Slashdot Mirror


US Rejects Demands For ACTA Transparency

An anonymous reader writes "The US Trade Representative issued a release just prior to the launch of the New Zealand round of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations that has left no doubt the US is the biggest barrier to official release of the ACTA text. Unlike most other ACTA countries that have called for transparency without condition, the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."

351 comments

  1. People are fighting ACTA by click2005 · · Score: 5, Informative
    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    1. Re:People are fighting ACTA by c-reus · · Score: 1
  2. Then fuck it. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    'i wont let anyone see. but if i let anyone see it, i want what i want to be done'.

    get a load of that. can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

    1. Re:Then fuck it. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "We're afraid of our own democracy, it tends to interfere with corporate interests"

    2. Re:Then fuck it. by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      It's called "negotiating".

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

      You wanted hope and change? You got it. Hope you like it.

    4. Re:Then fuck it. by hypergreatthing · · Score: 5, Insightful

      can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

      As an American, no i can't. We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

    5. Re:Then fuck it. by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corruption. Next question?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

      Try this guy:

      Barack Hussein Obama
      1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
      Washington, DC 20500

    7. Re:Then fuck it. by drachenstern · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, I personally voted for the other "other" guy. And I voted against pretty much every incumbent in the race (sometimes on moral grounds, sometimes due to political views) ... As an American who's sick of the system the way it is, I vote and encourage people to vote to remove all 535 from office and to replace them by rounds every 2 years. I realize we need party leadership and we need people who understand the system, but guess what, when every citizen CAN hold office, nobody needs to be shown HOW to hold office.

      A handful of men realized this 250 years ago, when they started a new country, and they figured that everyone who had any education could hold office. (granted, I'm not saying all their practices were right: I'm just as against slavery and the oppression of women as anyone else ~ I'm just saying the political concepts were much better suited for citizen self-governance).

      However, given the massive tie-in and buy-in of Corporate America inside the beltway, I'm not sure how we can really revert the damages of our fathers and our fathers fathers.

      tl;dr: Hey AC, we don't all want the hope and change that's being shoveled down our throats, mkay?

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    8. Re:Then fuck it. by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      I wrote my congress critter and my senators, but I doubt they even care.

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    9. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, given the massive tie-in and buy-in of Corporate America inside the beltway, I'm not sure how we can really revert the damages of our fathers and our fathers fathers.

      Just do what our countrymen did the last time those ruling us showed a complete disregard for the needs and dignity of the common man and instead preferred only enriching themselves?

    10. Re:Then fuck it. by vxice · · Score: 0

      the president is just one piece of government. for real change we would need to remove all, or at least the majority, of those involved in our government. There are many things where Obama has tried new approaches but was shut down by various people. Take for example his attempts to reach out to Iran, he was called a coward for it and we were all told he was making us look weak and was then pressured to give up on negotiating with Iran after only a few weeks. This has been repeated several other places and he had to go along with it to get his health care reform passed which was effectively neutered but still an improvement. It is called negotiating. And his successes are ignored, renewed SALT anyone?

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    11. Re:Then fuck it. by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      You wanted hope and change? You got it. Hope you like it.

      We were hoping he wasn't George Bush, that was pretty much it. The man has always been center-right, and those of us paying attention aren't real surprised at stuff like this. Hell I only voted for the man so I could see half my country lose it's shit. Time to hang up my "mission accomplished" banner yet?

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    12. Re:Then fuck it. by david_thornley · · Score: 0

      What change did we get? As far as I can tell, this is just a continuation of negotiations begun under Bush, and from my admittedly foggy viewpoint I haven't noticed enough change in the ACTA negotiations to get a can of pop out of a vending machine.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Then fuck it. by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tune into Entertainment Tonight or MTV for political news?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    14. Re:Then fuck it. by Shotgun · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Take for example his attempts to reach out to Iran, he was called a coward for it and we were all told he was making us look weak

      Yeah, Ahmadinejad shouldn't have talked about Obama like that, but you've got to admit that it looks fairly pathetic to go around bowing to every tin-pot dictator in the world.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    15. Re:Then fuck it. by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      As an American, no i can't. We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

      As an American, the logical place to complain would be to the elected federal officers that represent you, that is, the President, Vice President, the two US Senators from your state, and your Representative in the House of Representatives.

      You might also look into participating in groups that are interested in the issue.

    16. Re:Then fuck it. by vil3nr0b · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As an American, I will explain it. We are no different than anyone else who becomes corrupted by money and power. In fact, throughout existence it has been this way. Regardless of any viewpoint of morality or sense of right regardless of country, money talks to these people. Its the only thing they answer to. Sad, but true from the beginning of human nature. What can be done to fix it? lol

    17. Re:Then fuck it. by DigitalPasture · · Score: 1

      At least I got a form letter back...

    18. Re:Then fuck it. by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Voting against every incumbant is easy, but it's not really going to help. If a politician thinks "no matter what I do, I'll be voted out" there's not much reason for him to care about the voters, is there? We can fix the current system by establishing a simple feedback loop - act in the interest of the voters, and we'll keep you; act in the interest of campaign contributors, and you're out.

      Of course, the only reason why politicians care about these campaign contributors is the need for huge media buys. If we all just ignored political ads entirely, they stop working, and the expense vanishes.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:Then fuck it. by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      Negotiation among businesses is different from negotiation among nations: in the latter, the negotiations proper should be private, but the discussions of the needs of stakeholders and of the outcome must be public. It's just that, in this particular case, "stakeholder" was construed to exclude citizen-licensers and citizen-licensees and only include large business interests. Therefore, because not only will the process not take our needs into account, they won't even acknowledge them, the retaliatory steps of forcing the negotiations proper to be partially transparent through leaks and of demanding that the negotiations be fully transparent (with the full knowledge that this will not be agreed to) have been taken.

      I think it's perfectly reasonable, but then again I am not an executive whose wealthy fiefdom is under assault from a change in economics due to technological advances.

    20. Re:Then fuck it. by biryokumaru · · Score: 1

      Lucky!

      --
      When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
    21. Re:Then fuck it. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      More than I got...

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    22. Re:Then fuck it. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I don't think he literally meant THE MOST RECENT time that happened (last week? this morning?), but rather the last time our countrymen did something productive about it (In my case that may have been c. AD 800 when they were pillaging the monastaries on the coast of England).

    23. Re:Then fuck it. by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However with ACTA, and basically every other big content initiative, Obama is openly and completely on their (big media's) side and shows every indication that he'll fight as hard to take away our rights as he did to pass health care.....

    24. Re:Then fuck it. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      You know there's nothing in the Constitution or laws granting slavery or oppression of women, right? And according to my reading of said documents, it's implicitly denied because the Constitution applies to all people, not just white male people.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    25. Re:Then fuck it. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because spite is the best reason for voting for a particular person who will dictate your laws for the next 4-8 years. :rolleyes:

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    26. Re:Then fuck it. by rubycodez · · Score: 0, Troll

      that's amusing, writing the guy who with Congress passed two major pieces of legislation the majority of the public didn't even want, to benefit the mega-corporations who sponge off this country.

      face it, the government "by the people for the people" line is total bullshit

              ---
      (those two pieces being bailouts, and healthcare without robust public option so spiral feedback loop of care costs and insurance can continue)

    27. Re:Then fuck it. by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

      >>> given the massive tie-in and buy-in of Corporate America inside the beltway, I'm not sure how we can really revert the damages of our fathers

      Give some entity *outside* the beltway, which is close to the People (just a few miles away), the power to void laws passed by the Corporate Congress in DC. i.e. Give the power to declare laws "unconstitutional" with a simple majority vote of 25 of the State Legislatures, and thereby overturn corporation-sponsored shit like the DMCA, ACTA, and so on.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    28. Re:Then fuck it. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Even better... I got a form letter, and was subscribed to their newsletter on how these changes will "benefit" me, even though I don't agree.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    29. Re:Then fuck it. by thepike · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, but the problem is that not all the taxpayers agree on what is in their interest. If we did all agree, I think this would already be the system, but we don't. Instead you have Joe over there and John over here fighting about everything themselves, and Mr. Politician on Capitol Hill hearing both of them, as well as hearing what some big rich corporation has to say, and having to make some sort of decision. But Mr. Politician doesn't really know anything about the subject at hand (nor do Joe or John, probably, and the corporation is only giving one side of it) so he makes a decision based on the info he's given. More money (from the corporation) means more ability to convince Mr. Politician that they're right and Joe or John (or both) are wrong.

      If people (including politicians) were better informed and could agree about what's right, this wouldn't be an issue. But we aren't, and we can't.

    30. Re:Then fuck it. by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are people participating in such groups, but every time they turn around, someone calls them a teabagger and tries to point to some nut-job racist calling him the leader trying to discredit the movement even though he didn't start it.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    31. Re:Then fuck it. by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>>Obama has tried new approaches but was shut down by various people

      True but the president could just veto everything, if it does not line-up with his view of "openness" or "constitutional" laws.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    32. Re:Then fuck it. by notaspy · · Score: 1

      "can any of the americans explain this to us here ?"

      I didn't do it. I don't approve of it. I don't know where it came from, and maybe not even what the hell it is.
      Yet somehow I feel responsible.
      We suck.

      --
      hi!
    33. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

      You are wrong, you DID create this, you HAVE a say in this and you have EVERYTHING to do with this. You are guilt by omission when you don't vote and mainly when you don't follow up on your elected officials. It is not enough to just cast a vote every odd year and hope things will be OK, you need to make sure that your congressman/senator/"whatever elected official" is representing you and not just himself and his friends.

    34. Re:Then fuck it. by drachenstern · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Once again we devolve back down to "because of Corporate America" in any base form. How does politics devolve to this?

      Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole shebang in "how it happened, why it's here", but what I wanna know is can we get away from it, or do I need to figure out how to get to the head of DOW or something and then try to effect change? (yeah right, like that would ever happen)

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    35. Re:Then fuck it. by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Typically when you look at what actually happens, rather than the rhetoric, term limits tend to increase corporate power in government (see e.g. here). Basically, your average citizen doesn't know what's going on with the government. Government is a very complicated piece of work, and if you pull out all the people who know how to operate it, the only people left who can make it go are the vendors' marketing departments and whoever has the tech support contract -- i.e. the lobbyists and corporate representatives become the only "voice of reason" or institutional memory. You can imagine what happens when you entrust corporate-types with that role. And new "citizen politicians" are much less savvy about the corporate flacks; they haven't seen it all before, so they aren't as on their guard against shenanigans.

      It feels viscerally right to just "throw the bums out," but government accountability takes a scalpel, not a hatchet.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    36. Re:Then fuck it. by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      Wait, I said I'm against it, and you asked me if I know there's nothing against it in the Constitution? Sounds like you're trolling buddy. Of course I know there's nothing there. But that doesn't change how they instituted the policies at the time. The Founding Fathers by and large all had slaves and their women were happy to not vote (supposedly).

      So exactly what was your point? You wanted to agree with me? Thanks, I think.

      Maybe.

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    37. Re:Then fuck it. by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      Not to be totally contrary here, but can we agree on a number slightly higher than 50%? I'm all for 2/3s majority or 60% or something. It's just that the whole 50% concept doesn't really sway me.

      But yeah, that's what I mean too. So how do we amend the constitution to allow the people to void laws by issuance's from the states? Reckon there's a procedure for that? ;)

      So it boils back down to can the American people wake up to the injustices being done around them daily or are they just so sluggish and happy with the status quo that they will ignore it?

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    38. Re:Then fuck it. by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No, I personally voted for the other "other" guy.

      Hey AC, we don't all want the hope and change that's being shoveled down our throats, mkay?

      Well.....it's obvious you are a racist.

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    39. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and do what about it, exactly?

    40. Re:Then fuck it. by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      I know voting against the incumbents is easy, and I pointed out some of that was purely emotional, some logical. Personally I don't care if we shuffle through new ones EVERY two years. If we do so, then I say "Great"; it means that they know they're coming home as soon as their two years are up, so they know they're RESPONSIBLE for the laws they passed. If that means stalemate everywhere, awesome, it also means we learn to live with a new paradigm. The no-laws-getting-passed-because-everyone-is-afraid-to-make-a-move stalemate will get broken within a few months, I have no doubt. Because people will know that they have to do something before going home.

      Please, by all means, help me find the flaws in my arguments. I've been refining this for years having people pointing these things out to me, and I've read the same authors as the founding fathers, as well as articles from contemporary sources. I've talked to political professors, lawyers, man-on-the-street's, little old ladies and veterans who are set in their ways. I wanna figure out what I'm missing, and I think the truth is I'm not missing anything, the problem is that people don't want change. Plainly and simply.

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    41. Re:Then fuck it. by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      I think it's more pathetic to care about images of power when you're a country that has real power. Does any country really think that the U.S. couldn't bring serious pain anywhere in the world if given a reason?

      That's the crap patriotism that finds us allowing torture to stand. Our position in the war is so weak that we must violate our very core principles to keep the enemy at bay. To me, that is the real sign of weakness and showing respect to a foreign leader in the custom of the foreign leader is pretty standard. Negotiating with a party is a lot simpler if they aren't immediately on the defensive.

    42. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I wrote to my senators as well. I got a letter back in which he stated that under the 2nd Article of the constitution, Congress gets to review and vote on any and all trade agreements (ACTA is a trade agreement) and that he will keep my concerns and suggestions in mind. He was incredibly polite and reassuring in stating that congress will get to debate this. I plan on continuing a correspondence with my congressional representatives on this topic. I suggest everyone here do that same. If they get letters and calls about this, Congress can bring pressure to bear and open it up. We all have to let them know that there is widespread concern too. Emails and calls to local news couldn't hurt either to start some word spreading about it.

    43. Re:Then fuck it. by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure who wasn't expecting this. The problem is that people chose the lesser of two evils. Given McCain trying to say that he never considered himself a maverick despite using the term so often publicly, I think the evidence still points to Obama as being the lesser of those two evils.

      As long as it costs as much money as it does to get elected we can expect this style of politics.

    44. Re:Then fuck it. by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      Yeah I know it feels right viscerally but it's the wrong method, hence my quandry. Who do we take out? Who are the ones who aren't current corporate stooges?

      Additionally, as I understand it, most of the fed isn't run by Congress, they just have oversight and authorization. Most of the function of the country is run by civil servants, like the guys in the Congressional Budget Office (to pick one that's deliberately tied into Congress). They don't swap out every two or four or six years.

      So all I'm talking about is replace the people making decisions that govern our day to day with the average man, and get everyone to want to participate, if only because they know they will have to at some point. I don't wanna stop the actual business of government.

      Also, if we EDUCATE the masses (who don't want to be educated, I get it, vicious cycle) then any man (*) can go work in Congress.

      But you're reading my mind on "if nobody knows how to work the machinery, they go back to the vendor who will sell them [eg, headlight fluid]". <sarcasm>That would be a great way to run the country, no? </sarcasm>

      * or woman - not being sexist, just generalist, just hate to get jumped over some BS that detracts from the argument

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    45. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once again we devolve back down to "because of Corporate America" in any base form. How does politics devolve to this?

      Don't get me wrong, I understand the whole shebang in "how it happened, why it's here", but what I wanna know is can we get away from it

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution

    46. Re:Then fuck it. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, these days the only CRTs in the house are connected to computers...without TV tuners. So I've taken the first step.

      But my wife won't stop listening to the radio. O, well. At least those ads are cheaper.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    47. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I don't know, some options are:

      - Send letters to your elected official;
      - Assemble groups of like-minded individuals and pressure your elected official;
      - Go to de media;
      - Use the internet to expose whenever your elected official votes/acts against the people who elected him

      And this are only some ideas, I bet there are many more options if you search for them. So please take the time to find out and help your country be a better place.

    48. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still kinda sexist to stick women in a footnote, and just saying "man or woman" wouldn't unbalance the phrasing there like it often does elsewhere. It's also shorter to not be pre-emptively defensive.

    49. Re:Then fuck it. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying you were for it. I'm just saying that even though some overlooked the idea that all people were covered by such a document (probably because they didn't consider slaves to be people) doesn't mean they made it legal.

      I know some people attribute a Constitutional mindset to that of slavery and oppression because some people at the time didn't really read and understand (or were ignorant) to what the documents said.

      (I'm probably being defensive myself. There are times I tell people I'm more of a Constitutionalists than anything and they think I'm pro-slavery, et al. by association.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    50. Re:Then fuck it. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      no. Us americans would like ACTA to never have existed. However, our politics are so fucked that sadly, ACTA is just one of the million concerns.

      Remember, these people are appointed so it's not like we can vote them out or anything.

    51. Re:Then fuck it. by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      I mean, I think ultimately the problem lies with the corporations. But when they control the legal system, are there any legal means to check their power? That's the quandary.

      Education is a start, but don't be too hard on the masses. Sure, the media love to distract us with Tiger Woods' love life, but a whole lot of people in the country are more concerned with their mortgages being under water than with the terms of some copyright treaty. I wish they shared our priorities too, but that's the way of things.

      Regarding the federal administration, a lot of that is strongly shaped by the Presidency & who the prez picks to head up the various organizations. So there is that lever, but there's usually not a whole lot of nuance to the choices on offer (with a two-party, winner-take-all system, and both parties perfectly content with the current level of corporate involvement in government, no President is going to save us).

      Within the system, I don't know what would do it beyond major grassroots campaigning for non-mainstream candidates. But it's tough to get people behind that, too, since "everybody knows" that those candidates don't stand a chance. (And to be fair, there's no guarantee that they'll stick to their principles while in office).

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    52. Re:Then fuck it. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      sue them ?

    53. Re:Then fuck it. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      with what magic resources? With what proven damages? Who?
      It'd be thrown out in court under state secrets or lack of provable damages immediately. Not to mention you'd be a big target of death threats and the likes from ignorant republicans and from proxies to the politicians instantly. Also not everyone can afford to have their entire life scrutinized by the public.

      You'd be amazed how fast they will break the law for their own purposes when the politicians are the ones that control them.

    54. Re:Then fuck it. by zill · · Score: 3, Funny

      I got a Flowers By Irene van parked outside my house 24/7 now. Maybe my letters were too strongly worded.

    55. Re:Then fuck it. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, I personally voted for the other "other" guy

      Which one? There were six on my ballot, and five on ballots in enough states that any of them could have won, had anyone heard their views.

    56. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's implicitly denied because the Constitution applies to all people

      If memory serves me correctly, certain groups of people were not always considered to be people.

    57. Re:Then fuck it. by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair it was spite vs. John McCain.

      ("dictate your laws"? Was I the only person awake in civics class?)

