Slashdot, since they're usually nothing particularly interesting. For shits and giggles, though, I did just a couple minutes ago. Apparently, two people have made me their "foe," just today: morie (227571) and Somegeek (624100) don't seem to like me for some reason. So I went looking back through my comments, and I can't find (given an admittedly cursory and quick glance of about 4 seconds) anywhere that I've interacted with them. Maybe they read something I wrote and decided they don't like me. I took a look at the comments they've made, and they're the typical banal crap you find on Slashdot, nothing remarkable. Me, I decided I wanted to be friends, cause I'm just a nice person way deep down. Also, because making you my foe, particularly because you made me your foe, just seems so... high school. I'd say it's tough being the grown up in all this, but it's not.

      So glad you could grace us with your presence; Slashdot needs more grownups who are nice people way deep down.

    6. Re:Right, change my ass by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      No, seriously - suicide is too good for you.

      I'll take your word for it.

    7. Re:Right, change my ass by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Don't be coy - I'd love to have you prove me wrong.

    8. Re:Right, change my ass by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [quote]Blah blah. Fill in typical slashdot posting about how he's the same as the old boss, etc.

      What the fuck is with this site? Was there this much focus on every single fucking thing the Bush administration did? Or did the coverage then just focus on the really egregious shit?[/quote]

      I'm reposting something someone else wrote on this subject to answer you (with his permission):

      George W. Bush had something going for him his last term. Those who hated him had written him off. There was no need to pay attention to what he was doing because everything he was going to do was going to be steeped in failure. By the time this recent Presidential Election got started, he only had the hearts and minds of 1/5th of the country. And one has to assume that many of those are probably party loyalists who feel it is their sworn duty to support ANY Republican President. It seemed like somewhere along the way, a majority of Americans, though they loathed W's performance as a President, decided, "Meh, we'll just wait him out", and then tuned out in favor of Dancing with the Stars.

      So now we have this new guy coming in. And in some sense, he still is a relative unknown, when you compare him to the typical life-span in DC politics. It's clear that there are many who desperately want him to succeed. I suspect even some of the fifth who still like W, would love to see Obama succeed, thought they'd be loathe to admit it in public. There is a collective weight on our shoulders in the form of this failing economy. We desperately want someone to come along and lift it. We want someont to come along and succeed in lifting it.

      But the key will be remembering that this is our burden to share with him. The biggest role we have is to support his efforts. That is, to support them by paying attention. We cannot allow this "Hope for Change" to become insulation. We cannot put so much trust in Obama that we stop paying attention. Holding his feet to the fire when he walks astray will be our best contribution. And we know the fifth will do that anyway. The rest of us need to represent the rational and reasoned response.

      At least, that's how I see it. - Reverend What's-His-Name?

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    9. Re:Right, change my ass by HiThere · · Score: 0, Troll

      There was a great deal of criticism of Bush...but we never had any expectations that he'd pay any attention. With Obama there's hope that he'll notice. So some of the criticism is louder.

      Also some people don't like other people accepting that there might be some chance of change. Such people don't tend to be very nuanced in their thought processes, so their comments tend to be loud and abrasive.

      I'll admit to being a bit of a cynic myself, but at least Obama isn't conducting an outright war on the citizenry. There might be a chance of something happening. I don't expect the government to roll back any of it's previous incursions on our rights, but it might slow down the advance, or even roll things back in a few places where people are made really unhappy.

      OTOH, where Bush would have either stone-walled or fought aggressively, Obama says that he's conduct a review of policies. Now this review may take so long that it's just a sneakier form of denial...but it might not. So this is one place where we get a chance to find out what kind of change was made. Is he going to push ahead with the secret treaties, and only decide that the secrecy was unnecessary when it's too late to make reasoned comments on the treaties? We'll find out. And THEN it will be reasonable to condemn him for a traitor or praise him as an honorable man.

      Remember, there's a lot of inertia in politics, and a few people at the top can only push things so hard. I may think that it would be desirable to have the A.G. go searching for a few blatant cases of misfeasance or malfeasance among the high level bureaucrats...but I'm not certain that I'm right. (And it's even possible that I'm wrong about them being there to be found.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Right, change my ass by pandaman9000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you not realize that it was the current administration's own offices that put the bonus payouts IN the bill as it was passed? You didn't catch that the writers were told by the treasury dept that it needed to go in?

      Obama: It's easier to beg forgiveness and feign concern than to ask permission or right a wrong.

