Slashdot Mirror
White House Pressuring Registrars To Block Sites
An anonymous reader writes "While the Senate is still debating a bill that would force registrars and ISPs to block access to sites deemed 'infringing,' it appears that the White House's IP Czar is already holding meetings with ISPs, registrars and payment processors to start voluntarily blocking access to sites it doesn't like. Initially, they're focused on online pharmacies, but does anyone think it will only be limited to such sites? ICANN apparently has refused to attend the meetings, pointing out that they're 'inappropriate.' Doesn't it seem wrong for the US government to be pushing private companies to censor the Internet without due process?"
Meet the new boss, same (worse?) as the old boss.
Goddamn idealogues seeing everything in black/white terms. This is your fault.
I wonder how many WH officials worked for or intend to work for Big Pharma companies that don't want Americans to pay the same CHEAP prices for medications that the REST OF THE WORLD pays?
I'm guessing most of them.
Single payer - what we should have done.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Does it seem wrong? Yes.
Is it surprising with this Administration, coming from a made-up post that was not vetted by Congress and is not supposed to have any operational power? Not in the least.
When the Obama Administration claims the right to ASSASSINATE CITIZENS without due process, I'm not surprised that a little thing like blocking websites doesn't merit due process either.
Initially, they're focused on online pharmacies,
So the worry is that instead of "just" protecting the US drug industry from international competition (like getting drugs cheaper from Canada or Mexico or wherever) they'll start protecting the US music industry too from whomever is their demon of the moment?
Isn't the stated, uh... elevation... just as bad as the slippery slope?
Fuck this bullshit. Fuck every last czar. All should be fired. Get government the fuck out of shutting down sites it doesn't like. Fuck Obama for not stopping this. Fuck Congress for not stopping this. Fuck the mainstream media for not correctly covering this, and the only correct way to cover it is in terms of the dangerous expansion of executive power.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
So, something I've been thinking a bit about lately as I watch the last vestige of freedom get choke-slammed by our government. One they finally do take away our Internet (in form of access and concept), what's to prevent us from then just building a new one requiring more technical acumen to get to, putting them back at square one. It's a minor setback for us, but really, where is the horror?
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
until the *AA's can buy enough congressional support to give them the effective right to decide the content of the internet. Don't worry, they'll have enough votes bought soon.
It often seems the US is trying to turn itself into a has-been ghetto on the world stage. Due process is one of those pillars of democracy that they fight so hard to bring the rest of the world.
Son, I am disappoint. Did I get magically transported to Iran during the night and not notice? If a site is doing something illegal, then by all means shut them down, but you do NOT get to arbitrarily censor things just because you don't like them.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Obama keeps whining about people who supported him when he was speaking about Google about the importance of an open internet don't want to vote for him anymore. Gee, I wonder....
Is ICANN tied to the UN or the USA?
This all seems very bad and very wrong. Using online pharmacies as the primary reason just doesn’t wash with me. No one country should 'own' the internet. And without due process you have to really wonder what the hell is going on here. I thought the Australian government was going to far with mandatory censorship but this is pretty frightening.
Those who can, do. Those who cannot, sue.
Screw the reason for the censoring. ISP's shouldn't be making decisions on content AT ALL. Today it's online pharmaceuticals. Tomorrow it'll be sites pertaining to Islam, or in opposition of the government. How long do you think it will take our leaders to demand a system by which THEY can add sites or domains to the blacklist directly?
Ah Yes! Welcome to the USSA. China already does this....
The U.S. Congress has a large number of Christian fundamentalists particularly in the Republican Party but some are in the Democratic Party as well that belong to a group called 'The Fellowship'. Author Jeff Sharlett has a book about them titled 'The Family'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)
The craziest legislation comes from the members of this organization.
These online pharmacies want to get paid right? So if you dont want them doing
business in the US, yank or freeze their CC vendor accounts. Can't they do that?
Meet the new boss, same (worse?) as the old boss.
I voted for Obama based on my belief that he would make better decisions than McCain. We tend to forget that the election was not a yea or nay vote for Obama. It was a contest between two contenders.
Has Obama done everything I want him to do? No. Has he made decisions (like this one) that I disagree with? Yes. Am I still happy that I voted for him rather than McCain, the guy who wanted to put the freak from Alaska a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Abso-freakin-lutely.