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    58. Re:Then fuck it. by zill · · Score: 1

      It is kinda hard to accurately gauge the candidates when both sides are busy mud slinging each other.

      The pessimist in me says that elections simply test which candidate is better at organizing million dollar smear campaigns.

    59. Re:Then fuck it. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      We are no different than anyone else who becomes corrupted by money and power.

      I'm not sure that "ppower corrupts" is actually true; it could be that power attracts the corruptable.

    60. Re:Then fuck it. by radtea · · Score: 1

      If a politician thinks "no matter what I do, I'll be voted out" there's not much reason for him to care about the voters, is there?

      You aren't thinking it through: a system with defacto one-term lifetime on political office would attract a very different kind of person to run in the first place.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    61. Re:Then fuck it. by Altus · · Score: 1

      funny, I haven't seen any of the tea party demonstrators comment on this issue, they don't seem concerned about it in the least.

      Maybe you should join up with a group that actually has an opinion on this topic rather than jumping in with a bunch of rather reactionary folks.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    62. Re:Then fuck it. by vxice · · Score: 1

      First of all I was referring to many people here in the U.S. specifically fox but many of its followers. Second Ahmadinejad is not worth mentioning he can't have his post without permission of Khameni.I think allowing the purchase of billions of dollars worth of oil from 'tin-pot' dictators everyday is more damaging than looking 'pathetic' I'm just not sure pleasuring the king of Saudi Arabia with all of his oil money is hurting him as much as we would like to think. As for the emperor of Japan I'm not sure he is a tin-pot dictator anymore. Those are the only two cases I know of so one tin-pot out of how many does not exactly qualify as every one. Also for those non tinpots would it hurt for the U.S. to treat other world leaders as equals? I mean they are all leaders of their country and sometimes we can't just demand things sometimes asking for them works a lot better.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    63. Re:Then fuck it. by vxice · · Score: 1

      He can only veto laws that come across his desk. He can't force new laws to appear on his desk like magic, he has to get the lawmakers to write them for him and then he can enforce it. Sure he could cry and bitch and fit and veto everything that came across his desk until the health care came across but that would have enjoyed even less support and is not how anyone really wants our government to be run there is a reason no one single person is in control. Sometimes you just have to work within the system to get the best situation you can and assuming he wants to be reelected he has that to be concerned about as well.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    64. Re:Then fuck it. by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      Not that it really matters (since all those little guys got a collected ~1% of the vote IIRC), but I voted Libertarian.

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    65. Re:Then fuck it. by drachenstern · · Score: 1

      hehe, I've never had anybody make those observations about me, but they probably realize I wouldn't have been likely to keep slaves, or if I had I would've educated 'em. Nothing like a man who's got confidence to do a good job for you.

      I tend to tell people I'm a Jeffersonian and I love what Wikipedia has to say on the matter:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy

      And the commentary on this page (under Jeffersonian Economics) is awesome and frightfully truthful:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_political_philosophy

      --
      2^3 * 31 * 647
    66. Re:Then fuck it. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I don't remember if I voted Green or Libertarian. That was a funny election, one Republican candidate was a Libertarian, and the Libertarian candidate was a Republican.

      What REALLY matters is that even though they're on the ballot on enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning, they get no press, so they can't win -- a self fulfilling prophesy if there ever was one.

    67. Re:Then fuck it. by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      You're right, those particular bills were "for the public, despite the public" and "against the public, because of the public" respectively

    68. Re:Then fuck it. by Doormouse · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but the American public has everything to do with this and is entirely at fault thought it might hurt their delicate feelings to think about it.


      Every time you advocate something you know is a great evil because you don't want the other team to win, you did it.
      Every time you advocate removing a safeguard from the constitution because my guys are good guys and those freedoms are getting in the way of the glorious plans to make everything perfect, you did it.
      Every time you decide things should be "regulated" without understanding what the regulations do and what powers will seek to seize control of those regulations, you did it.
      Every time, you vote to start some glorious new immortal government program without understanding what power block you are creating and how that may be used against you, you did it.

      In short, you took a system that was designed to keep government small and non-invasive, shutdown all of the safeties built into the system and then look on in shocked amazement when the newly formed powers you just created have their own agendas. Maybe if you had policed your rulers a little bit better and chucked their asses out the door when they sold out to special interests, we wouldn't be where we are now. But nope, too many people have the attitude "a little corruption is fine as long as it advances my agenda". So here we are ....

    69. Re:Then fuck it. by Dr.+Hellno · · Score: 1

      you say that like it's a bad thing. "Oh no, I might inadvertently become exposed to a different point of view!"

    70. Re:Then fuck it. by Doches · · Score: 1

      Why did you choose McCain's maverick status (or lack thereof) to illustrate his being worse than Obama? I'd have gone with one of his more obvious promises myself, like not closing Guantanamo, beefing up troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, or pushing through legislation written by massive corporations...

    71. Re:Then fuck it. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      then america is gone and done. what will happen ?

    72. Re:Then fuck it. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Correction, Try this guy:

      MPAA
      Office of the Chairman and CEO
      Washington, DC
      1600 Eye St., NW
      Washington, DC 20006
      (202) 293-1966 (main)
      (202) 296-7410 (fax)

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    73. Re:Then fuck it. by LatencyKills · · Score: 1

      Actually I think the insanity started when it was decided that free speech = protected speech = paid political speech. It's that last bit that needs to stop, but if there's a mechanism short of armed insurrection I don't see it. If we limited political campaigns to $1e6 for president, $1e5 for Senate, and $1e5 for congress - spend it any way you like and not a dollar more - we'd possibly have some chance of our representatives not prostituting themselves like they whores they are.

      --
      Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    74. Re:Then fuck it. by gink1 · · Score: 1

      So we bought it. Now all politicians beg for our Millions and are eager to please our every whim.

    75. Re:Then fuck it. by iphinome · · Score: 1

      The form letter I got back had a typo in it, that's how much my congresscritter cares

    76. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I see are excuses.

      How difficult would be to create a website to expose bad politicians? You could have a listing of all the votes of a specific senator/congressman related to all the source of his donations so people can clearly see who sold his/her vote for donations. That could generate a lot of public pressure to keep them in line.

      And that is just ONE idea of the top of my head, come on slashdoters, you are supposed to be the smart guys, lets mobilize and/or create tools to help improve the government.

    77. Re:Then fuck it. by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      By assembling a movement that punishes politicians and vested interests faster than the FBI or CIA can infiltrate and dismantle.

    78. Re:Then fuck it. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Of course, the only reason why politicians care about these campaign contributors is the need for huge media buys. If we all just ignored political ads entirely, they stop working, and the expense vanishes.

      Then ban all corporate contributions and place a limit on personal contributions. Further more fund all election campaigns from public money (or with all "contributions" going into a pool) and place an upper limit on the amount that can be spent on political advertising per seat, per candidate.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    79. Re:Then fuck it. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      when things get bad enough, people will take action. in the meantime, it's a slow slow road to fixing corruption here while there's regulatory capture there, etc.

    80. Re:Then fuck it. by carp3_noct3m · · Score: 1

      The president is and always has been a patsy for larger forces at work in the beltway, and all you obama lovers/haters need to realize this.

      --
      "It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
    81. Re:Then fuck it. by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that you still get third parties running their own ads in support of a candidate or party, and it is much harder to stop those without banning legitimate 3rd-party political action (which I am sure many of the powers that be would love even more), and it would be even harder to ban adverts which are embedded into programmes as opinion pieces or slanted news articles.

      It would be good if it could be made to work, but I wouldn't trust any bill which claimed to implement it.

    82. Re:Then fuck it. by ignavus · · Score: 1

      can any of the americans explain this to us here ?

      As an American, no i can't. We the public did not create this, have no say in this and have nothing to do with this. I wouldn't even know where to send a strongly worded letter to.

      It is actually easy: government of the media, by the media, for the media.

      That is why our form of government is called mediocrity.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    83. Re:Then fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      healthcare without robust public option

      "Still better than what we used to have."

      (As a matter of fact, that works for a lot of things about Obama. Not that that is saying much.)

    84. Re:Then fuck it. by The+Shootist · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter.

      No treaty negotiated by Obama's Administration will ever make it through the U.S. Senate, especially after the elections this coming November.

    85. Re:Then fuck it. by lgw · · Score: 1

      KNowning that you're walking away from your job in a short time creates the opposite of responsibility: short-timers syndrome. Plus it encourages outright bribery - campaign contributions are one thing, but the system does a decent job of keeping that money out of the politicians' bank accounts. "Do for us and there will be a nice $300K/year job waiting for you when you leave office" is a growing problem in the States, and shorter terms only gives that form of corruption more leverage.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    86. Re:Then fuck it. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > they get no press, so they can't win -- a self fulfilling prophesy if there ever was one.

      Blaming the press is becoming a weaker and weaker excuse as time goes by.

      The voters got what they voted for. If they didn't want who they voted for, then they aren't doing their jobs properly. They should have voted for a different candidate.

      From the way they vote the Two Parties regularly get stuff like 98% of all the votes. Therefore according to the voters the Two Parties must be:

      a) Doing a wonderful job.
      and/or
      b) Better than the other alternatives.

      If that's not the message they want to send, then perhaps they should stop giving Two Parties 98% of the vote. If there are no better candidates, they got the best, too bad if the best is not good enough. Nobody else is willing or able to be an alternative candidate (including the voter).

      p.s. I find it funny that many people say the "everything" can be solved by the Free Market and then turn around and say that US democracy isn't working. The claim that voters are easily fooled and can't vote correctly in their long term interests once every few years is incompatible with the claim that buyers can vote with their wallets correctly and consistently in their long term interests.

      --
    87. Re:Then fuck it. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Do you vote for the guy who honestly acts in the interests of the voters of the other party? Or the corrupt guy who may be in "your" party, but only helps his contribitors? How much does character matter?

      The fundamental problem is that politics in America has become a spectator sport: we want "out team" to win, regardless of consequences, and we turn a blind eye to corruption as long as it's on "our team".

      If we could stop this insane "red team / blue team" nonsense, and starting caring about the actual man or woman even if we might disagree with him on some things, we'd fix the more serious problems. People rant all the time here that because we have a two-party system they can't vote for a candidate that exactly matches their views on every issue. How about instead we start favoring candidates who might not be lying about what they support? Candidates who are intelligent, honest, and good-hearted over agreeing exactly with ourselves?

      We just passed the most contentions piece of legislation since the Civil War, and no one in Congress freaking read it, not even their staffers! None of them care about actually governing, because governing well is not what the voters care about! (And, yes, we know none of the read it, or they would have realized that they just terminated their own health care!)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    88. Re:Then fuck it. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Blaming the press is becoming a weaker and weaker excuse as time goes by.

      Since the internet, that's true. Eventually the MSM will have to start covering other parties.

      The voters got what they voted for. If they didn't want who they voted for, then they aren't doing their jobs properly. They should have voted for a different candidate.

      Most people get their news from MSM, meaning they know absolutely nothing (or very close to nothing) about the other parties or their candidates.

      Therefore according to the voters the Two Parties must be:

      a) Doing a wonderful job.
      and/or
      b) Better than the other alternatives.

      c) Not an unknown quantity. "Better the devil you know".

      p.s. I find it funny that many people say the "everything" can be solved by the Free Market and then turn around and say that US democracy isn't working.

      Indeed; it's more than funny, it's pathetic.

    89. Re:Then fuck it. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      If we all just ignored political ads entirely, they stop working

      I agree completely.
      By the way, pass me the Coors Light and Cheetos.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    90. Re:Then fuck it. by lgw · · Score: 1

      The first amendment is pretty clear on this: I can buy a newspaper and print whatever political "speech" I want to. Government control of political expression leads to a very dark place, far worse than what The Evil Corporations(TM) can bring us.

      If I can print whatever I want in my own newspaper, surely that includes the right to run a political ad written by someone else, one that I might personally disagree with.

      Limiting ability to run polical ads is basically fascism (or some sort of totalitarianism - it's all equally evil). Limiting the usefulness, on the other hand, is a decision we each make for ourselves.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. maaaan by unity100 · · Score: 4, Informative

    they actually said it. one member of this 'trade house commitee' assured corporations recently that 'consumer groups' participation would be kept to a minimum'.

    1. Re:maaaan by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Informative

      Corporations (or tress or rocks or other non-humans) should not be allowed to lobby the People's representatives.

      And yes I know corporations consist of people. They are still allowed to speak, as individuals.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    2. Re:maaaan by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

      Rarely do whole corporation lobby representatives. Usually they hire actual people to do the job.

      We could make it illegal to hire someone to represent you to your representatives, but how would you enforce it?

      (Cable companies have had their own employees attend local town/city/county meetings so that the actual residents wouldn't be able to speak.)

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      Seeing all the other holes they've poked in the First Amendment, it should be possible to interpret this as a right for redress of your own, personal, grievances, not someone else's for hire. (You'd still be able to lobby on behalf of dead relatives...)

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    3. Re:maaaan by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, it only says "the right of the people> peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

      Corporations may have free speech, but they don't have the right to lobby.

    4. Re:maaaan by metrometro · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can you post a citation to that? Sadly "some dood on Slashdot" is not as authoritative as we'd like.

    5. Re:maaaan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you post a citation to that? Sadly "some dood on Slashdot" is not as authoritative as we'd like.

      Oh, alright then...here's the citation from a well known Internet site that is used by millions every day:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/
      It's in there. You just have to look.

    6. Re:maaaan by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      i'd bump it further and get rid of lobbying and pacs altogether. the whole idea reeked of corruption from the get-go.

      --
      ...
    7. Re:maaaan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they do it anyway. Everytime they contribute to a reelection campaign or pac for such and such they are indirectly influencing votes. I submit that it doesn't matter if they have the right or not, they're doing it anyway. Rules were meant to be broken and corporations wrote the book on that.

    8. Re:maaaan by limaxray · · Score: 1

      So you also agree that corporations like the ACLU and the NRA should not be allowed to speak? We should all be required to fight for our rights as individuals?

      No, corporations being allowed to lobby is not the problem - corrupt, scum bag politicians who lie to their voters and side with whoever gives them the most blow jobs are the problem. The problem is we live in a society where private businesses need to pull this crap to stay competitive because that's just how the game is played. Maybe if the people we elected actually cared about those who elected them, this wouldn't be an issue.

    9. Re:maaaan by limaxray · · Score: 1

      A 'corporation' is nothing more than a tax definition. When it comes to the rights of the people in a group, it falls under the right to assemble. There is plenty of supreme court precedence making it very clear that people retain their rights as a group - regardless of how their group is defined by tax code.

      If you don't like it, you can petition congress to amend the constitution to repeal, or heavily modify, the 1st amendment. Something tells me that won't go over too well with most Americans.

    10. Re:maaaan by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's what to watch for: In a political environment where Republicans have been completely unified in opposition by every single act of President Obama, there will suddenly be wide bi-partisan support for ACTA. It will be sloughed off by the media as an aberration, and you'll hear how "It must be a good treaty since there's bi-partisan support".

      Then you'll know that in fact the people who get commonly laughed at with claims of "Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same" were right all along.

      But nobody will see it that way, because like with NAFTA and the PATRIOT Act, there will be some trivial partisan issue that will pop up immediately after its ratification that will wipe ACTA right off the front pages so the people who use political parties they way sports fans use home teams can get all exercised again and never realize that they've just been bent over a chair and dry-fucked.

      Just watch.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:maaaan by runward · · Score: 1

      Sadly, corporations have "corporate personhood" (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/). So, in legal terms, they have similar options to lobby the People's representatives that all non-citizens have.

      I suppose it could be worse... they could be "corporate citizens" with full voting rights, too...

    12. Re:maaaan by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Here's what to watch for: In a political environment where Republicans have been completely unified in opposition by every single act of President Obama, there will suddenly be wide bi-partisan support for ACTA. It will be sloughed off by the media as an aberration, and you'll hear how "It must be a good treaty since there's bi-partisan support".

      Yes, people complain all the time about "partisan bickering" - but at least when they are busy fighting each other they aren't causing more problems. It's when both parties agree that the rest of us are in the most danger.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    13. Re:maaaan by david+clark · · Score: 1

      Corporations (or tress or rocks or other non-humans) should not be allowed to lobby the People's representatives.

      And yes I know corporations consist of people. They are still allowed to speak, as individuals.

      Horseshit. Corporations do not speak as individuals or speak as individuals thought they legally behave as one.A corporation concens itself with its Board and C section. You can count on both hands the number of corporations who have a conscience and give a damn about anything other than thier spresheets and the most nefarious of all professionals- the CPA. We should burn them all at the stake.

    14. Re:maaaan by unity100 · · Score: 1

      it was in some slashdot article, but i didn tsave the link.

  4. Explaination by ak_hepcat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The proposed ACTA is far more restrictive than the current copyright/patent/trademark fiasco we have now.
    If people found out what the companies were trying to force down our throats, there'd be an uprising.

    Which is why they don't want it released.

    As an Alaskan, I'm appalled by what my neighbors to the south are doing.
    Also, as a natural-born Alaskan, I'm so glad that (import) Sarah Palin is no longer here. May she stay away forever.

    --
    Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
    1. Re:Explaination by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Because we all know, the best mentality for treatment is only for those of us that live here. Everyone else must stay away. Stupid immigrants/"imports."

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:Explaination by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Palin is an import because she only showed up as an infant?

      Only one Governor of Alaska was actually born in the state, so they are all imports? Without "imports" the state would be about as well off as the Yukon.

      I'm one of those "imports" and I can tell you that without "imports" the state would be lacking in specialists and educators. No pipeline, no mining, no fishing, no special ed support, more than half your teachers gone.

    3. Re:Explaination by castironpigeon · · Score: 1

      If people found out what the companies were trying to force down our throats, there'd be an uprising.

      You couldn't find enough people with an attention span long enough to rise against anything. If they found out about this they'd be upset until the next thing flashed on their TV screens.

      --
      mmmm...forbidden donut
    4. Re:Explaination by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Because we all know, the best mentality for treatment is only for those of us that live here. Everyone else must stay away. Stupid immigrants/"imports."

      Stupid illegal immigrants you mean. I agree with the GP: the Mexican government is deliberately aiding and abetting its own citizens in breaking out laws. That's the only issue I have with Mexicans and their quasi-government. Look, I know many Mexicans who came here by following the same route that millions of other legal immigrants followed, and so far as I'm concerned they're just as American as I am, and I was born here. So get off your high horse: immigration is not the issue. Criminals are the issue.