  4. We need a thorough review regarding transparency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of the write-up.

  5. Post Effective by retech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, like that thorough fucking review of the money you just gave out to AIG and BOA and all the rest?

    The review needs to come from the people. Time for a change is right... not time for the same old DC claptrap and underhanded back room deals.

    1. Re:Post Effective by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      The 'review' will take 'a few months'. Didn't Obama already spell out his policy on FOIA requests? USTR should now have the message and immediately unclassify the documents in question. This is just typical DC defer and delay tactics.

  6. All the uproar? by Stiletto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I haven't really heard much "uproar" over anything the Obama administration has done (have they actually done anything yet, really?) In fact he still seems to have a pretty high favorability rating. I admit, however, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, so my experiences might be somewhat biased towards reality.

    1. Re:All the uproar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to start getting your experiences "biased towards reality," you might want to:
      A) Read the summary.
      B) RTFA.

    2. Re:All the uproar? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Yes, POTUSBO is still very popular — probably more so than when he won the election. Doesn't mean there can't be uproar. Lots of his decisions are unpopular in certain quarters.

      Not all of it is from dittoheads. Christian conservatives are shocked to learn that "I'll listen to you" does not mean "You'll always be happy with my decisions." And all the folks who've been defending Gitmo, business-uber-alles policies, etc for 8 years aren't going to just shut up because they're out of power.

      And last but not least, there's the Republican politicians who have to find every excuse to argue that he's the Spawn of Satan simply because, well, that's their job.

    3. Re:All the uproar? by guydmann · · Score: 1

      I think the article refers to this story about not releasing details of a copyright treaty in the works.

    4. Re:All the uproar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you call the commotion surrounding the bailouts, if not an "uproar"? Or does Bush take credit for those unless they seem to work?

      Or are you so influenced by the liberal media that you didn't even realize there was an uproar over the bailouts?

    5. Re:All the uproar? by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 1

      Anyone who tells you that their global or national perspective is "biased towards reality" is overestimating their own ability.

      No one can be certain that their global or national perspectives are biased towards reality, because the information one builds those perspectives upon is delivered by people and factions with their own agendas and goals. The best anyone can do is weigh odds, based on a largely arbitrary scale.

      If you aren't omniscient and capable of parallel processing on a massive scale, you can't be "biased towards reality".

    6. Re:All the uproar? by castorvx · · Score: 1

      This is off-topic, but seriously, what the fuck is the liberal media and where can I find it?

    7. Re:All the uproar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your point is well taken! The vast majority of the media is actually conservative, and, according to polls, most American journalists identify as conservative, am I right? Right?

    8. Re:All the uproar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you call the commotion surrounding the bailouts, if not an "uproar"? Or does Bush take credit for those unless they seem to work?

      In other words, politics as usual.

    9. Re:All the uproar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't heard much "uproar" over anything the Obama administration has done either and I'm not even a liberal bitch.

    10. Re:All the uproar? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      It's probably about the Obama apointee Timothy Geithner, secretary of US treasury, who "forced" (if you will believe Dodd, another Obama appointee) to amend the law forbidding bailed-out companies to distribute bonuses to top executives. Now, nobody is accusing Obama of anything, directly - eccept Obama himself, when he says "The buck stops with me".

      But yeah, Geithner is part of the Obama administration. Now go ahead and shout "la la la I can't hear you". Fact is, this shit did happen, and people are livid.

      More details from Associated Press

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    11. Re:All the uproar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I admit, however, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, so my experiences might be somewhat biased towards reality.

      If you don't listen to him, then you only know what others want you to think and feel about him... Mainly "feel".

    12. Re:All the uproar? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, I find the republican leadership arguing that he isn't the second coming of Christ more then the spawn of Satan. I guess the opposite of one might be the other if your convinced enough.

    13. Re:All the uproar? by deets101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what the fuck is the liberal media and where can I find it?

      MSNBC or CBS News is the best place to start.
      Want an example, last night on the Rachael Maddow show, what were they going over... AIG, TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) making fun of mentally challenged kids, Tim "TurboTax" Geithner lying about "what he knew and when he knew it", Chris Dodd lying about adding the provision that let AIG give the bonuses.... NO, how deregulation from 8-10 years ago created this mess (read in "8 years of failed Bush policies")*. It is as if nothing else even happened.
      *Actually happened before Bush was elected, but they weren't going to let the facts get in the way of this one.