As for being worse than the old boss, your memory must be failing. Bush was the most corporate-friendly President we've seen. Undoing the damage he did to civil liberties and the environment alone will take years.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
sheesh.
I'm european, and totally unrelated, for a time I was disgusted with americans, the Bush presidents, wars and all the other fuck-ups. Until one day I saw a banner with the american flag that said "I love my country, but I fear my government". I was completely changed by that one phrase.
"Doesn't it seem wrong for the US gov't to be pushing private companies to censor the internet without due process?"
If Bush had been president, this headline would have read: "Doesn't it seem wrong for the Bush Whitehouse to be pushing private companies to censor the internet without due process?" But the Slashdot editors voted for Obama, so they can't make him look bad, even if they disagree with him
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
With all those RIAA lawyers in the government, I have to believe that sites the MAFIAA hates will be next on the blacklist...
For once, I'm glad ICANN had sense enough to avoid the meetings. And couldn't someone issue some FOIA requests and consider suing? This feels like an end run around the First Amendment. Can you imagine if the government was going around to publishers asking them to voluntarily burn certain books?
Oh, wait... they already did that.
it's no wonder censorship is making such a big comeback, what with all the 'secrets' about inhuman behaviors, manipulation of populations, deceptive taxation without representation etc....
as far as we can tell, there has been no (0) public minded political representation here (US) in more than 20 years, which is as long as we've been watching 'it' (the process). so, in order to to maintain taxation without representation..... 'they' must falsify the already phony #s over&over. phewww. that's how we feel. that's US. many/most of us anyway. it's quite doubtful any invisible/imaginary 'enemy' could out do our own fauxking murder & mayhem system, both at home & around the (now under reported) shaking globe. they treat us as though we came from monkeys, & they ?didn't?, as evidenced by their tendency to encourage us to do/use less, while they continue to suck DOWn/waste/destroy immeasurable amounts of stuff, & feast on nubile virgins (of both sexes) in their palatial conclaves, surrounded by armies of (infinitely corrupted) hired goons. paid for by.... there we (?monkeys?) go again.
the search (for one honest/selfless person) continues;
google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=weather+manipulation
google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=bush+cheney+wolfowitz+oil+rumsfeld+wmd+oil+freemason+blair+obama+weather+authors
modifying this search makes it even more interesting/scary. it's likely just a coincidence that the same names turn up together in 1000's of documents re: murder, mayhem & just generalized felonious underhandedness.
meanwhile (as it may take a while longer to finish wrecking this place); the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their (slippery/slimy) 'platform' now. see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder
never a better time to consult with/trust in our ?creators?, who may not be what we were forced to (not) believe in. why would descendants of monkeys need to worship anything (except maybe the 400 lb/megaton 'gorilla')? the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there? cup of primordial ooze we are/anyone?
Yes, it's wrong. Those powers should only be used to kidnap American citizens and ship them off to be tortured and killed in secret.
Besides, why not just have Cyber Command hack their domain registration accounts? Much simpler.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The WTO will just give more free IP! pharmacies are much bigger then on line betting / poker.
Any ways if we where to push it candida may just end with rights to us tv / other media for free.
BIG drugs sucks and we pay more then any other place for meds!
welcome to most of the United States.
You know, the part that contains the normal everyday Joe's who just go to work, do their jobs, and go home to be with their families / friends.
That's the majority of Americans.
Not the moron's displayed on the national/world media on a daily basis.
These "objectionable sites" may consider adding some political commentary (perhaps a policy statement on the topic of drig regulation) and then if the governement tries to shut them down, sue using the 1st amendment .
The only solution for the government then perhaps becomes a much finer grained block list (specfiic pages) which the web sites can evade by moving stuff around, or, by having political speech on every page.
The question would then be how the US Supreme court would view a "voluntary" block list that was published (or caused to be published) by the government?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Down with Bush Hitler! Wait...
How about if they pull whitehouse.gov on the grounds that they're promoting breaking the Internet.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
The Obama administration is not the first to try to squelch free speech, but it does seem to be more driven in this direction than others. This is no different that a giant book burning, except it effectively keeps the ideas from ever being expressed in the first place.
Maybe we should outlaw computers while we're at it, or (here's a great idea!) license them only to responsible individuals who pass a test on correctthink. That would also have the benefit of producing more revenue for the government to squander.