      But you know all that.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Explaination by nschubach · · Score: 1

      The original post was talking about Sarah Palin being a non-native Alaskan and had nothing to do with illegal immigration. I touched on immigration but, I do agree there's nothing wrong with legal immigration. To shun a person simply because they are not native is not indicative of "the American way." That was my point. Sorry if it was lost.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    6. Re:Explaination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a person in the lower 48, and I'm also appalled by what the people in government are doing. More restrictions is not what we need nor want. (The war on some drugs hasn't worked so great. And the war on tourism since 9/11 and the Patriot Act hasn't really been helpful to a large sector of the economy either. Only a few small groups have profited from those while they're detrimental to the overall population.)

      But unjust laws are made to be broken. History shows us that, and sometimes people learn and grow from the changes that occur in those periods of tension and strife. The people who carried out the revolution and founded the U.S. definitely broke some laws. Mahatma Ghandi broke some laws. Martin Luther King and his followers broke some laws... I guess it's nearing the point in history where geeks and poor kids/folks with technology are going to have to break some laws.

  5. Can't afford to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US needs the cooperation of many other nations, they simply can't afford to play hardball. This just goes to show how out of touch with reality they are.

  6. Let me decide by UninformedCoward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We hope that enough progress is made in New Zealand in clearing brackets from the text so that participants can be in a position to reach a consensus on sharing a meaningful text with the public.

    Hey, how about letting the people decide what is meaningful?

    1. Re:Let me decide by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Democracy is far too important to be left to the people. Think of what might happen!

  7. People are fighting ACTA = Useless by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

    1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally
    2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1%
    3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media.
    4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

    That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

    1. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Shotgun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now, that's some change we can believe in. Let's all hear it for the most open government in the history of the United States.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    2. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

      1. Large IP holders' lobbyists are applying direct financial pressure to the gov't in general and undoubtedly the negotiators personally 2. The public reaction is only important if it is large enough to affect an election outcome. This is blunted by the fact that the negotiators are appointed, not elected. In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians. Here in the US, they don't care as long as they get their 50.1% 3. The negative reaction from the public will only come about if they find out about it, and most will not waver from mainstream media. 4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

      That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

      That actually is a conspiracy for it requires many people to cooperate together to accomplish a shared goal. Self-interest is assumed in a conspiracy since it is unusual to form conspiracies for purposes of charity. It's also a conspiracy because the same small (compared to the whole US population) group that owns the large IP also owns the media. That's evidenced by conducting a smear campaign which by its very nature is not terribly interested in factual accuracy.

      There's nothing magic about the word "conspiracy" except in the minds of people who are desperate to dismiss a notion without actually finding fault with it. "You said 'conspiracy' therefore you're automatically a nut and I'll ignore your ideas without actually investigating them" is how that goes. It's a weak mind that uses such tactics to shelter itself from ideas that it would rather not consider. It's a tool of marginalization and nothing more.

      If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:

      conspiracy
      /knsprsi/ [[ask.com]] Show Spelled[kuhn-spir-uh-see] [[ask.com]] Show IPA
      –noun,plural-cies.
      1.
      the act of conspiring.
      2.
      an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
      3.
      a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
      4.
      Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
      5.
      any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

      As I have explained from time to time on this site, if you work at a company that produces widgets, you and all of your co-workers are conspiring to make widgets. To put it mildly, it'd be extremely poor form to read that sentence and then dismiss without examination the notion that the company exists, that you work there, or that you make widgets. But that's generally what people want this magic keyword "conspiracy" to be -- an automatic way to end any discussion with zero effort, zero evidence, and no good reason.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You could also include Alex Jones' opinion (take with a spoonful of sugar):

      - The mainstream media is owned by the banks, so naturally they are not going to talk about it. The banks want to chain the people financially and creatively. The bank-owned media also wants to pass laws to shutdown the net, since it is hurting them financially and politically (people speaking truth to power).

      Please don't shoot (mod down) the messenger.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      You don't even need 50.1% to win an election in the United States. You just need a plurality of the votes. In fact, it was considered noteworthy that Obama won more than 50% of the vote because it had been decades since a Democratic president had won an outright majority of the popular vote, rather than a mere plurality.

    5. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyone care to explain to me why Shotgun's comment was modded "Flamebait?" Is there not a huge disconnect between Obama's grandiose campaign promises and the reality of the policies that he's either implementing or continuing? I know it's a bitter pill for some to swallow, but anyone who was paying attention could've seen this coming.

    6. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by ktappe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're interested, I believe the fifth definition of "conspiracy" is most relevant here. From dictionary.reference.com:

      1. 1. the act of conspiring.
      2. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
      3. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
      4. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
      5. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

      Regardless of these being from Dictionary.com, I debate #5 being an accurate definition for that word. "Combination in bringing about a given result" is the definition of "cooperation". "Conspiracy" definitely has a negative, malevolent connotation.

      That debate aside, I think #3 is most accurate with regard to ACTA. Especially the "secret" part.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    7. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Conspiracy implies coordination/plotting. I think the GP's point was that no coordiantion was necessary, and that the conspiracy was emergent rather than plotted.

      That being said, he argued his point poorly by pointing to the IP/Media owners as the ones pulling all the puppet strings.

    8. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could one say it's like Godwin? One side of the argument has no rebuttal so they make up a condition of "automatic loss."

    9. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, you've misunderstood how elections work in the US. You need 50%+1 of the votes--however in Presidential elections it is not the popular vote that is counted but the votes of the Electoral College. To be elected President you must have 50%+1 vote from the Electoral College, which you could theoretically win with as little as ~25% of the national popular vote. In virtually all other elections it's just 50%+1 of the popular vote.

    10. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well - if any of those governments involved were really superior to our own pitiful government, they would refuse to participate in secret talks concering a secret treaty. They're all dirtbags, from Oz to Europe to America. Who else is involved? Surely there are Asian countries in on it. But, I kind of expect most Asian governments to be secretive. Dirtbags all, willing to sell their people's rights for a few campaign dollars.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Imrik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      5. Most people in the US don't consider IP to be a major issue when voting anyway.

    12. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why mark the above post Flamebait? Just because the situation doesn't fit the narrow scope of your understanding of reality, and because your favorite candidate turned into the same sponsored turd as the guy before him, doesn't mean you should lash out at people who make that observation.

      You can only keep deluding yourself for so long...

    13. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Agreed, but Shotgun's point is still valid. The American people were sold one thing by Obama, but have received another thing entirely. Ron Paul is right: Obama isn't a Socialist; he's a Corporatist. The only thing that changed with Obama is that he's much more well-versed in the art of the rhetorical BJ than his predecessor.

    14. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      "In virtually all other elections it's just 50%+1 of the popular vote."

      I should have been more clear about the popular vote, but your claim about other elections is false. Very few state or or local elections, and no federal elections, require more than a plurality of the popular vote. Some states have run-off elections, but in the vast majority of elections, it's sufficient to obtain a plurality. We would have a great deal more run-off elections otherwise, because many close elections with third party candidates result in a winner who obtained less than a majority of the vote.

      As for the Electoral college, while it is true that a president could theoretically win with a mere 10-25% of the popular vote, I only recall two elections in America's history where the electoral vote diverged from the popular vote.

    15. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by jasonwc · · Score: 1

      Actually, ignore what I said about federal elections. The US Constitution defers to state standards as to the handling of elections for federal office, unless Congress intervenes to the contrary.

      In general, Congress has deferred to state law.

    16. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by introspekt.i · · Score: 1

      I think the general accepted forms of conspiracy are definitions 2, 3, and 4 (and of course, 1). Taking the context in what the GP said, he was talking about the lack of "surreptitious" cooperation on the part of the pro-ACTA parties. When context is provided, definition takes the passenger seat.

    17. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by introspekt.i · · Score: 1

      which you could theoretically win with as little as ~25% of the national popular vote.

      Quicksort "theoretically" runs in O(n^2) time, too. The Electoral College is a vestige of "These United States". It gave the smaller states more clout in the Federal Elections (amongst other things), since they ran the risk of being outshouted by the big states and losing some power when they became states in the union. The idea of the Electoral College doesn't make any more sense than the United States Senate does, yet nobody really talks about how California has the same amount of representation as Montana in a national legislative body.

    18. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry you seem to have forgotten to include your point.

      Or were you just stating the obvious and irrelevant?

    19. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why mark the above post Flamebait?

      Because any and all criticism of Barack H. Obama is flamebait. The same criticism of George W. Bush using the same language regarding the same topic would have warranted a +5 insightful. Didn't you read that part of the moderation faq?

      Barack H. Obama was bought and paid for by Big Media <-- -1, troll
      George W. Bush was bought and paid for by Big Oil <-- +5, insightful

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    20. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to ignore any protest that becomes public.

      FTFY

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    21. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea of the Electoral College doesn't make any more sense than the United States Senate does, yet nobody really talks about how California has the same amount of representation as Montana in a national legislative body.

      Both make perfect sense if you remember the fact that California and Montana are sovereign states that retain all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government nor refused to the States.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    22. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by lordmetroid · · Score: 1

      The congress was meant to be the representative of the people with the senate was meant to be the representatives of the states. It used to be that the senate was appointed by the state legislators however that was changed in order to decrease the power of the states because the states' senate as the check and balance as it was intended to be didn't want to play along with the other branches of the government.

    23. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Afforess · · Score: 1

      You can only keep deluding yourself for so long...

      I wish. "Some People Would Sooner Die Than Think. In Fact, They Do So."

      --
      If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    24. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To be fair though, it's not like the President really has much say in the matter at this point. People give the President too much credit, good and bad.

      The people you should be angry with are sitting in Congress and lobbying Congress. THEY are the ones preventing real change for financial gain.

      As much as I'm sure he (and, I'm sure, every single other president) would like to, Obama simply does not have the authority to dictate law. His hands are tied. All he can really do until he gets something on his desk is to try to motivate the people to demand their congressmen act responsibly... both of which are nearly impossible tasks.

      I voted for Obama. I have not been happy with everything he has done. In fact, I have been disappointed greatly thusfar. However, except in a few relatively unimportant cases, it was through no fault of his own. Bush wasn't the real problem, Obama isn't the real problem, it's Congress and the corporations that have us over a barrel.

    25. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by introspekt.i · · Score: 1

      Of course. I should have said "less" instead of more.

    26. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by introspekt.i · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think this entire thread is obvious and irrelevant. I just thought I'd hop on the bandwagon with you.

    27. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Especially the "secret" part.

      Whay, not "evil? Plus not much of a secret of we do know or at least strongly suspect it...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    28. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Darby · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Regardless of these being from Dictionary.com, I debate #5 being an accurate definition for that word. "Combination in bringing about a given result" is the definition of "cooperation". "Conspiracy" definitely has a negative, malevolent connotation.

      This is going to vary a lot depending upon what you define as negative or malevolent.

      Take the current situation with the Catholic Church. They're doing what they've always done, and while it is true that moral,ethical people can all easily recognize their actions as negative and malevolent as they have always been, you still have a large and deeply disgusting group of depraved subhuman animals known as Catholics who all agree that raping children is good and that covering up said rape is also good. We know with 100% certainty that 100% of all Catholics agree with this wholeheartedly because they are still willingly paying to have those things done and still trying to cover up for the church.

      It's not like it's a race or a sexual preference or a gender or something people are born with. It's a religion, so no more meaningful than a book club (one in which they worship the villain of the fairy tale, which is just more evidence of their depravity). You can change that 6 times a day and it doesn't really matter at all.

      Catholics have chosen this particularly vile "bible book club" and continue to pay for the brutal ass rape of little kids.

      Each and every one of you sickening, disgusting fucking animals. There is no fucking excuse for this whatsoever and I wholeheartedly support the summary execution of any Catholics you see.

      Grow up and try and get on the moral, ethical side of an issue for once you disgusting baby raping, nazi supporting, genocidal, burning decent people alive fucking monsters.

      Do you know how you can tell when a Catholic develops even the most rudimentary sense of morals ethics or responsibility?

      They commit suicide!

      So you see, your point is invalid because it's not workable. There is such a disconnect between decent people and the religious in general.

    29. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by zill · · Score: 3, Informative

      As for the Electoral college, while it is true that a president could theoretically win with a mere 10-25% of the popular vote, I only recall two elections in America's history where the electoral vote diverged from the popular vote.

      Actually it's 3. In the elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000 the electoral vote differed from the popular vote.

      3 candidates won the presidency without the popular vote and I believe that's 3 too many. 3/44 = 6.8%

      They were forced to resort to indirect democracy 200 years ago because they lacked the infrastructure for direct democracy, but that limitation is long gone now.

    30. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by jasonwc · · Score: 3, Informative

      I agree. I think we should scrap the Electoral College as its an antiquated, undemocratic, and unnecessary intermediary. It's only positive function is that it theoretically gives smaller states more influence, but it arguably gives too much power to small states. And, in any case, I think we should move beyond the idea of representing state sovereigns rather than persons.

      Thanks for the correction.

    31. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

      Like with all conspiracies: they are not really needed. The outcome will be the same anyway. Just more certainly as there's no single point of failure.

      People who believe in massive conspiracies are seeing the world through rose-colored glasses.

    32. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by cyber-dragon.net · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The idea that "sovereign states" still exist is kind of a farce. The federal government has been taking more and more power with each war we fight and each time they can incite fear in people to make it ok.

      The last time a state tried to assert it's rights as a sovereign entity we had a civil war over the results.

    33. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The last time a state tried to assert it's rights as a sovereign entity we had a civil war over the results.

      Says who? The States do it in the courts all the time. Sometimes they even win.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    34. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Knara · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because the poster makes a valid point, and then extends it to the entirely of the current administration.

      It's trolling via hyperbole.

    35. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because any and all criticism of Barack H. Obama is flamebait. The same criticism of George W. Bush using the same language regarding the same topic would have warranted a +5 insightful.

      Actually, the same criticism of GWB would've also been modded Flamebait or Troll initially, and only after further moderation would it reach +5 Insightful..... just like Shotgun's post, which was modded Flamebait when you posted, but is currently +5 Insightful.

      But, of course, everyone likes to think that their point of view is being stifled by the mindless majority.

    36. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Damn, and me without mod points.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    37. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Barack H. Obama was bought and paid for by Big Media <-- -1, troll

      Bull. Barack H. Obama wasn't paid by Big Media.

      He recieved payment in-kind.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    38. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      How the hell did this get ANY positive moderation???

    39. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You are right - at least 70% right. But, it is within Obama's authority and within Obama's power to just TELL everyone that the negotiations are going to be transparent. Obama has to have made a personal decision, or at least approved of someone else's decision, to keep things "Top Sikrit". Just one sentence is all it takes to blow ACTA out of the water.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    40. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      3 candidates won the presidency without the popular vote and I believe that's 3 too many. 3/44 = 6.8%

      Well, you forgot to account for when the people didn't even directly elect their electors.

      But I don't see why the popular vote is the end all be all. There is a portion of the vote allocated to the people (435 electors) and a portion allocated to the states (100 electors).

      They were forced to resort to indirect democracy 200 years ago because they lacked the infrastructure for direct democracy, but that limitation is long gone now.

      There are a lot of valid arguments against a direct democracy. Look at California's ballot initatives. Think about the amplifying effect of Big (Inert Bugaboo)'s spending. I say, we go back to uncommitted electors.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    41. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by erroneus · · Score: 1

      ACTA was started under the Bush Jr. administration... as were many questionable and objectionable things. By saying this, I am not saying that Obama is immune from criticism. On the contrary, he should have taken it upon himself to dismantle the damage to our freedom and security. He did not. This worse than "no change" however. He is going further than his predecessor.

    42. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 is most definitely an accurate definition for that word. Newsflash - there are words that share definitions.. and in fact, the "co" prefix before both of those words indicate that they mostly likely related, just as both of those words are likely related to "coalesce," "corporation," "collective" and so on.

      And what about definitions 2, 3, and 4 do not offer the connotative definition you are discussing?

      If you have never seen "conspiracy" used in the sense of #5 you probably haven't read enough.

    43. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They were forced to resort to indirect democracy 200 years ago because they lacked the infrastructure for direct democracy, but that limitation is long gone now.

      This is incorrect according to the letters, pamphlets, and other historical writings from the period concerning the Constitution and the founders. "They" (the founders) made a studied and considered deliberate decision to *not* have a direct democracy as they fall prey to the "tyranny of the majority". It had nothing to do with the difficulty in tabulation.

      They feared the population would figure out it could vote itself free stuff. Looking at America today I don't think they went far enough in preventing that, as now it's the politicians voting to give people free stuff for (re-)election votes and to gain power for themselves. This is also why the founders intended the Federal government to have little domestic power and a very limited budget as that minimizes corruption & power-seeking and its' national effects.

      ACTA is simply another symptom of a government that's grown far too large & powerful and seeks to extend its' power even more.

      The only way at this point to prevent the government from taking what's left of individual freedom is a Ghandi-like non-violent movement to take back our government through peaceful means. This will be extremely difficult, as the government and its' non-government proxies such as unions and community organizations are already actively seeking to provoke violence at town hall meetings and Tea Party events as an excuse to use extreme measures to prevent/suppress dissent.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    44. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      I agree that the electoral college should be scrapped. However without its equalizing power, the 5 most populous states would have over 1/3 of the voting power in a "popular" vote. The 10 most populous would have over 50% of the voting power. There needs to be some check against the ability of large states to steamroll the votes of the smaller states.

    45. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      As a Californian, I say "hear hear!" The Direct initiative process has been a nightmare. The state is in so much debt because you can get 50.1% of the population to vote for lower taxes AND 50.1% of the population to vote for more public spending. This works out great as long as you don't mind deficit spending yourself into oblivion. To quote Alexander Fraser Tytler:

      A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.

      As much as I hate to say it, we need politicians and bureaucrats going back on their word to the voters in order to remain solvent. You can't give infinite tax breaks and public works/social services. One of them has to go. Of course then you have the conservatives wanting to ax the social, and the liberals wanting to raise taxes, its partisan hackery, sure... but at least it isn't both at the same time.

    46. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Slotty · · Score: 1

      Not sure how you reasoned any of this but I'm really sorry for any pain caused to you by people that share the same spiritual beliefs as me.

      As for the ACTA well the majority of the time I'm against governments that try to anything outside of the scrutiny of the public they represent of course some national security issues may require information to be with held... Not sure how the US seems to justify it or my precious Australia for that matter.

      Oh well it's an election year here so time to start letter writing!

    47. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost like capitalism really sucks.

    48. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Barack H. Obama was bought and paid for by Big Media

      How big do you think "Big Media" is? More important, do you believe for one second that "Big Media" is in any way liberal? There are only a couple of "big media" corporations, and they are uniformly uninterested in the US as a country and entirely interested in the US as a "market". Most are run by Reagan "republicans".