      I seem to also remember the Wasington Post coming out and saying that the media during the campiagn was far more favorable to Obama. Here is one example http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/COLUMNIST14/811010373/-1/COLUMNIST

      --

      --
      My parents went to Slashdot and all I got was this lousy sig.
    14. Re:All the uproar? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Anti SCoC: "The Obama administration has clearly dropped the ball by allowing AIG to pay bonuses. However we will support a bill to tax them back."

      Pro SoS: "The Obama administration's proposal to tax the AIG bonuses is just a cynical ploy to deflect attention from the question of when they learned about these bonuses."

    15. Re:All the uproar? by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      You were reading it right before you posted? Under that chair over there. Elvis is everywhere, and so is the liberal media!

    16. Re:All the uproar? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Pointing out flaws and direct negligence isn't an accusation of more then that. Pointing out that when confronted with those actions, he attempts to hide from them isn't either.

    17. Re:All the uproar? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Pointing out that when confronted with those actions, he attempts to hide from them isn't either.

      They're not "pointing out" anything. They're making allegations, devoid of evidence and deliberately vague.

  7. Mmm abbreviations... by Vertana · · Score: 1

    Quickly! If you squint, you can make a sailboat out of all those abbreviations. And is this review as thorough as recovery.gov is transparent?

    --
    "The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec^2" -Marcus Dolengo
  8. Make sure.. by Alyred · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...to define all those TLAs and FLAs PDQ, or anyone reading this article summary are SOL. LOL.

    1. Re:Make sure.. by drew · · Score: 1

      I believe the abbreviation ETLA is preferred over FLA.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  9. Fixed by istartedi · · Score: 0

    KEI is very impressed with the USTR decision to undertake a review of USTR transparency efforts. They are taking this much further than simply reviewing policies on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or recent controversies over the secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations. The review offers the possibility of more transformative changes, including pro-active measures to enhance transparency, covering all aspects of USTR operations, including multilateral, plurilateral, regional, bilateral and unilateral trade policies and negotiations. We are also grateful that USTR is offering to have a continuing dialogue on this issues. KEI will offer additional suggestions on transparency to USTR, and we encourage others to do so also."

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Fixed by Alyred · · Score: 1

      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"

      "For all intents and purposes..."

    2. Re:Fixed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His use of "intensive purposes" and misuse of "begs the question" are deliberate. He's trying to be witty.

  10. The ABBR tag! by coryking · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Use it dammit! If you are gonna insist on not spelling out TLA's for us, at least spell them out using the proper HTML!

    That said, it is only polite to spell out your damn acronyms. This audience knows WTF "WTF" stands for and I dont have to spell out HTML either, but KEI? Is that like "Key Enterprise Induction", "Keynan Earned Income", or "Krusty's Entertainment Industry"? Who knows!

    1. Re:The ABBR tag! by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Testing, <abbr>testing</abbr>. Nope doesn't work. Slash strips them out.

      I know that WTF stand for Whisky Tango Foxtrot, but I don't know what it means.

    2. Re:The ABBR tag! by AlexBirch · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clarifying that! I read:
      "Keep Eating It (KEI) is very impressed with the United States Transvestite Representative (USTR) decision to undertake a review of USTR transparency efforts."

    3. Re:The ABBR tag! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Great, that's all we need, a transvestite dressed us in drag with clear plastic clothing while we are trying to eat diner.

  11. Whisky Tango Foxtrot by coryking · · Score: 1

    Is itself an acronym. However, I'll take the example set by the Slashdot editors and not spell it out for you. After all, we here at Slashdot know everything already. If we needed to spell it out to you, you really should be working in a field more suitable for you--like picking lint out of driers at a laundromat.

    Now obviously you and I both know what Whiskey Tango Foxtrot stands for. Really I'm just belaboring the obvious while I kill time as the store boys order an extra-wide Top Hat. As you know, it is very hard to find fitted hats that actually fit our large diameter heads. Clearly there much money to be made selling extra-wide hats to highly intelligent individuals but if it would mean bending our principles and reducing ourselves to mere salesmen, forget it.

    1. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Of course I know what "Whisky Tango Foxtrot" means. Somebody even wrote a book about it.

      I'd flame you for not getting my joke, except I have to admit the joke was pretty lame.

    2. Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot by coryking · · Score: 1

      Obviously you know what Wisky Tango Foxtrot means or I wouldn't have brought it up.

      "Humor", by the way, is for unprincipled fools who need acronyms spelled out for them--acronyms like "Whisky Tango Foxtrot". Jokes, too, are for the uneducated, unenlightened hordes just outside the gates of Slashdot Central.