It's woefully inappropriate to spend tax dollars trying to protect something that doesn't exist.
Intellectual property isn't.
Thoughts, ideas once released are owned by everyone that they've been shared with.
Only physical things can be owned, can be protected against theft.
Big Pharma saw the pot at the end of the Rainbow with the Health Care Bill. So they made a deal, this is simply part of the payoff. Of course they will be paying those who pushed the law onto the land with nice contributions to their political campaigns.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Do you even know what socialism is? Because it isn't this.
Socialism - Anything political that is disliked by a conservative.
Fascism - Anything political that is disliked by a liberal.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
That is generally a right-wing attitude, the "I love my country, but I fear my government", many vehicles that have that slogan as a sticker also have something about right to bear arms.
so they're blocking port 80 and 443?
ok fine with me. I think I'll manage somehow =).
I've said this before and I'll keep saying it...
If you are in the U.S. and you want change, and I really mean serious change, then you have the power to make a difference. All it takes is for you to do a little bit of research and maybe 30 minutes of your time to VOTE. The biggest problem is that we have these two parties who are totally out of touch and/or basically just don't give a rats ass, about the citizens.
Make a change and do the following:
Sure, your guy might not make it in, but hopefully you can sleep better at night and send a message to these scummy politicians that we are fed up.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Motherfucking shit. I voted for your ass knowing that some stuff like this would happen, but it's been all shit like this from day one. What did we get out of it? A half-assed health plan with no public option and a mandate. Everything else? Same as the last crowd, and worse. WHAT THE FUCK.
we should have been paying even a little bit of attention (always free). butt, when we got whatever we want by signing for (a lifetime of unrepayable, high interest debt) it, why would anybody need to lie to us about the total permanence/prosperity of our 400 year old babylonian crusader empire (there have been many). another great victory MUST be at hand?
You can only fuck with DNS within certain limits, before people decide to quit using your DNS. It's understandable to think there is such thing as "The DNS" but it's more of a consensual illusion. Break the consent and you'll break the illusion. Every time someone in government says, "Hey, let's make it illegal for certain servers to reply to certain requests," a dozen hackers start thinking about how they might design a tamperproof naming system.
People, why do you try? All you can possibly accomplish is create anger and expose yourself as untrustworthy, without even accomplishing the censorship that you desire.
Yeah, voluntarily. The way you "voluntarily" pay your taxes. Or the way you "voluntarily" pay the large men requesting money for "fire insurance".
Yes, right wing is bad, because... well, it's right wing so it must be bad!!!
This seems to be blocking by obscurity -- i.e. removing DNS listings, but IP addresses persist and would still reach the site if you knew which one to type in. How long before OpenDNS morphs into FreeDNS (or AltDNS) or some other service that you can apply to in order to be listed in a manner free of government interference? There is, to my belief, no technical reason why one can't subscribe to the DNS listing service of one's choice. We all use the standard DNS system at the moment just because it gets us to everywhere we want to go. When it stops doing that then an alternate DNS systems becomes viable and attractive. Can the government ban that?
Can they ban a local to your machine (hey, hard drives are LARGE these days) DNS database that distributes listings by P2P for "banned sites"? I may be wrong, but it is a truism that the Internet routs around damage, including censorship.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Second verse same as the first, if this is the "Change" everyone wanted... wow... I'd rather have had bush for another 8 years, started 2 more wars (North Korea and Iran) than have a censored internet, be forced to buy something by the federal government (I have health insurance already, but being FORCED to pay money for something, anything besides taxes, by the government is a step WAY BEYOND the freedoms this country is supposed to stand for).
And he hasn't even rolled back any of the Bush "secret" stuff, or closed Guantanamo. Instead as soon as he was in office he decided all that stuff was great!
Never been a worse president than Obama.
Payed for by big Pharmaceutical!
Next time think before voting for a President who believes we have 57 states. Second grade kids know better than that.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Doesn't it seem wrong for the US gov't to be pushing private companies to censor the internet without due process?"
This is from the party that "accidently" acquired thousands of FBI profiles. And the party that wants electronic copies of all your medical data (protected as well as your FBI data). Now you're surprised that they are planning on creating "big brother" laws?
Does the Obama Administration Hate Free Speech?