      I'm not so sure that Barack Obama isn't just a stalking horse for the lurch to the Corporatist Far Right that started under Reagan and hit its stride under GWBush. He's right out of central casting for a president that low-information voters can hate, with his skin color, and muslim middle name. If it's ever learned that there was vote manipulation in the 2008 election, I believe it will by people on the Far Right, and will be a manipulation in favor of Barack Obama.

      Of course, that's crazy talk. I'm certain of this, though: there's not a single powerful Leftist anywhere to be found in the US government. You've got a few fringe figures from small states, like Bernie Sanders, and Dennis Kucinich from Ohio, but there's no way they would ever be allowed anywhere near real power, much less a seat at the table on the Sunday morning news talk shows. Just look at the faces that show up there every single Sunday morning. Those are the political elite in the US and it's been the same faces since at least 2000. Hand-picked by "Big Media" and held before us as the "serious" people.

      Dwight Eisenhower's dystopian vision of a country ruled by transnational corporations has been a reality since at least the '90's. The only hopeful sign I see is that a significant number of the Tea Partiers are actually people upset about the direction of their government and they way their lives have been misused by the corporate/government combine, and they are likely at some point to throw off the cynical corporate manipulation of the Fox Culture. When you peel off the racists and the pig-ignorant, there's a group of people with true anger at how the people in power have abused them. Those are the tea party folks who are ripe for the real kind of left-wing movement we haven't seen since before WWII. They're only a few really good books away from being the kind of left-wing revolution we're going to need here in America if we're not going to dissolve completely into Mall of America fascism.

      One thing about going out into the street and hollering with a sign: It's a transgressive act no matter what your politics. And if it manages to keep from turning into a Weimar gang firebombing immigrants, it'll inevitably end up as a motivated group who's unwilling to continue to be used. Then they'll start to see through the Palins and Hannitys and Becks and start thinking about how they got where they are. Then, you'll see how quickly they'll turn into progressive leftists.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    49. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's not relevant to the discussion and is an intentional attempt to drag the conversation into a giant flamewar. AKA flamebait.

    50. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Panoptes · · Score: 1

      I've just checked it in the OED. Actually it did have meaning 5 - in the mid-nineteenth century. It's now archaic/obsolete. Mongrel online dictionaries are no substitute for the real thing.

    51. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by runward · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but this is no longer true. The North won the US Civil War. They didn't bother to revoke the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, but that doesn't change the fact that it is effectively dead.

      Time and time again, the US federal government overrides States' rights, primarily using budgetary powers. A simple example is the legal drinking age. The federal government decided it should be 21, but the states have the legal right to determine the drinking age. So what does the federal government do? It refuses to send transportation infrastructure funds to each state until they raise the legal drinking age in their state to 21.

      All federal social programs are also illegal according to the 10th amendment. But there have been no successful legal challenges to the overall Social Security or Medicare system. Would this truly be the case if the 10th amendment still had any legal standing?

    52. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That whooshing sound is the point of the original post flying right over your head.

    53. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      That's a nice rant you've got there, but rather misses the point. Hollywood (i.e: the MPAA) seems to mostly support Democratic candidates. A Democratic President is now reneging on his campaign promises of transparency so that he can negotiate a new copyright treaty behind closed doors and eventually impose it on the peoples of the world.

      Also, your notion of elements of the Tea Party movement morphing into progressive leftists is laughable but rather off-topic I'm afraid.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    54. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Think about it for half a second.

      Obama is a very busy man. He is not directly involved with ACTA. The people who ARE directly involved, are blatant shills. When he spoke out in favor of ACTA, I seriously doubt he had any idea what it was, outside of the bullshit lines the USTR was feeding him. I would hope that he has scheduled some time to look into it, but it can't be very high on his list of priorities. He seems to be good about actually reading things he signs, though, from what I've seen.

      Really, though, most people just don't give a shit about ACTA, even if you try to explain it to them. Their eyes just glaze over. Until a decent number of people are seriously affected and until they realize that ACTA is to blame, they won't care. Few people care = not a priority for the President. Sucks, but that's reality.

    55. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there's another word you need to look up: "Synonym"

    56. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the fact that a vote from a person in Wyoming is worth literally 4 times as much as one from Texas, or 3.8 times as much as one from California due to the relative numbers of people those states have per electoral vote, does seem to suggest that something is very broken with the concept of democracy in the US. Then there's the fact that all US states use a basic one vote per person for one candidate system. Some of them might do something a little different than others by splitting their electoral votes rather than awarding all to whoever gets the most votes, but they all operate on the principle that every voter gets a single vote that they get to cast for just one candidate. This is the perfect system when there are two or fewer candidates. When there are more than two candidates, it's the worst system you can come up with and still claim that it's democratic. The problem with this is easily summed up by all the anger we saw when Gore lost to Bush, but probably would have won if he'd had the votes that went to Ralph Nader. The problem was, the anger was directed at Nader, not at the broken electoral system. Basically, the current system all the States in the US use does not represent the will of the voters due the fact that voters are forced to vote for a candidate that actually has a chance to win (generally a Democrat or Republican) and are "throwing their vote away" if they vote their conscience. There are a lot of ways to fix it, with varying levels of success, such as instant runoff voting. I think no-one has been able to find a perfect one-pass system that doesn't have some sort of paradox, but none have paradoxes as bad as the system that's actually used in the US, and if the people of the US actually care about democracy, they shouldn't mind a multiple-pass electoral system. Personally, I'd like to see a system where voters have some system for voting _against_ particular candidates.

    57. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hardly a surprise that every single President is a corporatist when your political system is designed to elect corporatists.

    58. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by bigngamer92 · · Score: 1

      Civil Rights movement was States vs. Federal. The Southern States lost, and now Black people can sit at the front of the Bus. And now the States are trying to assert their rights by crushing the Healthcare bill on Constitutional grounds

    59. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by pydev · · Score: 1

      In the US, even the election pressure is largely blunted by the nature of the winner-takes-all system. In Europe individual votes matter far more to the politicians.

      Yeah, the kind of system that allowed the Nazis to come to power. The kind of system that allowed military dictatorships to exist in Europe until the 1970's and has caused democracies in Europe to collapse again and again. Thanks, but I'll take the US system any day.

      Most progressive legislation in modern history has originated in the US, and I expect copyright overhaul will be the same. At some point, the US is going to realize how stupid something like ACTA is and US legislators will blow it away. And then there will be much chest beating from European governments and companies. It may take another decade, and we need to fight for it politically, but it's going to happen. And, as usual, Europeans are going to follow suit a few years later, whining and complaining all the way, until they have convinced themselves that they invented it all.

    60. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by pydev · · Score: 1

      Why do people like you have this idiotic dualistic thinking? Obama was the lesser of two evils, and most people who voted for him understood that. That's the way US elections work. It's a compromise. Get used to it and stop whining.

    61. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by pydev · · Score: 1

      US presidents aren't kings, they have to play by a lot of rules and make compromises.

      Bush bought his ability to alienate the media by starting two ill-conceived wars and tax reductions that have nearly bankrupted this country. He left an economy in shambles, and a US that was hated around the world and had become known as a hotbed of human rights abuse.

      Obama is buying his ability to pass health care legislation, financial reform, and international agreements by being nice to big media interests.

      That's the nature of political compromise. Now, which of the two compromises do you prefer?

    62. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by pydev · · Score: 1

      Of course, that's crazy talk. I'm certain of this, though: there's not a single powerful Leftist anywhere to be found in the US government.

      And there never has been. The US has always been rather conservative and libertarian.

      The only new element is a certain degree of corporatism. You are not going to get rid of that by putting "powerful Leftists" into government. If you are seriously concerned about corporatism (and you should be), then the way to oppose it is by making people realize that corporatism is anti-free market, anti-liberty, and anti-American.

    63. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the economy will recover, past aggression will be forgotten by history

      the big media interests desire surveillance/control over consumers, creating the legal basis for such a system, empowered by modern technology, will doom humanity for the rest of its lifespan

    64. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy Theory is just that.. a theory... unless one has taken the time to dive into and research stuff..
      (Disclaimer: this does not state that "all theories are automatically true'!)

      People are soo quick to dismiss subjects like these. "Conspiracies don't exist".

      Well, I guess they haven't learned anything from history then. Or from modern times for that matter. Just look at any reality TV show where $particpants can win $lots_of_dollars and before you know it there are $x sub-groups who have a common goal of voting $particpant_name out of the game..

      In this example, $lots_of_dollars can be "just" 5000 or 20,000 and it occurs ... and people don't realise that in real life (not TV games), it's about millions if not billions of dollars... but then such things just can't happen. *roll eyes*.

    65. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Bush bought his ability to alienate the media by starting two ill-conceived wars

      Bush started the war in Afghanistan? I thought the smoking pile of rubble in Lower Manhattan had something to do with that?

      Now, which of the two compromises do you prefer?

      The one that doesn't involve us meekly supplicating to our enemies while pissing off our important (Canada, the UK, Israel) friends?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    66. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Alsee · · Score: 1

      There are some people who will flamebait-mod anything they politically dislike, but as you can see that bad mod was rapidly and overwhelmingly counter-modded. The moderation system is specifically designed to work on a public swarm model. If you constantly find yourself in conflict with the overwhelming majority you should at least consider the possibility that the problem is on your end before just assuming it is some vast evil conspiracy to persecute you.

      The same criticism of George W. Bush using the same language regarding the same topic would have warranted a +5 insightful. Didn't you read that part of the moderation faq?

      Which is exactly how the comment about Obama is currently modded.

      Obama doesn't have some magic wand to make the world perfect. Obama is anything but perfect. But the reason Obama gets support and approval is because, within the reasonable expectations and limitations of what a president can do, most of us consider him to be doing an overall damn good job under incredibly hard circumstances. Because, for a politician, most of us think he's pretty damn good.

      Yes, I think ACTA is crap and yes I think the lack of transparency on ACTA is crap, and yes I agree Obama deserves criticism on it. However as far as I'm aware this whole ACTA thing started long before Obama took office, and as far as I'm aware Obama has not gotten involved in the ACTA process. It is happening on his watch and it is being done by bureaucrats under his authority, and yes he could use a verbal butt-kicking telling him to do something about it. However is is a tad unreasonable to crucify him for the fact that government is still government, that he doesn't have a magic wand to be everywhere at once and fix all of the crap in government at once.

      Most of us see a huge moral difference between a president who does bad things, and a war&economy busy president who hasn't noticed or hasn't fixed bureaucratic crap under him. Yes the responsibility still lands in his lap, the buck still does stop with him. But there's a moral difference between an incredibly bad president doing incredibly bad things and a good president doing his best to do good things and failing to notice or fix every bureaucratic crap problem going on under him.

      Barack H. Obama was bought and paid for by Big Media <-- -1, troll
      George W. Bush was bought and paid for by Big Oil <-- +5, insightful

      It's rather comical the way some people obsess over Mr. Barack Hussein Obama's middle initial as if it were some sort of dark evil stain revealing his dark evil soul or something.

      It's not like we wouldn't know which President Barack Obama you were referring to. LOL.

      Obama drew huge media attention for a number of very legitimate reasons, most particularly because he drew absolutely overwhelming public attention. Even if we set aside the historic fact that he was the first black candidate for president, the undeniable fact is that the man inspired huge numbers of people to stand up and try to make the country better. When he gave a speech as a candidate he literally filled stadiums. And yes, of course the media covered cheering stadiums filled with people enthusiastic about a candidate. Maybe YOU didn't like him, maybe YOU disagreed with him, maybe YOU weren't impressed by him, but the fact is that a large percentage of the population DID see him as an impressive and positive and very newsworthy figure, and yes of course the media did cover and reflect that public reaction to him. And yes, the media does inherently amplify whatever news they turn their spotlight on, but they didn't create it in the first place. And the media didn't "buy" him.

      I'm sure some of that wide and powerful public enthusiasm for Obama was a counter reaction to the massive public despair at the Bush years. And that doesn't change the fact that it was real and public and widespread, and that the media was reflecting that fact. Not creating or buying it.

      On the other hand there's Ge

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    67. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Alsee · · Score: 1

      However without its equalizing power, the 5 most populous states would have over 1/3 of the voting power in a "popular" vote.

      Whites outnumber blacks, asians, latinos, native americans, and any other ethnic group you care to name. So you're right, we need some new voting mechanism to provide equalizing power by giving multiple votes to anyone who is a minority.

      You're right, in a democracy there needs to be some check against the ability of the majority to steamroll the votes of the minority.

      Christians outnumber Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Native Americans, Scientologists, any any other religion you care to name. So obviously in a democracy we need to give non-Christian voters multiple votes each so that they don't get steamrolled by the majority.

      Right now each person in Montana effectively gets nearly four votes for president in relative to a single vote for president for each person in California.

      If you propose giving asians and atheists four votes each, then sure, I'm all aboard with your plan to prevent a democratic majority of voters from "steamrolling" (aka actually winning the vote) over the losing minority vote.

      Or, on the other hand, we can stick with the electoral college and take any one state - just for the sake of argument let's make it MY state - and carve it up into 178 states with a small population each. By just redrawing state lines the population of MY state magically gets 534 electoral votes and all the "equalizing power" to elect the president all by itself, regardless of whether my state was California or Montana. Just by drawing arbitrary state lines.

      If you want to look at states and assume people in each state voted unanimously, then yes, the ten biggest states do in fact hold a majority of the population and do in fact represent a majority democratic vote. However if the population of #1 California and #2 Texas are unanimously voting the same way, not to mention the HUNDRED MILLION population how happen to live in states #3 through #8 are unanimously voting the same way then maybe.... just maybe... it might be a good idea going with the candidate elected by the democratic majority. Especially if Californians and Texans were for some reason to agree with each other unanimously.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    68. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      the reason Obama gets support and approval is because, within the reasonable expectations and limitations of what a president can do, most of us consider him to be doing an overall damn good job under incredibly hard circumstances. Because, for a politician, most of us think he's pretty damn good.

      Rasmussen would beg to differ.
      http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

      Obama drew huge media attention for a number of very legitimate reasons, most particularly because he drew absolutely overwhelming public attention.

      And he drew the "overwhelming public attention" because of one speech at the previous DNC national convention, and then the leftist big media crowd continually repeated the line about what a gifted speaker he is. I find his public speaking to be scripted and stuttering, but whatever. He was never asked difficult questions (until a plumber got hold of him), to the point that comedy shows were even making fun of the situation.

      No, Obama is big media's lap dog.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    69. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Alsee · · Score: 1

      The only way at this point to prevent the government from taking what's left of individual freedom is a Ghandi-like non-violent movement to take back our government through peaceful means. This will be extremely difficult, as the government and its' non-government proxies such as unions and community organizations are already actively seeking to provoke violence at town hall meetings and Tea Party events as an excuse to use extreme measures to prevent/suppress dissent.

      Ah yes..... we need to peacefully speak up for our rights, so go grab your guns and get ready to start shooting because THEY actually have a secret plan to provoke a violent revolution!

      Yeah yeah, I've seen Glen Beck's show too.
      Once or twice.

      I have a suggestion... how about you put down your gun and turn off the Glen Beck show for a while and go outside to play with your kids while you're oh-so-peacefully waiting for the anti-war-pacifists and the hippies and tree-huggers and egghead-professors to fire the first bullet in the civil war that they are secretly plotting.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    70. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I never realized just how huge the "leftist big media crowd" was.

      And just to be strictly fair..... and for laughs... I did the same search for McCain.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    71. Re:People are fighting ACTA = Useless by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The only way at this point to prevent the government from taking what's left of individual freedom is a Ghandi-like non-violent movement to take back our government through peaceful means. This will be extremely difficult, as the government and its' non-government proxies such as unions and community organizations are already actively seeking to provoke violence at town hall meetings and Tea Party events as an excuse to use extreme measures to prevent/suppress dissent.

      Ah yes..... we need to peacefully speak up for our rights, so go grab your guns and get ready to start shooting because THEY actually have a secret plan to provoke a violent revolution!

      Yeah yeah, I've seen Glen Beck's show too.
      Once or twice.

      I have a suggestion... how about you put down your gun and turn off the Glen Beck show for a while and go outside to play with your kids while you're oh-so-peacefully waiting for the anti-war-pacifists and the hippies and tree-huggers and egghead-professors to fire the first bullet in the civil war that they are secretly plotting.

      So, without knowing me from Adam, you assume I own a gun, am ready to grab said gun and start randomly shooting like some nutcase, and I thoroughly believe some stuff being said by this Glenn Beck person, apparently a Fox news info-tainment personality?

      Just...wow. I thought it was conservatives that stereotyped people and were filled with vitriol.

      I learned of Beck a few weeks ago replying to another Progressive-leaning poster here where he also accused me of being a Glenn Beck fan. Is this some sort of organized Progressive talking-point tactic to discredit those who voice dissent? FYI, the cable plan I'm on doesn't include the Fox News Channel. I really wasn't aware of Glenn Beck or who he was until recently, but thanks to you and the previously-alluded-to poster for assuring that I'll start giving his show the occasional view. He seems to be quite entertaining, at the very least.

      I watched some clips at the FN website and a couple from Becks' website. IMHO, most of Becks' reasoning is based on facts, but he seems to make many logical assumptions based on worst-case-default variables. Sure, many of the things he claims will happen *could* happen, but there might be equally-logical scenarios based on the same data that do not involve some of the most dire outcomes. He does however bring to light many facts and highlights many things that have been and are being said by powerful people in the government that put the lie to much of what they say publicly as well as making people aware of what kind of people the President has advising him and acting in his name internally and what special interests seem to have the Presidents' ear.

      It seems to me that Becks' facts are well-researched and quite revealing, even if you completely disregard anything else he may say.

      Why do you seem to have a problem with the people exercising their Constitutional and legal rights to peacefully vote out those that, in their opinion, don't represent their or the countries' best interests for those that do? If you attempt to infer that their opinion is wrong, misguided, etc then fine, debate on the facts and merits and convince them of the correctness of your argument. If you can't get a majority of people to agree with your policy, then the fault is the policy, not the people.

      Don't attempt to shut down/silence opposition, as when the tables eventually turn, the power you usurp to do so may be turned on you or your grandmother. It may be you at the ER with a loved one roughed-up by organized thugs outside of a public meeting with their elected representative for having the "wrong" ideas.

      Strange that all the violence associated with the recent healthcare legislation has been all one-sided; HC supporters physically attacking and attempting to intimidate those who opposed/oppose it. Meanwhile, the Obama Justice Dept decides not to proceed against the two Black Panthers caught on video standing at the entrance to a vote polling location brandishing weapons even when they knew that they already had the case locked.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  8. documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Luckily for democracy, the process is leaking like an old bucket anyway.

    swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help in documenting this is very welcome.