      Where am I going with this? Obviously, *obviously*, anybody with a clue knows already. Obviously, Slashdot editors should never spell out abbreviations of any kind at any time. We here are so smart we already know every acronym in any industry at any point in history. Only an idiot would not know what RKDOD means or even the simple SDOKC* stands for and Slashdot and the elite posters here do not take kindly to idiots.

      * The SDOKC crowd, by the way is dead wrong in their interpretations of DFLF. I always laugh at their foolish ways.

      In other words, my point is it is fucking snobby as hell to not fucking spell out abbreviations and acronyms your audience probably does not know. The editors of Slashdot need to get off their high horse. Excuse my french.

  12. How about if.. by moxley · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How about if Obama does a thorough review of all of his OWN policies, to see if they match up with all of the shit he promised he'd do when he was campaigning and the constitution...

    1. Re:How about if.. by wealthychef · · Score: 1
      How about if Obama does a thorough review of all of his OWN policies, to see if they match up with all of the shit he promised he'd do when he was campaigning and the constitution...

      .
      That's already being done.

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
    2. Re:How about if.. by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      Viewed with a cynical eye, factcheck uses careful spin on mentioning some facts, while no actually disclosing ALL facts for the reader to peruse. I specifically noted excerpts given from enactments during the Bush administration used to deride claims that the national health record system is not new in steering treatment.

      Firstly, the 2004 legislation does not provide teeth, as it is written. The current legislative excerpt is notably absent for comparison. The FACT is that the recommendations of a money-wielding government bureau have a lot of weight in influencing a doctor's choice in treatment, when that treatment will be on record. A record that will be statistically parsed, and available to insurance companies for identifying doctors that put saving lives above saving lives "cost effectively". While there is certainly abuse in the current system, by drug marketing, I don't feel that having a "guiding authority" is a good thing. The opinions of these people that supposedly "know what works" will be used as argument against treatment or payout from insurance companies. If we ever move to a socialized model, the treatment will simply be denied.

      Do a fact check on fact check, please.

    3. Re:How about if.. by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      No weight is applied to which promises are truly relevant. Coupled with an overall liberal slant.... again do your own fact check.

  13. How about this acronym? WTF by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 0

    KEI USTR FOIA ACTA... WTF

    Only stopped at this article long enough to post this... can't be bothered with indecipherable shite.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  14. OWN by coryking · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sorry, but you didn't spell out what O.W.N. means. Does that stand for "Obama's Winning Number" or "Omaha Women's Network"?

    You are as bad as the editors here. Please define your terms before using them.

    (dare I leave off anything suggesting this isn't snark?)

  15. Easy as hell by coryking · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pick something you support.

    If you are a liberal, label all arguments against your cause as biased crap from a conservative media. Make sure to point out their greed and lack of being right. Make sure to point out how from this day forward you will boycott them.

    If you are a conservative, label all arguments against your idea as biased crap from a liberal media. Be sure to point out their general illogic and lack of being right. Make sure to point out how from this day forward you will boycott them.

    If you are a Ron Paul supporter, you also must point out the media is actually scared of you. Point out that they are a monopoly and if ${GOVERNMENT} busted them up, Ron Paul would win*. Make sure to point out how from this day forward you will boycott them. Also, make sure to flood their phones, blackberries and other electronic devices with profanity laced letters. That will teach them.

    In other words, all media that is against ${YOUR CAUSE} is ${BIASED}.

    * and do this with out any hint of irony, what with asking for the government to intervene with a private entity...

    1. Re:Easy as hell by Ashriel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Media is biased in so many ways, not strictly on "liberal" (a term I use loosely) or "conservative" (another meaningless label). For instance, when is the last time you've seen a reporter say:

      "Listen you dumb shits, stop buying things you can't afford, get out of debt. No, you don't need that new flatscreen HDTV. Shop less, consume less, and save more."

      Of course you never hear that, even with the profanity edited out. Because sponsors would have a fit and the network would lose revenue. There's no way the producers would allow that. Just like you'll never hear:

      "We're headed for another Great Depression. Could be worse than the last one."

      For the same reasons.

      Well, ok, there's at least one guy saying these things on the air, but nobody likes him much; they tend to cut him short.

      You'll also never hear anything that's anti-government in a bi-partisan way: about how 85% (or more) of the legislation that gets passed these days is inherently unconstitutional; about the insane 4th amendment violations across the nation; about how the "War on Drugs" is causing more problems than it (supposedly) solves; about what we did to make terrorists hate us in the first place.

      And you'll certainly never hear anything about crazy IP laws going into effect or the RIAA cases (unless they win in court), because the media isn't about to serve up anti-media stories.