    1. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by joocemann · · Score: 1

      This shouldn't be necessary. Obama said part of his move to change would be a transparent government. Though I am sure he is aware, maybe we might consider reminding him that the ACTA is not exempted from his promises; that we care about what he said he would do and will not be interested in re-election if he can't follow through.

      To me, this needs to be followed through if I were to ever consider Obama part 2.

    2. Re:documenting it on http://en.swpat.org by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, having read that I can see it's not as crazy as some people suggest. For quick understanding, here is the ACTA FAQ http://www.ustr.gov/acta-fact-sheet-march-2010 The FAQ is in line with the leaked document. Page 9, under Border Agreements Section 2 "3. Where a traveler's personal baggage contains goods of a non-commercial nature within the limits of duty-free allowance and there are no material indications to suggest the goods are part of commercial traffic, each Party may consider to leave such goods, or part of such goods, outside the scope of this section]"

  9. Hope, Transparency, Change. by wowbagger · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I Hope the Transparency of administration's insistence on this shows there has been no Change in the administration.

    I Hope the Slashbots will Change their votes, but the Transparency of the moderators indicates otherwise.

    1. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Informative

      and a gop administration would be different, how?

      What part of "no change" did you not understand?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      and a gop administration would be different, how ? are you forgetting that this acta was cooked during gop term ?

      You're assuming there are only two options.

    3. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The important difference is that people voted for Obama, even though they disagreed with many things he called for, because he promised them "change" and "transparency". It is one thing when you vote for somebody because they claim to be for a bunch of ideas you support and then learn that they aren't going to actually support half of them. It is another thing entirely to vote for someone because of one or two ideas that you think are very important while you disagree with most of what they say they want to do and then discover that they aren't going to do the things you liked, but are going to do the things you were at best ambivalent about.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by jjo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process. At least we were able to see the final health-care negotiations televised on C-SPAN, as Obama promised. Oh, wait...

      Too many people drank the Obama kool-aid during the campaign and can't bring themselves to see that he's just another lying politician, from the left this time instead of the right.

    5. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by rotide · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I voted for the guy and I agree. Change?

      Meet the new boss......

      However, I think the real kool-aid is believing that voting Republican or Democrat really gets you want you want. The whole damn thing looks like a sham at this point.

    6. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process. At least we were able to see the final health-care negotiations televised on C-SPAN, as Obama promised. Oh, wait...

      Too many people drank the Obama kool-aid during the campaign and can't bring themselves to see that he's just another lying politician, from the left this time instead of the right.

      Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself.

    7. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      ... and that's the way they like it.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But this president was going to usher in a new age of transparency, and produce "change we can believe in". Obama has the power to order the US negotiators to push for more transparency, but he has done nothing (or worse than nothing) to open up the process.

      Absolutely. Assuming he is aware of what is going on with this, he seems to be breaking a campaign promise. My real question is, where are the opposition politicians on this? I mean, when the president breaks campaign promises, shouldn't Republican, at least a few of them, be calling him out on it publicly? I've heard not a peep, even from folks like Ron Paul. Are they all so badly in the pockets of lobbyists they won't even bring this up to attack their opponents?

    9. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen brother... only this time it's a lot worse -- due to the fact that these were the cornerstones of this man's campaign.

      Want change?

      Don't re-elect any of the clowns out there who went along with this, and health care, amongst most other union agenda's.

    10. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      the GP is insightful, but parent is flamebait.

      despite the irony that occurs from the fact that the GP calls people to change their votes by saying 'there has been no change' in administration, and the parent says the feasible one that the votes will be changed to was the actual one which came up with this shit.

    11. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      Republican pols aren't doing a whole lot of this, but the voice from the blogosphere and talk radio has been pretty strong - sometimes from both sides.

    12. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by khallow · · Score: 1

      and a gop administration would be different, how ?

      We can't know whether McCain or Palin would have acted differently or not. They well might have acted just as secretly as this administration even though neither of them are as beholden to the IP holder interests as Joe Biden is. I do think it is likely that they would have been held more accountable for this treaty than Obama is, merely because the people who tend to be concerned about ACTA also tend to be hostile to the interests traditionally represented by Republicans.

    13. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      There has been a change and transparency is happening... Its a lie to pretend it isn't, or maybe its just ignorant. I want transparency on ACTA and will not re-elect Obama if it stays exempt from his promises, but that doesn't mean I'm going to exaggerate/deny the truth and say he's no more transparent than many presidents/administrations of the past.

    14. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by tyger_purr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My real question is, where are the opposition politicians on this? I mean, when the president breaks campaign promises, shouldn't Republican, at least a few of them, be calling him out on it publicly?

      they are busy making sure nothing changes.

      If they called attention to the lack of change, people might look to them to make a change.....they don't want change

    15. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Its not as bad as you're pretending it to be... And what with the alternative? McCain and Palin? That was a very disgusting and appalling alternative. If the GOP had the balls and the backbone to be intelligent and real, and put up RON PAUL, I wouldn't spend so much time wondering why tens of millions of people think that NeoConservativism = Conservativism. The difference between the two is blatant, but the gang mentality and ignorance of most people in general has left the GOP to be run by neocon scumbags and force many of us to vote against it.

      If the GOP would actually do what they say they stand for, they would succeed. Right now the GOP = Corporate handouts and immunity, orwellian doctrine, unequal rights, and selfish-driven hate.

      I fear the GOP will never root out the virus that has taken it --- its disease is permanent and irreversible, its people like zombies, unaware of the difference and unable to see what they are pushing.

      The dems are just as bad, but Obama was a better choice than McCain. The GOP and big media never gave Ron Paul a chance (lying/misrepresenting him and denying fair coverage)-- clearly, good conservatives are NOT what they want.

    16. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      I think if Barack Obama wasn't half black, he would not have been elected. Younger voters wanted to prove that their generation could look beyond race. He had very little experience, he never offered anything but vague ideas, and he came from Chicago which is known for corrupt politics.

      Not that I'm saying there were better options out there, I just believe if you put a white guy named Barry in his place he never even makes the Democratic primary ballot.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    17. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      John McCain or Sarah Palin would have never been elected to any office if they weren't white. Or if they had fully functioning brains for that matter.

    18. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by MartinSchou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The important difference is that people voted for Obama, even though they disagreed with many things he called for, because he promised them "change" and "transparency".

      Or, possibly, they voted for Obama, because the idea of Sarah Palin being the VP to a 72-year-old president was scarier than having Joe Biden being the VP to a 47-year-old president.

      Or possibly they voted for Obama, because the Republicans decided to go for a guy, who was worse than George W. Bush back in 2000? Or maybe they figured the Republicans had already done enough damage to mess up the country, and that anything but a Republican would be good, but the only viable choice was a Democrat? Sometimes it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.

    19. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time for a revolution. Oh, don't you need (part of) the Army etc for that? And aren't they always lobbying for /their/ budget?

    20. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by wowbagger · · Score: 1

      and a gop administration would be different, how?

      What part of "no change" did you not understand?

      He obviously has reading comprehension problems. For example, notice how convinced he is that "GOP" appeared in my post, whereas in fact I never mentioned them. Of course, being the typical Slashbot he cannot wrap his mind around the idea that there are more than two political parties in the United States, nor comprehend the concept that perhaps if he and his fellow Slashbots were to reject the programming they have received from the Two Parties That Are One and start voting for some real change, that we might indeed SEE some real change.

      Instead, he accepts the blinders that have been put on him, and steadfastly refuses to accept that no matter whether you vote heads or tails, it's the same damn wooden nickel.

      Sad, really.

    21. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Chees0rz · · Score: 1

      I think if Barack Obama wasn't half black, he would not have been elected. Younger voters wanted to prove that their generation could look beyond race. He had very little experience, he never offered anything but vague ideas, and he came from Chicago which is known for corrupt politics. Not that I'm saying there were better options out there, I just believe if you put a white guy named Barry in his place he never even makes the Democratic primary ballot.

      You have a point, but I think there are multiple factors at play here.
      1. race probably had a major influence in winning non-white voters. I disagree with your opinion that 'younger' (I'll read that as young-white) voters voted for him to prove they are color blind.
      2. age probably had a major influence in winning young voters. The fact that he didn't sound like the crusty old men of yesteryear probably made a pretty big difference. I think age > race for most people 18-30.

      I remember my first (only other) election. I had to vote between, as South Park so eloquently put, a douche bag and a turd sandwich. This is probably why it was so easy to drink the Obama kool-aid this time around...

    22. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Chees0rz · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they figured the Republicans had already done enough damage to mess up the country, and that anything but a Republican would be good, but the only viable choice was a Democrat? Sometimes it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.

      Nail on the head. A lot of people saw another republican, that looked just like the old republican that barely anyone liked, and said "f*ck that, anything else will be better than this again." whether it was an educated opinion or not, I find it easy to justify.

    23. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole damn thing looks like a sham at this point.

      Anyone that has seen a change of govt and has been able to vote in each case, can come to that conclusion. Bizarrely, people become extremists and treat it personally if someone doesn't agree with them about which bunt of scumbags is best, as if it's a sport.

    24. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I don't think either side is really interested in bringing the public's eye too fixedly to the inevitable discrepancy between campaign promises and after the fact action

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    25. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your general notion, I would suggest that most slashdotters are pretty good about not getting tangled up in the D-party vs. R-party politics. I've never seen more ire for the two party system expressed anywhere as explicitly as it is on this site. Of course, both parties have their cheerleaders here on slashdot, but I don't think there are enough of them to associate the term slasbot with a lover for the two-party system. Then again, this is merely an opinion on my part and, of course, YMMV. ;)

    26. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The whole damn thing looks like a sham at this point.

      I've been voting for 8 years now in the USA. I've never voted for a democrat or a republican for any office above state-congress level representation. After my poly sci class my senior year of high school I just couldn't bring myself to support either of the candidates fueled by so much, 'special interest money,' (read rich man's bribes). Everyone I've told this to has always criticized me for throwing away my vote, but so far as I see it, voting for third party candidates or write-ins is the only viable means we, as Americans, have to stand up and say, "None of the above," on our ballots. I'd mush rather tell my government, "Screw you, you're all doing it wrong," and be ignored than know that I cast a vote for an idiot, a sociopath, or a psycho.

      The only reason I bring this up is that, if you ask me, it's looked like a sham from the beginning. Then again I am very young, and perhaps there were some decades before my time where politicians and the electoral system didn't suck nearly as badly as they do today.

    27. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Ornlu · · Score: 1

      What about voting Libertarian? That'll get you exactly what you want: to feel like you voted for someone who is truly different. Not that they're actually different, but you're welcome to feel that way.

    28. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      This "lesser of two evils" crap is really starting to wear on me... There are usually several candidates for president. It's just that most of the country is too stupid and/or blind to notice the rest of them, thinking the only valid parties are "republican" and "democrat". If people would start looking at other parties' candidates, perhaps they'd find someone that seemed a more ideal fit for president. So really, this "lesser of two evils" line is a bunch of BS, as there are plenty of others to vote for. They just don't get any respect from most of the public.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    29. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      Actually yeah, we DO have a two-party system here. It's kind of the de-facto standard. It's honestly not the best. If you wanted to advocate a third party it's a good idea to explicitly mention it because it's so rare. It's understandable that he assumed you were advocating the GOP since, you know:

      I Hope the Slashbots will Change their votes,

      Now, if you had said something along the lines of: "I Hope the Slashbots Ditch their Two-Party System and Vote for Some Real Change", then that would accurately convey your intent. But your terse assumptions, random capitalization, "slashbots", and tone just make you look like a dick.

    30. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      when the president breaks campaign promises, shouldn't Republican, at least a few of them, be calling him out on it publicly?

      Like "where are all those death panels you promised"? Because they can only criticize the reality they believe in.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    31. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me. I'm not eligible to vote in US elections.

    32. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Really, what is scary about Sarah Palin as VP, that isn't scarier about Obama as President?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    33. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This most recent phase of suckery that we are presently in started on November 22, 1963.. with a booster "shot" on June 5, 1968.. All downhill since...Yep, our "golden age" lasted all of 18 years.. now all squandered away..sad.. we had a real chance at paradise

    34. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by iphinome · · Score: 1

      Obama could actually beat Dan Quayle in a game of scrabble.

    35. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by initialE · · Score: 1

      It sickens me that the one-party system that I live under, and the two-party system that you live under, are actually one and the same, except that most of my countrymen don't live under the illusion of choice, and most of yours do.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    36. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Really? How do you know?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    37. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

      maybe they figured the Republicans had already done enough damage to mess up the country, and that anything but a Republican would be good, but the only viable choice was a Democrat? Sometimes it's a matter of picking the lesser of two evils.

      What if there is no "lesser evil"? Are you sure you can consider 'evilness' to be a linear thing? I would think it consists of many different variables. How could you ever find a minimum for all variables? Especially if you have only two options to choose from.

      --
      I am not really here right now.
    38. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      And yet you're perpetuating that silly mantra.

      Many people in the US don't have the power to vote (i.e. immigrants, (il)legal aliens, etc.) and still see things the same way. My grandma couldn't vote as she was an immigrant, but not a US citizen. And she always wanted the democrats to win for better health care and benefits.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    39. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      And yet you're perpetuating that silly mantra. Many people in the US don't have the power to vote (i.e. immigrants, (il)legal aliens, etc.) and still see things the same way. My grandma couldn't vote as she was an immigrant, but not a US citizen. And she always wanted the democrats to win for better health care and benefits.

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    40. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Captain+Centropyge · · Score: 1

      Apparently I don't know what reply button to push...

      --
      Bite my shiny metal ass!
    41. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by unity100 · · Score: 1

      precisely. especially that 'slashbot' word reeks a lot of conservative namecalling, which is also quite common in slashdot. since, you know, we are all treacherous liberals, right.

    42. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Don't blame me. I'm not eligible to vote in US elections.

      If I were some delusional Teabagger racist ranting about illegal aliens and Obama stealing the election I'd probably have some witty comment about that not stopping you.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    43. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Alsee · · Score: 1

      When Obama takes a book out of the library it's because he wants to read it and return it.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    44. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by haxney · · Score: 1

      I've been voting for 8 years now in the USA. I've never voted for a democrat or a republican for any office above state-congress level representation. After my poly sci class my senior year of high school I just couldn't bring myself to support either of the candidates fueled by so much, 'special interest money,' (read rich man's bribes). [...]

      The only reason I bring this up is that, if you ask me, it's looked like a sham from the beginning. Then again I am very young, and perhaps there were some decades before my time where politicians and the electoral system didn't suck nearly as badly as they do today.

      I don't disagree with you, I just want to say that the most depressing part about this whole thing is that there is a good chance (in my nearly totally uninformed opinion) that modern-day America is probably one of the least corrupt and most accountable and transparent governments ever in the entirety of human history (most likely excluding some of the highly effective northern and western European countries).

      Contrary to what many demagogues preach, there really was no golden era of simple, beautiful, and honest government, certainly not during the lifetimes of any currently living people. It seems like the sad fact of the matter is that human governments suck, a lot, and that the only difference between governments today and those in the past is that the average citizen is marginally more aware of just how much they suck, or at least can say so without being publicly executed.

      There was an interesting article I read (it might have been by Clay Shirky) talking about the past, present, and future of newspapers and the press as a societal force in general, and it suggested that the only reason news organizations arose in the first place was to hold the government accountable to the extremely small set of titans of industry who had enough money and influence to be of any interest to the members of the government (I believe it was talking about the British Parliment). For the vast majority of people, there was almost nothing that the government could do that would have any meaningful impact on their lives, so there really wasn't the need or demand for them to be informed about what was going on outside of their immediate surroundings.

      This is a long-winded way of saying "governments have always been controlled by a tiny group of powerful elites, the only difference is that more people are able to see that nowadays than in the past." This doesn't mean that trying to change things is pointless, but that it is incredibly naive to think that one election is going to change this situation.

    45. Re:Hope, Transparency, Change. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      When Obama takes a book out of the library it's because he wants to read it and return it.

      -

      What evidence do you have that Obama ever took a book out of a library?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  10. Good negotiators by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I feel strangely about this. It's kind of like getting divorced, and hiring a very effective, but unethical and evil divorce lawyer. You want effective representation, but if you weren't interested in the outcome you'd despise the person who chose to employ such a lawyer.

    That's how I'd feel about this, if the US trade representative was working in my interests. But of course, he/she doesn't. They're working for Disney / Microsoft / Viacom / Appple / etc. interests.

    So now I feel like somone really is acting really sleazy in my name, even when they don't represent my actual interests. I'm pretty disgusted.

    1. Re:Good negotiators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how people whine about "corporations" being corrupt and taking everything, but happily go to work at one of the corporations.

      They love to talk about creating more jobs, etc. helping people become employed, etc. but then despise the legislation or rules that people try to make to get an upper hand to provide more income, which in turn may make more jobs.

      The capitalistic society is not all for the common good. Unfortunately, the socialistic one isn't either. It's heavily influenced by someone other than those controlling the corporate interests, or arguably a different set of "corporate" interests.

      In the end, it's impossible for something motivated by greed for $$$ or power to produce what those altruistically motivated want. The people you'd want to be leading/negotiating don't want to have to roll in the mud with the others that they'd have to play with.

    2. Re:Good negotiators by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      So now I feel like someone really is acting really sleazy in my name, even when they don't represent my actual interests.

      And your taxes are paying them to do so. Whether you like it or not.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    3. Re:Good negotiators by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      but happily go to work at one of the corporations.

      Actually their own personal experience under the heel of corporations is often one of the reasons people complain about them. Personally, I swore I would never work in a call center, or for the insurance or gambling industries. Well, push comes to shove, and I took what job I could, because it beat the alternative of not taking the job. Sometimes you have to take the lesser of two evils, but that sure as hell doesn't mean you can't complain about how evil it is.

      but then despise the legislation or rules that people try to make to get an upper hand to provide more income,

      This is a special little strawman you made, but I see where you got it from. Liberals, and come on, that's who you're targeting here, you whiney neocon you. Anyway, liberals despise legislation that would help people make a lot of money by getting an upper hand on other people. That money comes from somewhere you know. If you hand someone a monopoly, sure, they'll make some serious money, but it will be at the expense of others.

      So fuck you buddy. Your love with large corporations is misplaced and you should really re-examine why it exists. Perhaps you simply love them because people you hate hate them in turn. The enemy of your enemy is just as likely to stab you in the back because they're greedy bastards who don't have your best interests at heart.

  11. The US Government has been bought. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think that we have seen more than enough evidence that the Federal US Government is beholden only to those who have bought its politicians.

    But what's to be done about it, other than sitting back and watching the nation gradually sink into oblivion?

  12. OP has it wrong by TechForensics · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text."

    Not true-- this is what was said:

    “In this upcoming round of ACTA negotiations, the U.S. delegation will be working with other delegations to resolve some fundamental issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights that are the focus of this agreement. Progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release a text that will provide meaningful information to the public and be a basis for productive dialogue."

    This says if we work on scope our release will be more meaningful-- it by no means says no release until scope issues are resolved.

    --
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    1. Re:OP has it wrong by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      I read the same. Looks like the article went through the /. logic filter ;)

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    2. Re:OP has it wrong by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The current release is meaningful enough that I've decided to forever vote against the party that gets this passed. How much more meaningful do you want?

      (Yeah, I read what you quoted. So they're liars. What else is new.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:OP has it wrong by Alsee · · Score: 1

      No, I'd say his comment "the US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text" is completely accurate. The call is for transparency and a release of the existing draft and the process of negotiating the terms of the treaty. The response was "Progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release a text", which is in effect a refusal to release the existing draft until other countries agree to desired changes to the existing draft.

      The US delegation response is phrased in beneficial terms of clarifying what will or will not be in the treaty, but what-will-or-will-not be in the treaty is EXACTLY what is being negotiated right now, and the negotiation over what-will-or-will-not be in the treaty is exactly where transparency is being demanded and refused. The current draft lays out the various proposals from the various parties. Points of disagreement are placed in square brackets to show that they are currently under dispute or negotiation. It is a refusal to release the current existing until certain "fundamental issues" of the treaty are resolved.

      to release a text that will provide meaningful information to the public and be a basis for productive dialogue."

      It is a refusal to permit "public dialog" over the CURRENT STANDING POINTS OF NEGOTIATION between the countries. The US delegation considers "public dialog" over those issues to be "unproductive". The US Delegation wants to CONCLUDE certain points of negotiation so that "public dialog" can be "productively" constrained to minor detail disputes on how to carry out the treaty issues. Treaty issues that have already been resolved to the US trade delegation's satisfaction.

      The current treaty has square brackets around areas that are still in dispute between the countries. The entire point of negotiations-before-release is to get those points "set in stone" before the public interest gets involved.

      And God-forbid the public should object to some of the stuff that's not currently in square brackets. Any public comment over non-squarebracket text will simply be ignored as non-productive. That would be text that has already been discussed and resolved and agreed upon by the various countries - or more specifically agreed upon by the delegations from the various countries. Any complains or discussion over already agreed points would be completely redundant and unproductive.

      The entire point of the secret treaty process to get things set in stone before pesky public dialog can productively influence it.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  13. Message To The World by WiseWeasel · · Score: 0, Troll

    Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely. At least this removes all question of whose interests the Obama administration has at heart. I only good I can hope to see from this is that the DNC will lose significant goodwill with people who get their news online, harming their electability in November as people choose to stay home, or cast their vote with a 3rd party. Personally, I refuse to give my vote to a political party that could promote this kind of legislation. I don't care how "bad" their opponents are; the DNC can go to hell.

    --
    "I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
    1. Re:Message To The World by ktappe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely. At least this removes all question of whose interests the Obama administration has at heart. I only good I can hope to see from this is that the DNC will lose significant goodwill with people who get their news online, harming their electability in November as people choose to stay home, or cast their vote with a 3rd party.

      Except that what will actually happen is people will vote Republicans back in and those Republicans will gladly forge ahead with ACTA just as much as the Democrats are.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    2. Re:Message To The World by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      At least with Republicans they tell you up front you are going to be screwed.

      "This is going to hurt and suck, you know it because you know who we are..."

      Thats why I'm a Republican, I don't have to be disappointed.

    3. Re:Message To The World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely. At least this removes all question of whose interests the Obama administration has at heart. I only good I can hope to see from this is that the DNC will lose significant goodwill with people who get their news online, harming their electability in November as people choose to stay home, or cast their vote with a 3rd party.

      Except that what will actually happen is people will vote Republicans back in and those Republicans will gladly forge ahead with ACTA just as much as the Democrats are.

      Never forget that the DMCA passed the Senate 99-0.

    4. Re:Message To The World by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      At least this removes all question of whose interests the Obama administration has at heart.

      His own. He's been working on his own agenda, what he thinks is important, from the beginning. Getting his agenda is arguably more important than what MSNBC, or dailyKos, or Slashdot wants. It is more important than what the American people wants. Whether that is good or bad depends on your viewpoint, I guess.

      So, far, we have the following priorities:
      1) Healthcare. He worked hard to get it, possibly even staked his presidency on it.
      2) Now he is working on a 'nuke free' world. So much that he is willing to sacrifice some human rights to get it.
      3) Global warming. He isn't focused on this at the moment, it remains to be seen how hard he will push it.
      4) Helping those who've helped him, ie the guys back home in Chicago (the olympics, etc).

      He just doesn't have intellectual property as a priority. As an author, he may even favor strong copyright laws. They've certainly helped him.

      If you watch Obama, it is really seems like he believes his priorities are best for the country, so I'm not willing to call him a faker, yet. On the other hand, there's a lot of evidence Bush believed his policies were best for America too, even though many of them were very destructive, so doing what you believe is 'best for the people' doesn't always mean you are doing good.

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:Message To The World by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Thats why I'm a Republican, I don't have to be disappointed.

      That's a good point, actually. If you expect nothing, and then receive precisely nothing ... well, you have nothing to complain about, do you.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Message To The World by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Oh no, as a Republican there are things I expect.

      1. Wars
      2. Defense spending
      3. Criticism of Unions
      4. Alliances with India, Japan, Israel and Columbia
      5. Israel getting bombs to bomb the PA, Lebanon and maybe Syria.
      6. Lower taxes and more deficits.
      7. Drilling, mining, ranching and timber

      See, I expect alot of things

    7. Re:Message To The World by cbope · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and then the cycle will just repeat again. And again. Ad infinitum. When will the US ever learn that the current 2-party system is totally fucked? I mean come on, it's just getting ridiculous. As an American living abroad, I'm disgusted. It's just getting to the point of being totally silly.

    8. Re:Message To The World by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Could our administration possibly act in a more corrupt manner on this issue? It seems unlikely.

      Could we ever have a worse President than Carter? It seemed unlikely. Then we got GWB.

      Just when you think things can't possibly get any worse, they always do.

    9. Re:Message To The World by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be nice to try and fix some of that?

    10. Re:Message To The World by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I like 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and I really think F-22s and C-17s flying over all the time are cool, so I guess I have to take 1 as well.

      We need more drilling and mining, so they need to get that ball rolling.

    11. Re:Message To The World by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I'd say you're mostly correct except for #1 ... you really can't lay that at the collective feet of the Republican party. You just can't, historically it's pretty damn hard to make such a determination (although Democrats love to peg Republicans as warmongers: it makes for good sound bites.) Remember, it's Congress that formally declares war upon another nation, not a sitting President.

      Still, just for the record, it was a Democrat that was in office when we got involved in the Big One. Most Democrats don't want to talk about that, it would tarnish the peace-loving image they work so hard to promote.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    12. Re:Message To The World by initialE · · Score: 1

      It may work well for the party and the status quo and the system, but it won't work well for the man. Voted out after 1 term is not good for Obama individually, and since when does a politician put party interest over self?

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    13. Re:Message To The World by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      7a. More timber would only be a good thing if they could sell lumber. While it has all sorts of uses, and is fun to work with, the main use is to build houses. If you haven't noticed, there's currently a glut of houses on the market. More timber would only make all the lumberjacks go broke. But planting some trees is usually a good thing.

      7b. Likewise, with ranching, you need to sell those delicious walking meatsacks. Since China and India are developing middle classes, there does indeed appear to be a rising demand for beef (and/or pork for India). But you have to make sure that the rise in demand for feed doesn't disrupt any other markets.
      (Also, it amuses me that the cowboy thinks ranching is republican)

      7c. Mining for what? Because it really depends on what you're going for. Coal is dirty, but it's going to be a good fallback when oil dries up. Overall though, it's a good primary industry as long as you don't rape the land over whatever it is you want.

      7d. Drilling, presumably for oil, is going to get more and more expensive. In addition to drilling, we need to ween ourselves off of this resource and establish some viable alternatives. And, of course, you have to make sure that the drillers pay for the land they're using and don't rape the environment.

      7. So in general, you want more primary industry (and ranching for the cowboys at heart). This is a good thing, as long as there is a use for the resource and the EPA keeps a close watch. 6. Lowering taxes if fine if you don't want what the government is selling. I really like my roads, postal service, and fire department. The DMV could have some better hours, but I'm not complaining. But the part that makes this a Very Bad Thing (tm) is that part where deficits go up. This is not sustainable. If you think your children can pay for it, then fuck you grandpa. I want to make this explicitly clear: This is in no way a conservative idea. This runs directly against the ideology that the republican party traditionally had. This makes you a "neocon".

      5. Bombing deserts? What do you think that would fix? It would sure make everyone hate the jews. Ok, it would make make everyone hate the jews even more. It would really really piss off a lot of otherwise normal people. It would legitimize the nutcases calling for jihad. So from all the victims of 9/11 who died from CIA blowback, fuck you buddy.

      4. Actually, yeah, I'm all for alliances. As long as they don't drag us into their shit. But Israel? And Columbia?? Why does a republican think the GOP would ally with Columbia?

      3. Ah, fighting unions, now we're back to familiar territory. For a while there I was wondering what sort of pseudo-post-neo-con you were. So blah blah blah, power to the people, damn the man, yay unions. I fear large corporations as I have no control over them past a couple of bucks in my wallet. But I understand the need for criticism against unions, otherwise they would rot with their own power. So go find a corrupt union boss, and we'll talk.

      2. Defense spending is retardedly out of control. Now, you're a republican, so supposedly you don't like wasting money on welfare. No imagine you doubled all the welfare money and literally burned it out in the middle of a far away desert in giant pattern spelling out "fuck you" in the native script. That's defense spending for you. We are not nearly powerful enough to be the world police. We don't want that job.

      1. You WANT war!? That makes you a war-monger. That is a really good modern day definition of evil. This right here is is the primary reason for this entire post and the reason I suggested we, you know, try and fix a few things on your list. Maybe you're just being argumentative, maybe it was just a lame sarcastic joke. But on it's face, you are pro-war, so fuck you. And if you never served, then double-fuck you.

    14. Re:Message To The World by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      "(Also, it amuses me that the cowboy thinks ranching is republican)."

      I'm no cowboy, I was a farmer, now I'm a educator.

      Well, ranching is and isn't conservative, from my experience in farming and ranching people, they are a mix of Populism and social conservatism. But do they like their government subsidies. And look how the states and counties vote. They don't vote Democrat at the National level.

      The GOP allies with Columbia, and did under Bush 41 and more closely at the end of W's term and into Obama's term to fight the cartels and FARC's narco-terror.

      I've been union and am union right now, not a fan of unions.

      "9/11 is CIA blow back", and you are an idiot. Have a great day!

    15. Re:Message To The World by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Huh, Wyatt Earp was actually a law-man and not a cowboy, but he's strictly in the cowboy genre.

      And I had completely forgotten about the War On Drugs (tm). Since it was such a resounding success I can see why you would want to repeat all that.

      Are you denying that the CIA financed, taught, and generally supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan? The sole purpose of this was to suck Russia into a long drawn out bloody and expensive quagmire. It worked, and it fucked over Russia AND Afghanistan. Afghanistan being where Al-queada trained and organized a bunch of Egyptians to fly planes into buildings. That's the blowback. That's not, admittedly, as direct a connection as you would find in a good spy novel, but it's still blowback.

      Now, you may be thinking "PFT, with that sort of reasoning, the CIA couldn't do ANY black ops without incurring blowback", and you would be right.

    16. Re:Message To The World by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Actually, the historical Wyatt Earp was a law man, farmer, teamster, buffalo hunter, gambler, card dealer, saloon-keeper, miner, Hollywood consultant and boxing referee.

      The Americans, British, French, Chinese, Israelis, Saudis, Iranians and Pakistanis all had a part in countering the Soviets in Afghanistan so don't blame it all on the CIA because that is just ignoring history.

    17. Re:Message To The World by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read the wiki article too.

      Oh yeah, it's not like CIA agents flew the planes, it's hardly all their fault. And it's likely that a lot of nations had dealings with Afghanistan, but it was the CIA's plan to turn it into Russia's Vietnam. It wasn't their intention, but the extremist they taught asymmetrical warfare to turned against us. But that falls squarely in the definition of blowback. Go read the wiki page on that.

    18. Re:Message To The World by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Go read the Bear Went Over the Mountain and the Other Side of the Mountain about what really happened in Afghanistan.

      Better use of your time than Wikipedia.

  14. Yeah, okay, So? by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now what? You couldn't stop the health care fraud. What makes a small group of people think they are going to have any influence on this? This is like watching the AOPA trying to keep Meigs Field open. Copyright has already successfully balkanized the net. You're on the corporate wire here. You people are OWNED!

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Yeah, okay, So? by RingDev · · Score: 1

      The difference here is that 1 party opposed the health insurance reform. Neither party is opposed to ACTA.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    2. Re:Yeah, okay, So? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The difference here is that 1 party opposed the health insurance reform.

      Don't believe it. You only have one party. The soap opera notwithstanding. With a 95 percent chance of reelection they have little, beyond their "contributors", to answer to. For them, our little rants are quite the farce.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  15. Our gain is your loss by noidentity · · Score: 1

    US has set conditions that effectively seek to trade its willingness to release the text for gains on the substance of the text

    What is this "US" and why is its gain my loss, even though I'm a citizen and still live in the country?

  16. Facebook group by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    There is also the obligatory Facebook group (Act On ACTA): http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=16582417478&v=info

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  17. Nice to know... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...that the new Administration is still running the country for the benefit of corporations, the way a country ought to be run.

    Gotta help those billionaires become trillionaires - the rich don't get richer fast enough without government help.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Nice to know... by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

      Thou I find your comment only slightly amusing. I fancy what would happen if we did get a trillionaire. Or perhaps we have one already. Someone with so much money might be able to make their existence unknown to all.

  18. Implicit and explicit conspiracies by spun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps we should differentiate between explicit and implicit conspiracies. Generally in the popular conception of conspiracy, the conspirators actually conspire together. Meaning, they get together to discuss plans to achieve their ends, and then carry out those plans. That is an explicit conspiracy, and TheMeuge was hypothesizing that perhaps the interested parties here never needed to sit down and discuss plans together. Perhaps they were all acting individually, in an implicit conspiracy. In fact, this type of 'conspiracy' is far more common. Very few people are comfortable believing they are the bad guy. Explicit conspiracies require some kind of an acknowledgment from the conspirators that they are engaging in a conspiracy. Because implicit conspiracies require no active conspiring, people engaged in them don't even need to admit to themselves that they are doing so. The oppression of the lower classes by the owning class is an example of such an implicit conspiracy. Far from having to admit to themselves or each other that they are oppressing the lower classes, the owning class has the privilege of believing they are in fact helping them.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Implicit and explicit conspiracies by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Very few people are comfortable believing they are the bad guy. Explicit conspiracies require some kind of an acknowledgment from the conspirators that they are engaging in a conspiracy.

      You seem to think that in order to be explicitly involved in a conspiracy, you must consider yourself to be "a bad guy". I'm curious why.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    2. Re:Implicit and explicit conspiracies by spun · · Score: 1

      Nope, that isn't what I said, but I wasn't really clear about it so I'll try to explain. Active participation in a conspiracy requires more thought. IF what you are conspiring towards is bad for others, conspiring actively is more likely to bring this to your attention. If you are not actively conspiring with others, the evil you are doing is easier to sweep under the rug of your subconscious. Is that clearer?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Implicit and explicit conspiracies by melikamp · · Score: 1

      The oppression of the lower classes by the owning class is an example of such an implicit conspiracy. Far from having to admit to themselves or each other that they are oppressing the lower classes, the owning class has the privilege of believing they are in fact helping them.

      I agree with your point about the explicit/implicit distinction, but I am not so sure about the strength of this particular example. It seems to me that US elite often engages in explicit conspiracies to oppress, while honestly believing that the public at large is benefiting from it overall. Their logic can be summarized as follows: since the most enterprising members of the society are able to acquire so much power and wealth, the spirit of the competition drives all individuals to work hard and succeed. This, in turn, stimulates the economy to the benefit of most everyone. It is hard to see what is wrong with this argument, and the case of US seems to show clearly that this makes for an extremely competitive state in the World arena.

      IMHO, what we see today in the US are the (early?) negative consequences of this ideology, which has worked reasonably well for it so far. The power vested in the elite is so great now that they are finally able to corrupt the government, the law enforcement, and the law itself. I hate to sound like I am regurgitating something from a conservative family dinner, but the erosion of the middle class and the widening divide between people who are set for life (10 millions or more) and those who live from pay check to pay check -- this divide is a real sign of danger for the entire society. The history is very clear on what happens to 2-class states where a small minority holds all the power and wealth, while the overwhelming majority is reduced to wage slavery. Rather unpredictably, a popular movement will erupt with violence and shit will hit the fan on every level.

      These are very murky waters, the politics. Having seen socialism at work (but not to say working) in Russia, I cannot say which ideology is inherently better, only that the US is a state with results deemed fantastic by the rest of the world. The reason I do not want to attribute this to the ideology is simple: the more I learn about the politics and the economy, the deeper is my disbelief that the system works AT ALL.

      I do know, though, what we -- the public, the wage slaves -- are to do :) It is a very simple puzzle, really. Many think today (and I agree) that the US political process is a run-away train, affected only by the World events and its own history -- not even politicians have any semblance of control anymore. Since we cannot affect it, we should simply strike: save our energy and keep safe. Here, in US, the winners will be those who leech on the society as much as possible, while giving as little as they can in return. In the end, the land will be inherited by those who can adapt to their political system, whatever it happens to be, and make the best of it.

    4. Re:Implicit and explicit conspiracies by hitmark · · Score: 1

      not sure if russia is the best example of socialism in action...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:Implicit and explicit conspiracies by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's a little clearer. Thanks.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
  19. AMERICUH! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 0, Troll

    FUCK YEAH!

    Coming again to save the motherfucking day, yeah!

    AMERICUH! Fuck yeah!

    Suppression of information which would negatively influence world opinion of us is the only way, yeah!

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  20. Hope and change, open government by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Informative

    How are all those Obama promises of change working out for you folks that supported him and voted for him?

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment/

    "My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use."

    "Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government."