      All commercial media has a pro-establishment, status quo bias, because that's who's in charge. The majority of our politicians, Republican or Democrat (I prefer the term "Republocrat"), are pretty much the same - they're all right-wing fascists when you take into account the full political spectrum that's available. Any "liberal" or "conservative" bias you may attach to it is meaningless compared to the bias that actually exists.

    2. Re:Easy as hell by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You left out the primary media bias. The primary bias is: Is this entertaining enough?

      That overrules truth, honesty, and even occasionally the preference of sponsors.

      P.S.: About those things you say I'll never encounter: I've encountered most of them at least once. They're just very infrequent. Outright censorship is only applied to unimportant things, like a "wardrobe malfunction". For important things they don't use censorship, but rather shaping. They reduce the frequency and move them to unimportant areas. (E.g.: "Sorry, we can't report about the president violating the constitution, it's time for an ad for the upcoming pennant race. We'll show that one after 'Bedtime with Bonzo'.")

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. WTF USTR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Why is it that I am supposed to know what USTR stands for ?

  17. Re:United States Trade Representative tsarkon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barack Hussein Barry-Soetoro-Afro-Leninist Obama II. , hell bent on bankrupting the USA once and for all.

    - Chairman Barack Hussein "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption, Rahm Emanuel (Radical authoritarian Statist-Zionist whose father was part of the Murderous Civilian Killing Israeli Terrorist Organization known as IRGUN), Connected to Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat), Connected to Ayers, a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom, Preacher Jeremiah Wright, who is himself a black-elitist who wants all the people who largely "pay the freight" to suffer, 31 million on food stamps, more blacks are in prison and on food-stamps per capita than anyone else. The problem with Wright is simply this: the facts are "racist."
    - Obama: Racist, AIPAC-Zionist, Corrupted and a Traitor and a Liar who can't even produce a valid birth certificate (which is not a certificate of live birth)
    - Raytheon lobbyist in Pentagon
    - Goldman Sachs insider second in command at Treasury.
    - Cabinet has had several nominees and appointees with multiple tax fraud issues.
    - The head of the IRS and the head of the Treasury, Geithner, is a Tax Cheat
    - Lied about no lobbyists
    - Lied about having a new degree of accountability and a SUNSHINE period of new laws, he has signed bills with little or no review at whitehouse.gov as promised.
    - Appointed a second amendment violating Rich-pardoning treasonist Eric Holder as AG, the top cop of the USA, a man who helped a fugitive evade justice.
    - Has not put a dime in for a single new nuclear power plant but wants to help bridges and roads to promote more driving.
    - Obama, Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel have a LOT to hide. They literally lived next to each other, Rahm had (until being Chairman Obama's Chief of staff) Blagojevich's old federal congressional seat. Blagojevich helped Chairman "The Teleprompter" Obama cheat his way to the Illinois senate by getting other candidates thrown off the ballot in Illinois. Why do you think Blagojevich was so mad? Obama DID owe him, big time. Rahm and Obama are using Blagojevich and trying to cut his head off to keep him away.
    - Tony Rezko, Iraqi Arms Dealer Nahdmi Auchi, and of course Aiham Alsammarae. Chairman "The Teleprompter" Hussein Obama is so corrupted its a joke.
    - Fools and "useful idiots" twist the pie charts by leaving welfare, workfare, interest on debt, social security, Medicare and Medicaid out and focusing only on non-whole "discretionary" pie charts.
    2007 high level pie chart, Federal Budget, USA
    2009 Pie chart, detailed, Federal Budget, USA
    - Chairman Obama is drastically increasing spending and creating more entitlements that will make the US less competitive (especially against China, India, East Europe/Russia). This will be a huge disaster and change you can believe in will strap you and your grandkids with more debt. No taxation without representation? Obama is spending money for the next two-three generations and they can't even vote yet, or even have been born.
    - An alternative to the dollar and a forex and a reserve currency came up at the last G20 meeting. The world will not take faith in Obama's liar-socialist spending and welfare state, why should the taxpayers (plebian citizen-slaves of a police state).
    - The spending going on now vastly eclipses all previous spending. In fact, the massive trillion plus debts is a thing of the 80's onwards. Congress signs the checks, remember that Year after year, as egregious as the pentagon spending is, that the social spending is completely a waste of money and it is unfunded over the long term. Eisenhower built the interstates, the US could build a new power infrastructure with this money but instead is being pissed into creating more of an entitlement system that is ST