    "Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperateamong themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector."

    1. Re:Hope and change, open government by number17 · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of "should be" and not a lot of "will be" on that page.

    2. Re:Hope and change, open government by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      How are all those Obama promises of change working out for you folks that supported him and voted for him?

      Better than what I expected from the opposition. Yes, it sucks that he isn't the Messiah - but really, if you were expecting the Second Coming, I can't help you. So far, his unconditional support of Big Media is a disappointing, yet not entirely unsurprising development. After all, there were signs of this during his presidential campaign.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Hope and change, open government by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Really? What changes has he made that are different from McCain?

      Did Obama end PATRIOT ACT? Nope.
      Did Obama shut down Gitmo? Nope.
      Did Obama end the occupation of Iraq? Nope because it was spinning down under Bush.
      Did Obama get Afghanistan figured out? Oh hell no.
      Did Obama fix the economy? Nope and he is making it worse.
      Did Obama figure a way to get Eastern European allies and Israel a real good reason to distrust the US? Yes he did.

      McCain had much better foreign policy expertise than Obama.does.

    4. Re:Hope and change, open government by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      I see. You subscribe to the idea that stuff just happens, right? You really shouldn't comment on foreign or domestic policy then. For example:

      The US president cannot just invalidate a law.
      A prison system cannot be just shut down without figuring out what to do with the inmates.
      You don't just get up and leave out of a country that is torn by sectarian violence.
      You don't just figure Afghanistan out. You might survive it.
      The economy is getting better, thank you very much. Or did you think the US President has a magic "Easy" button for the economy? You watched too many Staples commercials.
      You overestimate the trust that Eastern European countries and Israel put into the US.

      Seriously.... with those kind of comments you merely demonstrated that you are even more naive than the people you rail against. Well, it's either naive, or you're knowingly setting up straw men. Your call.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:Hope and change, open government by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Executive Orders...

      As for Gitmo, its not a prison system. Its a quasi (at best) legal military prison for people who weren't sent to military prisons and aren't prisoners of war.

      The Democrats ran on cutting and running from Iraq from 2004 on and they did a damned good job of cutting and running from Vietnam and cutting and running from our funding of the South in 1974 and 75.

      Thats right, Obama talked also about escalating the war into Pakistan.

      Unemployment is up, the deficit is increasing, taxes are increasing, where is the market getting better? Oh, the stockmarket is up so that fixes everything?

    6. Re:Hope and change, open government by Alsee · · Score: 1

      McCain almost could have been a good president, had he not slowly and steadily sold off all of his integrity trying to buy off the far right of his party.

      We will start this sad sad story in the year 2000 when McCain referred to the confederate flag as symbol of racism and slavery, and the next day turned around and called it a symbol of heritage. And it doesn't matter what position you have on that matter, because it's all about what he had to say about the incident afterwards:

      McCAIN: As I admitted, I should have done this earlier, when an honest answer could have affected me personally. I did not do so for one reason alone. I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary. So, I chose to compromise my principles. I broke my promise to always tell the truth.

      A trivial harmless incident, but one that well marks the slow motion train wreck of McCain painfully selling off every last shred of integrity and self respect. Each time he starts out honest and trying to do what he thinks is right, and then turns around and sells off a piece of himself when the far right doesn't like it.

      And there was McCain stating "Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell on the right", and then McCain trying to roll back the rightwing half of that comment and scheduling an appearance with Falwell exactly to pander for forgiveness from the right.

      There was McCain opposing the Bush tax cuts for being fiscally irresponsible when not paired with spending cuts, and for being a giveaway to the rich. And then McCain sacrificed fiscal responsibility and integrity to support them, because tax cuts are sacrosanct to the far right no matter how fiscally irresponsible they are or how grotesquely imbalanced they are as welfare-for-the-rich.

      And McCain had an immigration reform bill with his name right on the top of it, and turned around and declared he would VOTE AGAINST HIS OWN BILL when the right wing cried it wasn't strict enough. Apparently they wanted minefields and machine gun turrets along the border or some such.

      And then it starts to get really ugly and painful. McCain is literally a TORTURE SURVIVOR and was a leading voice saying water boarding was torture and that it the US should absolutely never engage in such practices. I can't imagine what happened to McCain's self-respect when he flipped on that one to mollify the right.

      All of that I could pass off as minor, but in those and other incidents he was selling out increasing pieces of his integrity to buy off people he considered to be racists and religious fundamentalists and "agents of intolerance" from "the outer reaches of American politics" in his own party and the fiscal irresponsible and advocates of torture. And in the presidential race he completely sold out his integrity selecting Sarah Palin for VP. He did it in a blatantly dishonest ploy trying to buy off the far right. A man who once valued honesty and integrity and serving the good of his country even in the face of torture and any personal cost, reduced to an empty shell of a man trying to buy off people he detests by appointing a Vice Presidential candidate whom he obviously considers unqualified and dangerous to be a heart-beat away from the presidential chair, selling out himself and the fate of the nation in a grossly pandering grab to be president.

      And amazingly, that isn't even the biggest and worst and saddest scene in this train wreck. McCain then faced a challenger for his senate seat. A challenge from the right, who was attacking McCain of not being conservative enough. And McCain, integrity gone and self respect gone, still desperately trying to pander to a far right he detests, actually uttered the jaw-dropping words "I have never considered myself a maverick" in an attempt to defend his conservative credentials.

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    7. Re:Hope and change, open government by Alsee · · Score: 1

      How are all those Obama promises of change working out for you folks that supported him and voted for him?

      For the most part, pretty damn well.

      Unless I'm mistaken ACTA and the bureaucrats handling it significantly predate Obama's election. And while the buck does stop with him for everything that happens under his administration, and while he does deserve criticism on this issue, there is a huge moral difference between a bad president with bad ideas deliberately doing crap things, and a good president with good ideas doing his best to do good things under incredibly bad circumstances and failing to notice or fix some typical government bureaucratic crap going on under him.

      Yes, I would very much like it if Obama would take a moment away from the multiple wars and handling the economy and all the other business of running the nation to give the ACTA people a swift kick in the ass. And yes, Obama deserves some criticism on this issue telling to do exactly that.

      However most of "us folks" are rather happy with how things are going overall. If you are expecting people to regret his election over this, well then you're granting him grand praise with your faint damnation.

      A bad president can wreak havoc in countless ways, from starting bad wars to fucking up wars, to causing a terrorist resurgence, to disastrous domestic mismanagement costing many lives, to committing torture, to trashing the Nation's global power and influence and the country's international respect, and on and on and on and on. Not to mention an almost complete collapse of the economy.

      An excellent president for the most part simply manages not fuck things up in any of the million ways you can fuck up or abuse government power. An excellent president mostly manages to keep anything from going boom. An excellent president takes the bureaucratic hell-hole that is government and he ensures tomorrow's bureaucratic crap is slightly less craptastic than yesterday's bureaucratic crap.

      The only people who ever bought into the Obama-as-Messiah-making-the-world-perfect thing are the idiots who think he's the antichrist. The people who supported Obama are thrilled that things are a million times better than Bush, and generally happy that he's running things pretty dang well under the circumstances even aside from any comparison with Bush. No magic fairies and pixie dust, just a pretty good guy doing a pretty good job of trying to do pretty much the right things. And nothing going boom.

      If tomorrow is better than yesterday, then today was a pretty good day.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:Hope and change, open government by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Nothing going boom? US relations with Israel are going boom. The transparency of the Executive Branch are going boom, every week there is a new story about how the White House is closing itself to the media. Afghanistan and the Tribal Areas of Pakistan are going boom. The economy is going boom as the auto-bailout is failing and unemployment is increasing.

    9. Re:Hope and change, open government by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Afghanistan and the Tribal Areas of Pakistan are going boom.

      They kinda went boom a long time ago. They are currently both a mess with countless small ups and downs. I'm not certain there's a reliable upward trend, but I haven't noticed any particularly significant new booms lately either. Was there some event I missed? Something that Obama was either responsible for or which he reasonably could have averted?

      The transparency of the Executive Branch are going boom, every week there is a new story about how the White House is closing itself to the media.

      I'd say labeling transparency issues as "booms" is rather excessive. Transparency in a process is very helpful in avoiding bad outcomes from that process, but it would only be a concrete harmful outcome itself that might qualify as a boom.

      Nonetheless, yes I am quite disappointed with a number of things that have been going on in this area. The current level of transparency much better than it was under the last administration, however Obama set high expectations in this area and those improvements fall short of being satisfactory.

      The economy is going boom

      Hello?!?

      Before Obama took office economists were all afraid of a complete financial and economic collapse, many talking of a possible second great depression.

      And perhaps you don't own a TV, but the financial news lately has been about how economists are all saying the recession technically ended around 9 months ago and the economic indicators are now showing growth. The economy is now in an upswing. The current economy is still bad, but that is because the economy got tossed off a cliff before Obama entered office and it takes a while for steady growth to climb up out of the pit its in.

      The economy is not going boom. It when boom under Bush. Economists left-center-and-right all agree the economy now well into recovery. Still down in the pit, but rising.

      unemployment

      Unemployment is a lagging economic indicator.
      Unemployment is always a lagging indicator.
      Unemployment is always the last thing to climb back up during a recovery. Always.

      When a recession ends and economic activity starts increasing businesses start taking up their slack capacity to fill increasing demand. It generally takes several mounts of increasing demand for that slack business capacity to get used up, and businesses generally wait for significant and sustained excess demand before they begin hiring new workers and potentially spending on other capital expansions requiring new workers.

      We've got a huge backlog of unemployed workers and it's going to be some time before the existing growth can put a decent dent in it.

      US relations with Israel are going boom.

      You have an odd definition of "boom".

      Some government agency in Israel made an extremely badly timed announcement of an issue extremely unhelpful to peace negotiations, the Israeli Prime Minister had no clue that the the agency was even going to make that announcement, some in the administration called Israel out on that blunder and there was a bit of media fuss but politicians on both sides were already falling all over each other with kissies and huggies on how the US and Israelis were BFFs. A fuss, but no real harm. No boom.

      If anything the US blew an opportunity with the overblown kissies and huggies. Some Israeli agency bad a political blunder with that announcement and particularly the timing, and the US could have gained at least some margin of respectability in Palestinian eyes for calling out Israel on it. Rightly or wrongly, Palestinians view the US as Israel's lapdog and not a credible mediator for peace. The US criticism of Israel in this situation could have been a virtually zero-cost way of gaining some credibility and independence from Israel in the Palestinian's view.

      And make no mistake here... while I don't think the Israelis are saints I have absolutely no illusions about who the more reasonable and rationa

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  21. I read it differently. by electricprof · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I beg to differ. I read "progress is necessary so that we can prepare to release" as saying that the order of events is "progress" -> "prepare" -> "release a text" , thus progress must precede releasing a text. The definition of "progress" seems to be defined as "... issues, such as the scope of the intellectual property rights." I'm pretty sure that most of us believe that the U.S. position on scope is going to be in favor of large IP holders.

  22. Open up a dictionary once in a while, PLEASE! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    It's very simple, no conspiracy required. The situation is as follows:

    [...]
    4. Mainstream media is largely owned by large IP holders, and will not only avoid stories about the ACTA, but will create a massive campaign to smear any protest that becomes public.

    That's it. There's no conspiracy. Just self-interest all around.

    Yeah, that #4 right there? THAT IS A CONSPIRACY!

    # Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage
    # Conspiracy (crime), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement
    # Conspiracy (political), the overthrow of a government

    conspire Look up conspire at Dictionary.com
            c.1300, from O.Fr. conspirer, from L. conspirare "to agree, unite, plot," lit. "to breathe together,"

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  23. yeaaaaa by unity100 · · Score: 1

    so, then, we should change to the earlier gop administration which cooked up acta, because there has been no change in this one.

    is that it ?

    1. Re:yeaaaaa by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      You really can't be that stupid can you? He's not implying that a GOP vote would be better. He said, explicitly, this administration is no different from the last one. Meaning both are equal, whether that be in evil or good content. Since he didn't explicitly say he disproved of the previous administration, I can't tell for certain that he disproves of both (as there hasn't been any change). However, given the foreboding tone and the general nature of these kinds of comments on slashdot my wager would be that he approved of neither administrations actions and, thus, no change meant that Obama was bad because he was not a change from Bush who was bad. Or, to put it in broader terms, Democrat candidates are bad because they are really no different than Republican candidates that are also bad.

      Hence, his point in saying that he hopes most slashbots will change their votes, to me, implied that he wants folk to stop voting for both the GOP and the Democratic party. However, those last bits are inferred from guesses on my part as to how the OP actually felt about the previous administration.

      For the record, the mere fact that I, or anybody else, has to spell something out like this for you explicitly is terribly pathetic. Try not to knee jerk so much and you may find less posts to be offensive and, thus, worthy of your ire.

      If you can't do that, then I guarantee that you and your voting habits, indeed, are part of the problem, not a solution. ;)

    2. Re:yeaaaaa by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      I believe the whole:

      I Hope the Slashbots will Change their votes

      portion is telling us that a GOP vote would indeed be better. And then Unity called bullshit.

      Now, I guess he could be calling for a third party vote, but that's so rare that it kind of requires explicit statements to that end.

    3. Re:yeaaaaa by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      but that's so rare that it kind of requires explicit statements to that end.

      See, that's the odd assumption to me. I never found that to be the rare case on slashdot. Ah well, I suppose everyone reads different articles on here.

    4. Re:yeaaaaa by unity100 · · Score: 1

      it doesnt matter whether the case is rare in slashdot or not. it matters whether it is feasible outside slashdot. as you can see from the recent election results, it isnt. therefore, its a nil proposition.

  24. I fail to get one thing here : by unity100 · · Score: 1

    see, this is the u.s. position :

    i come up with a new proposal, and try to force everyone to accept it.

    when people say that they want everyone to see the proposal, i start stomping my foot, refuse, and say that i will only let everyone see it, if you accept some of my proposal.

    isnt this beyond 'kindergarten' grade, and silly ? i mean, there are some people calling this 'negotiation method' but, you can only bluff or play hardball when you have something other people actually want. if you are the one who came to the table with all demands, you cant stomp your foot.

    1. Re:I fail to get one thing here : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see, this is the u.s. position :

      i come up with a new proposal, and try to force everyone to accept it.

      when people say that they want everyone to see the proposal, i start stomping my foot, refuse, and say that i will only let everyone see it, if you accept some of my proposal.

      isnt this beyond 'kindergarten' grade, and silly ? i mean, there are some people calling this 'negotiation method' but, you can only bluff or play hardball when you have something other people actually want. if you are the one who came to the table with all demands, you cant stomp your foot.

      It's not silly as long as it works.

  25. Get a load of that spokeswoman's name !! by unity100 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Nefeterius McPherson" - us gov trade representative. a name which sounds out of 60s comic book villainery.

    now all that us needs is to get lex luthor (the old one) and dr. octopus as signatories. dr. octopus can be referenced in the acta text as 'an expert on digital economy'

    1. Re:Get a load of that spokeswoman's name !! by hydroponx · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Get a load of that spokeswoman's name !! by hydroponx · · Score: 1

      Replying to myself, but the text of the draft (pdf)

  26. So what is the big deal? by spectro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read and re-read the statement, then read what Michael Geist post about what it is supposed to mean and I don't get it. It seems Mr. Geist is twisting the words to try to make a hoopla where there is none.

    Just read the whole thing with a cool head: The U.S. Trade Representative is saying "lets agree on some language to put in paper so we can allow the public to review it"... Geist translates it to "no public review until everybody sign the treaty"

    If you think about it: there is no final draft, they haven't agree on final language yet. Allowing public intervention on terms that are being negotiated is counter-productive. Remember, this needs to be approved by Congress after it is signed.

    --
    HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
    1. Re:So what is the big deal? by radtea · · Score: 1

      Allowing public intervention on terms that are being negotiated is counter-productive.

      Huh? Counter-productive for whom? Coming to tentative agreement on terms that will cause howls of protest from the public everywhere is surely far more counter-productive, if you have any intention of listening to those voices of dissent and disagreement, because you'll have to go back to the beginning and start over again.

      The only way early public participation could be counter-productive is if you never intend to listen to the public. Then indeed it is a lot more difficult to pretend to pay attention to them, and a lot more difficult to claim that you can't change anything because it was all set in stone before the public got to see it.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:So what is the big deal? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      I read and re-read the statement, then read what Michael Geist post about what it is supposed to mean and I don't get it. It seems Mr. Geist is twisting the words to try to make a hoopla where there is none.

      It sounds to me like you do "get it" and just don't recognize that you do. Mr. Geist creates hoopla where there isn't any and in the process scores a bunch of page hits. He and his ilk are simply the "talk radio" hosts of the new decade.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  27. As a liberal, let me confirm that by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Obama is a corporatist. I knew it from the start. He is much more corporate than even Bill Clinton, who at least acknowledged after the fact that NAFTA was a huge screw-up. John Stewart interviewed Obama's law school adviser on election night, and said adviser admitted that Reagan was Obama's favorite president. Obama is not even close to being a socialist. He's barely a liberal at all.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:As a liberal, let me confirm that by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      He, Reagan, and Thatcher are very much liberals.. Neo-liberals. This was the disaster brought upon us in the 80s. There's nothing "conservative" about it. Pure manipulation all around.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:As a liberal, let me confirm that by spun · · Score: 1

      While you are correct, they do call themselves neo-cons now, don't they? There's nothing liberal about what they do, either, and the liberals were pretty quick to see through their shit and give them the boot, so they all jumped ship to the Republican party where their rhetoric found more fertile ground.

      In the end, fascist pigs are fascist pigs no matter what name they want us to call them.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:As a liberal, let me confirm that by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Obama is a statist overall. It's about power and control. A direct reflection of his modus operandi.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:As a liberal, let me confirm that by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama is a statist overall. It's about power and control. A direct reflection of his modus operandi.
      --
      I came out of the closet: I'm a Dittohead!!!

      Never in my life I have seen a Slashdot signature to be so informative.

      For non-Americans: "Dittohead" is a fan of Rush Limbaugh -- a huge, fat, socially conservative, misanthropic thing that spreads madness, but without tentacles.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    5. Re:As a liberal, let me confirm that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, tell us how you really feel.

      Please, the couch is over there. Make yourself comfortable. I insist.

    6. Re:As a liberal, let me confirm that by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I am pretty sure, he doesn't have tentacles.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  28. Since it won't be voted on by the senate... by Yaos · · Score: 1

    "In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court ruled that the legislature does not need to vote on treaties."

  29. what the hell are these assholes thinking? by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    hey, american acta representatives: you are my representatives. you cannot adequately represent me if you won't even tell me what you are representing in my name. as such, you are not a true representative of the will of the american people, nor are we bound to any agreements you make

    your intentions have been revealed to be malicious due to the secrecy you wish to cloak yourself in: there is no honest reason for the secrecy

    negotiate in good faith or don't negotiate at all

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:what the hell are these assholes thinking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cts, these negotiators don't represent the american people, the people hardly care about international law compared to multinationals. on the global stage, money talks, and the people have a minority investment in other countries compared to these corps. when it comes to ratify treaties is when the public opinion heel dragging commences, where the choice has been narrowed for them, and the arena of public interest is collapsed into a one dimensional line. good faith isnt reinforced in political discussion at large either.

    2. Re:what the hell are these assholes thinking? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Gozer the ACTA representative: Are you a country?
      Circletimessquare: No.
      Gozer ACTA representative: Then Go To Hell!
      Alsee: Circle, when someone asks you if you're a country, you say "YES"!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  30. Its clear where the problem is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ACTA is clearly an American problem. Big media in the US are pressing lobbyists and greasing the palms of under worked over paid legislators to be un-democratic, to break oaths, to break laws, so that these companies can have not just corporate welfare in their own country, but in all countries of the world. Its bad enough these companies have Americans prostrate, paying homage and fealty to their corporate bank accounts, now they want everyone else to be just as stupid. Its stupid, and in most countries (Democratic ones, real democratic ones), this kind of shit just won't fly. You can whelp and belly ache about how "The US is strong, either the Left Party is in or the Right party is in, and therefore, the US is strong". In other countries, with multiple parties, coalitions make up who runs the country, and with coalitions, its more an issue by issue basis. Blank checks are much fewer. The Dutch government fell about 1 month ago because of disagreements over whether they should be in Afghanistan. New election, and they are pulling out. Most other countries are in a similar boat (Canada has been in that boat for about 5 years now, its a good bet that Britain will be heading in that direction). Nice, polite government assemblies go away. Someone shouting "Liar" is TAME. As one British Legislator observed, he hoped that Britains legislature wouldn't turn into the bear-pit that Canadas has become. Its a nasty transition from two party to multi-party. You have to get along with a lot more people and make them happy (and things like 'party-whip' don't fly here). Don't think it can happen in the US? Only Democrats and the GOP? Really? What about Libertarians? What about Tea-Partiers? What about the Green party? It could happen faster than you think! ACTA? Even if it gets passed, the greedy corporations will go broke paying everyone off, and some they won't convince.

  31. Wow. Talk about spin. I mean the submission... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    I'm not a big fan of how this process has been handled but the point that it's pointless to talk about ACTA because there is no such thing as ACTA until some of the major discrepancies are reconciled (i.e. "clearing brackets from the text") is reasonable.

  32. Furtivology by mindbrane · · Score: 1

    Furtive was my favourite word in Junior High. I named my cat Furtive. As the link to the free dictionary points out furtive means "secret and sly or sordid", but I always thought it had to do with being a cat or a cat burglar, and, of course, there's the fur bit at the beginning. Furtivology is my take on futurology. The Japanese English newspaper Asahi has an interview with Mathew Burrows, expert of geopolitical futurology. I've always thought futurologists are well served being furtive and circumspect.

    Mr. Burrows makes a number of interesting point by one is, I think, particularly germane to this thread.

    "Small is no longer beautiful

    Q: Throughout the 1990s, when very dynamic globalization was under way, there emerged the perception that small is beautiful.

    Small countries like Singapore, Ireland, Israel, Estonia and Finland are clearly much more agile and much better at adapting to globalization.

    Would I be wrong in saying that an era will come where the perception that big is powerful will gain ground over the next 15 or 20 years?

    A: No, I think you're essentially right."

    What is of note is the perception that big is powerful and highly centralized, large states like China will be in a better position to put in place the infrastructure necessary to compete. As noted in the linked article we, the world population, are facing a population bomb and the rise of states like India, Brazil and China. Intellectual Property is just one barb when it comes to grappling with the problems the next 5 or so generations are going to face. One of the cornerstones of democracy is the checks and balances founded upon the temporal and geographic dispersal of power. The idea of Intellectual Property as a stopgap against losing ground to a country like China is appealing only until it runs up against our basic rights; but federal agencies are obliged to protect the interests of the country in the world at large. It generates a double bind that probably won't be resolved in our lifetimes, if at all, if we fuck it all up big time.

    --
    ideopath @ play
    1. Re:Furtivology by radtea · · Score: 1

      As noted in the linked article we, the world population, are facing a population bomb and the rise of states like India, Brazil and China.

      While it is true that the population will bomb in our lifetimes, you should probably use a different word for it. Back in the '60's and '70's (when "Small is Beautiful" really got started--see the book of that title from back then) people were worried about over-population.

      Now that urbanization, industrialization and the rights of women have resulted in such a dramatic decrease in rates of population growth, it is widely understood that many areas of the world will suffer significant population declines in the 21st century, and the world population will probably peak sometime in the next few decades.

      However, given that it takes ten or twenty years for the general public to give up on a long-held collection of carefully nurtured fears, most people don't realize that under-population, not over-population, is going to be the major issue of the 21st century, so we really should not be calling this issue "the population bomb", as it will confuse those who are still mired in thirty-year-old concerns that have proven to be chimera time and again.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  33. What's being hidden? by PPH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The USA wants some language in ACTA. But they don't want to tip their hands to certain parties outside of the process. Or these parties might call 'bullshit' on the whole thing and bring their countries negotiators home. So what's in question? Its not patents or copyrights. Everyone knows the negotiating positions and national interests involved with these issues. And the representatives from various nations are well prepared to defend their own interests in these areas.

    It appears that the USA is interested in keeping any outside eyes off their proposals. This would seem to indicate that the language they want added is aimed at something other than the standard IP issues one would associate with such a treaty.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:What's being hidden? by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The USA wants some language in ACTA. But they don't want to tip their hands to certain parties outside of the process

      Parties like "the voting public" and "peoples of the world".

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:What's being hidden? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ACTA passes the US wants the ability to point to it and say, "we have to harmonize our laws with other nations to fulfill our obligations under the treaty". At the same time they don't want anyone providing evidence that the US strong-armed other nations into accepting the provisions that they are trying to convince the American people to accept.

    3. Re:What's being hidden? by PPH · · Score: 1

      But if the administration wanted to slide something through domestically, they'd just do it by executive agreement. Here, I think the US is trying to get the other ACTA members to buy in.

      Obligatory bad car analogy: So you want to buy a wreck to do a little weekend wrenching. But you've got to get the wife to agree to the purchase. And you've got to get her to agree without bringing a third party (her brother the mechanic) to look it over and provide an opinion. You've already convinced yourself. But you've got to get her to go along without tipping off the brother-in-law.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  34. Furtive: from the latin for "thief" by argent · · Score: 1

    The word "Furtive" is derived from the Latin word for "thief".

    That seems about right.

  35. We are responsible for this. by lexsird · · Score: 1

    As Americans we are responsible for this run-amuck government of ours. Just like the German people were ultimately responsible for letting the Nazis run unchecked until the rest of the world had to come hammer them all into the dirt, we are responsible for this out of hand government. I think the rest of the world should come to the realization for it's own good that the average American people aren't ever going to grow any backbone and do the right thing. Corporations own us heart, soul and mind, as they will everyone else they deem worthy of the effort. Democracy here is a failed experiment, it's downfall being we have the finest politicians, bureaucrats, and officials that money can buy.

    My advice for the rest of the world hoping to make democracy work. Make your politicians, bureaucrats and officials work for ONLY what they are paid. Anything else, "campaign donations" "soft money", all that is a bribe, and treasonous by all parties and you brutally execute everyone involved publicly, swiftly without a slight hint of mercy or long trials.

    Try to remember when all of you other countries take enough and at last come here to blow us all to hell, that not all of us are evil. We are just brainwashed and dumb and just want happy lives not bothering or hurting anyone. Ironic isn't it that the "land of the free and the home of the brave" is now land of the enslaved and home of the lemming cowards. Our founding fathers must be turning in their graves like gyroscopes.

    Call me if we have a revolution, I am far too cowardly to start one myself and probably will hide under my bed anyway if we did have one. My best excuse is; It's too late to do anything about it anyway...oh well.

    --
    Take the Red Pill.
  36. thank you cynic by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    for accepting a sucky status quo, and therefore becoming a part of the problem with your complacency

    i don't accept this status quo, and plenty others don't. we are the ones who will prevail, because what is right is on our side

    but go ahead and bet against us. however you should know that cynicism is a poor replacement for real intelligence. the words you have written are impotent: you have no power when you openly and freely, with your own words, disempower yourself and choose acceptance of your own slavery

    don't for a moment think how you relate to the world on your cynical terms has any meaning or validity about how i relate to the world on my terms

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  37. Well, Bush said he'd be humble too... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know it's a bitter pill for some to swallow, but anyone who was paying attention could've seen this coming.

    So, once again we Americans managed to elect another stiff that breaks his campaign vision? Hell, we on the right threw everything we had into Bush's vision of a "humbler America" and "limited government" only to find ourselves compromising our own very values in support of an administration that pissed off the entire planet and ironically, laid the groundwork for the very federal activism that is taking place now.

    The great foolishness of American political fans is that they always fail to see that neither party ever really rolls back the excesses of the other's usurpations of power, but merely sanitize them for their own side's uneasy palatibility. If Democrats and Republicans from 50 years ago were alive today, they would be sick at what either party has become. I highly doubt Adlai Stevenson or Jack Kennedy would approve of Obama's budgetary mess and forgive me foreign policy any more than Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower would have approved of Bush's interventions and his budgetary messes.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Well, Bush said he'd be humble too... by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the case of politicians you still have to bear in mind competence. That there is a bias to those that often gain wealth via corrupt practices and seek to protect and enhance those corrupt practices is known. What tends to matter most is the degree of competence in balancing that bias and not letting get wildly out of control as some crazy shared get rich quick scheme.

      With regards to ACTA, the US lobbyist team is likely shooting itself in the foot with regard to blocking transparency until they get what they want, this enables other countries to use that as a simple block to prevent any progress on ACTA. Right now the US economy is still deteriorating, high unemployment with no real job prospects, deteriorating infrastructure, a damaged environment, massive government and private debt and a crazy notion that junk patents and pop music can solve those problems. Other countries are no longer listening as they do not wish to follow down that route and US influence is waning especially after the damage done through the Bush Cheney years.

      From an external viewpoint it seems that the US wants to charge the rest of the world a global media tax as it's means of continuing to pay for, a wildly excessive military arsenal and, a bloated corporate executive class, even when it will solve none of their real problems, just continue to exacerbate them. One real warning about that kind of stupid thinking, it matters not where the content is created, it only matters where the licence fees are charged and under what tax arrangements that is done. China buying up US content to clear US debt will bankrupt the US in the current circumstance.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  38. correct, border searches are not the problem by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 1

    If you're only concerned about border searches, then ACTA contains nothing that the USA doesn't do already. They're not the big problems of ACTA.

    The big problems are liability for ISPs and people in the supply chain or transmission chain of software and music, the mandatory enforcement of DRM, and the enforcement of local laws by people in foreign countries.

    It will lead to "rights holders" being able to control society through fear - each time people get organised (like the way the free software movement formed), the copyright and patent holders will have enough power over them, the ISPs, promoters, distributors, and service providers.

    Think of SCO, but this time SCO wins, multiple.

    1. Re:correct, border searches are not the problem by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that their goal is to indirectly shut down all independently owned websites and website hosting (website hosts are also considered ISPs), and basically turn the internet into a dumb TV box with channels that provide pay-per-view consumption. Maybe if we're lucky we'll still have Comcast's 10mb website hosting option and Facebook... But many sites, even Slashdot, could be shut down if their hosts are unable to afford the new costs of being an ISP directly responsible for all content uploaded by its users.

      I don't know, but that sounds so extreme it's hard to believe. If it's true, then at least we still have bbs systems and phone lines... Another thing to worry about is the administration's willingness to circumvent the people's will. This is essentially an edict ('for our own good' I'm sure...). In this instance, we might as well have a dictator.

  39. no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not in canada, not in all parts fo tehworld they dont have uber control
    just cause your LAME american country has no democracy left doesn't mean we dont ahve some in the rest fo the world.

    AND THIS IS WHY IT WILL NOT HAPPEN EXCEPT IN UK,FRANCE,AMERICA, AND maybe italy

    all these countries democracies have been subverted.
    ITS OK guys we can do without you
    go ahead BUILD THE WALL
    just like soviet russia did

  40. You think like a ReThuglican Jew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You think like a ReThuglican Jew

  41. We have the technology. by crhylove · · Score: 1

    I'm actually looking forward to ACTA and other corporate abuses of human liberty. As Leia said, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers!" I think this is certainly true of information freedom. First they killed Napster, and everyone went to Limewire, which provided slightly more anonymity. Then Limewire got bought out / corrupted, and everyone switched to pirate bay / utorrent. Then torrents started getting throttled and letters got sent, and encryption has been added to the protocol.

    We have the technology right now with onion routing and freenet style network systems to provide true anonymity and freedom for all. The corporations and their slave governments (the US in particular) continuing to push people into digital slavery will only proliferate and strengthen these technologies.

    Eventually I'd like to see everyone's cell phone and wifi router work as an anonymous ad hoc p2p system, bypassing the corporate ISP model altogether. Try throttling that, Comcast (et al)!

    I agree with all the above posters though, Obama is definitely a corporate whore, no different than Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Carter, Nixon, Ford, Johnson... EVERY president since they shot JFK in the face has been acting completely against the interest of the American people and FOR the interests of large corporations and special interests of that ilk. Like Robin Hood, though, our technology will make that entire system irrelevant eventually. It's just up to a few of us geeks to pave the way for mom, and all the other technophobes.

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  42. How is that Hope & Change working out for you by Mark+Atwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the ACTA articles up to a year and a half ago made sure to say some varient of "The Bush Administration is..." but now its "The US trade representation delegation is..." instead of the more honest "The Obama Adminstration is...". Setting direction and lines in the sand for treaty negotiations of this magnitude come from the very top of the Executive Branch, e.g. from the President's desk, e.g. Barack Obama made this decision.

  43. New here? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    This is Slashdot, and if you want to state a blunt political opinion, you're going to have to take the heat from moderation, and not necessarily in moderation.

    I was, for quite a while, just one mod shy of being modded Troll, merely by pointing out that Obama is no different than other politicians in that he's made a lot of promises which he hasn't all kept. And I even am fairly satisfied over his overall performance, personally (being the cynic I am).

    BTW, an AC who replied to me sent an interesting link

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

    but I haven't managed to look through it that much...

  44. Well, no...[A history lesson] by tjstork · · Score: 1

    The whole point of American trading policy was to have free trade and in doing so allow the third world to take up manufacturing in exchange for remaining a more intellectual property based system.

    A history lesson is in order. This mess has been almost 150 years in the making...

    This basic vision was actually invented by Southern Democrats in the runup to the Civil War, who preferred to import cheap manufactured goods rather than buy more expensive goods from the North. Indeed, Northern imposition of tarrifs to protect its industries was in some ways a bigger driver of the civil war than slavery itself. That's not revisionism - that's the Tariff of Abomination and how I think it was South Carolina almost bailed on the Union even in the 1830s simply because of tariffs.

    After the war, Republicans were a protectionist party and the economy frankly boomed as America became a manufacturing powerhouse, essentially doing everything to Europe that China does to the USA today. Free Trade became a plank of the Democratic Party in the 1920s as Progressives in the North cut the unholy deal with the South to get their support and form Roosevelt's Super Coalition. Once Progressives broke with the South in the 1960s over the civil rights act, the Nixon strategy was really to offer free trade back to the south, explicitly, coupled with some not-so-subtle race baiting.

    Thus, the American policy of free trade is really just a national appeasement to red state farmers and miners looking to import tools as cheap as possible, so they can sell produce on the world markets as cheap as possible and make a killing. If wages crater, what of it, as these people were all slave states anyway and who cares what happens to the urban centers filled with unemployed people when your state has plenty of food to grow and coal to mine.

    Thus, you can't really say free trade and its decimation is the fault of Bush / Cheney. Rather, its the fault of every administration since Wilson scrambling for red state electoral votes. The historical aberration is that World War II produced an un-unnatural demand for American manufactured goods, but the policies that wrecked American manufacturing were put into place by Roosevelt, and extended all the way through the present administration.

    If you want to curb environmental abuses, re-establish a middle class, and have American manufacturing, then the thing to do is to slap a big tax on imported manufacturing goods. What puzzles me is that Democrats of today do not even see this or do this, despite their own constituencies demanding this ever since the first Toyota rolled off of the ships in the 1960s.

    Instead, you have Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and company, that have made free trade the gospel of the Democratic Party, which is not too surprising since both are Southerners. The basic difference they offer is that, they would tax the profits of those to dole out some welfare to everyone getting gutted from waves of cheap imports, like, at least ask Walmart to provide health insurance for its workers. The reality is, Democrats need to let go of free trade, and understand that blue states are not resource rich and can never compete in this arena. Instead, they had foolishly hoped that they could get the world to pay an IP tax, as you said, and that's simply not going to fly. Koreans are unimpressed by American patents on inventions they can discover for themselves.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Well, no...[A history lesson] by Cili · · Score: 1

      I am replying to cancel my wrong moderation

    2. Re:Well, no...[A history lesson] by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't actually slap a big tax randomly on things, that cost should reflect fair trade, where imported goods are subject to the exact same cost impacts of, fair and reasonable wages, safe working conditions, environmental protection costs, realistic taxation basis and, acceptable conditions of employment. In line with normal competitive practices, companies can still be required to compete whether local or foreign, but that competition should be done upon an equal basis. This is ultimately fair and humane, if other countries want to avoid the duty impost, they simply need to improve conditions so that they equal or exceed local conditions. So you are not just rebuilding the politically stability of the US middle class, you are building that politically stable middle class across the globe.

      This is very important as it has already clearly be demonstrated political strife in other countries will always end up having a local impact and modern exotic pollutants know no boundaries, it is impossible to produce clean and safe products in a polluted environment.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  45. Punctuation Nazi by amake · · Score: 1

    The possessive "its" does not have an apostrophe anywhere, either before or after the "s".

  46. Not a peep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the reason that you've heard not a peep, my good fellow, is because your regular media outlet wants ACTA soooooo bad, they're not going to publish anything that might inform you or encourage you to rebel against the current secret process. You can thank Mr Murdoch for that personally, if you so wish, but there's plenty of other groups on the same side: the banks, the insurance companies, the pharmas, the stock market....