It started with a half-hearted campaign against Fox News. They couldn't censor them so they tried to discredit them. Next the White House called liberal commentary on MSNBC and invaluable public service.
Then comes the Citizens United case. They hate the idea of first amendment rights being given to corporations, but they love it for non-profits and labor unions.
Next, Obama couldn't bring himself to criticize the backers of the ground zero mosque but he couldn't resist trying to prevent a preacher in Florida from exercising his first amendment rights.
Now we come to web sites. Time to try to eliminate the ones we don't like.
Never before have we had such a thin-skinned president, nor an administration so openly contemptuous of rights for those who disagree with them. I suppose tha't not really true, America once passed the Alien and Sedition Act.
This hostility to free speech is a far greater threat to your and my civil rights than the Patriot Act ever was. The current White House threatens freedom more than Dick Cheney and Karl Rove ever imagined. Where is the outcry? Where are the demonstrators? Where are the media campaigns? WTF?
Sure I'll blow all my mod points for daring to post anti-Obama stuff. So be it.
This poster shows a large degree of "oppressed conservative persecution delusion disorder" where he thinks that the media is somehow protecting Obama by not explicitly calling him out (personally!) for everything done in his Administration.
Never mind that only one group occupies the White House at any time, and that's what's in the HEADLINE of the fucking post. But go ahead, keep believing that you're being persecuted by EVIL LIBRULS.
Seeing as Obama has stated that Fox News is "ultimately destructive for the long-term growth" of America, I"m sure the 1st amendment will be thrown out the window as they get bumped off the internet by this administration.
Obama's statement and the news concerning this meeting does not make this as far fetched as one would think. And before you left leaners go crazy, Obama also praised MSNBC as "invaluable". Most folks who can reason see MSNBC as the polar opposite of Fox News. So now we are fast approaching government sanctioned news in the US.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
What the USA makes its ISPs do is an internal matter. Pressuring registrars to kill domains is another. Grey market and fake pharmaceuticals is one thing but when you get into matters of opinion and national ethics then it is something completely different. At least ICANN stayed away, however they are still under the influence of the USA courts and the Whitehouse - look at the farce about the XXX TLD.
I'm not a great fan of the ITU as it is slow and cumbersome but I do feel that ICANN, IANA and the rest should be moved under their control. The Internet doesn't belong to any single country regardless of who came up with the original protocols. This is preferable to having multiple organisations running different root servers which can lead to the same URL being resolved to different IP addresses.
Andy
Doha, Qatar
I vote a small prize to Androcles for commencing discussion of TFA. AFAICS from a quick scan, everything up to this point has been self-indulgent (and more or less pointless) chatter about socialism, fascism, and other abstract ideas on which people will never agree even if they learn to argue coherently.
When will Slashdot acquire my most-desired enhancement: a flag to let readers go directly to the point (whether halfway through, three quarters, nine tenths, or whatever) where actual discussion of TFA begins? Just think of the cumulative number of person-hours it would save every day.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Don't worry guys, I'm sure giving the government the power to regulate internet traffic will never backfire! Governments are incorruptible and infallible! Let's hear it for "net neutrality!"
I got an email yesterday that purported to be a warning about a security exposure in Windows. All of the links in the email went to "xxxx.microsoftemail.com". OK, so who is the wiseass that allowed a domain to be registered with the name "microsoftemail.com"? At the very least they should have required proof of association with Microsoft as this could easily be construed as a trademark violation.
Ahh, but that would make sense and cut into the regstrar's profits.
Sure, microsoftemail.com is probably down today after causing the infection of hundreds of computers. Next week we can look forward to irsgov.com or ebaypayments.com.
This is all pretty simple stuff, but the registrars are creating half the problem by allowing people to register obviously similar domains with the intent to cause confusion. They do, or this practice would have stopped in 1999.
If the registrars aren't going to fix this problem then someone else is going to. And we may not like what else they fix while they are at it.
Well, it was nice while it lasted. Back to the noise...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
It saddens me that this has been modded as it has.
We already have a China to the east... do we really need one to the west as well? Censorship sandwich anyone?
"Initially, they're focused on online pharmacies"
As Simon Johnson wrote in The Atlantic, the U.S.A. is the richest oligarchy.
Thank you, Big Pharma. Thank you, Obamarama, blame Canada.
Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout
I mean, it's right in the name: Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so it must be true! /s
LOL. Exactly!
This is very true. It's sad.
Does it matter if Bush or Obama is the one with the assassination program? If they killed you or someone you knew, would you feel any better if it was done by someone of the same political party as you?
Can't we all just agree that assassinating US citizens a bad thing, no matter who is doing it?
I have to wonder .. what is so difficult about getting a court order to get it shut down? I wouldn't want them to be able to just shut a site down without due process unless there was some sinister life and death situation. If they have evidence to prove of illegal activity then they should have evidence to get the court order to shut it down.
What a *quaint* idea. That silly personal freedom stuff ended after 9/11 and the "patriot" act. Remember?
there are no better words, there is no elaborate, eloquent approach, there is no rational explanation, there is no justification for this. its stupidity.
its MORONDOM. nothing else.
see, internet domain names were basically de facto controlled by united states of america. a lot of countries are already annoyed with that. and, at a time where this control of domain names, one of the very first tools for operating internet was being already under scrutiny, some MORON comes up, prodded by some bloodthirsty private interests, and attempts to censor internet according to their whim, under their own country's law.
let me tell you what will happen in the first month they start doing that - either united nations, or another, new international organization will take over the domain name apparatus, and refuse to recognize any authority of icann, and united states. its akin to burning your own house to clean it, or something even stupider.
strategic STUPIDITY. im hereby, with this post, calling the IDIOTS who have come up with that policy, morons. outright MORONS, idiots. there is no other approach to this. there are no eloquent words. its simple morondom.
apparently, since the acta talks are flopping, with eu parl almost totally killed it, china, russia never participated, and india actively trying to destroy it, this was the new 'idea' that the current private interest puppets and their leashholders were able to come up with.
unbelievable morondom.
Read radical news here
He made no statement whatsoever about right-wing being good or bad.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I've given up on government. Our government was supposed to be about change FOR the people... not change against the people.
Now Obama is telling his base to shut up and suck it.
Its clear the democrats are against net neutrality...
Just another corporate fat pig in black face.
You always see people on the left trying to censor political opinions using laws with misleading fuzzy titles like "fairness doctrine". This is nothing more than a tool to silence the opinions of people the government does not agree with. It reminds me of a saying I once heard:
Conservatives are afraid you don't understand what they're talking about, liberals are afraid you do.
The 1st amendment was first for a reason, and when you start censoring anyone by fiat, and by an unelected political appointee no less, you've opened the flood gates for abuse of power. Why is it that the democrat party and the federal government no longer have a clearly defined line, but rather act in each others own best interest. For example the EPA: The EPA rules by fiat and is a political ally of the democrat party. The EPA does what it can do make sure democrats do well in the polls because the EPA - a branch of the government mind you - knows that when democrats are elected that more money and power will flow into the EPA apparatus. And that's just the EPA. All agencies in the government, unless specifically labeled 'conservative' are run by the democrat party. Many of the agencies are so large that they have taken on a life of their own and operate as a company that seeks power and glory rather than to serve the greater public good. And to that end they know that a vote for democrat is a vote to increase funding, scope and power of the federal government.
The only problem is that the government does not produce anything. All the government can do is tax people who do produce something and spend it on something else, filtering through a never-ending maze of bureaucratic red tape, nepotism and corruption and when it finally reaches its destination, only a fraction of what was taken from the taxpayer actually goes towards the problem in the first place.
No, really, I'm going somewhere with this.
I'm sure there are tons of people who want to rip holes in my argument and tell me that the EPA and the federal government aren't part of the democrat party. Whatever, you have your right to be wrong. Others will say that there is a military industrial complex that is beholden to conservatives. That's wrong too. You have privately owned defense contracting companies that actually produce something. Even if what they produce rubs you the wrong way, they are a hell of a lot more productive than the EPA. They are also private citizens and corporations of the US that are totally within their rights to lobby congress to their own best interests as it is every citizen and corporations[group of citizens] right in this country. Besides all that, Boeing isn't run by the RNC and doesn't really care who is running the country so long as they keep buying death rays from them they are happy to do business with whatever party is in the WH. I'm sure they are very happy with Obama because Obama means more sales for them. And it's hardly controlled by conservatives.
In the supreme court, the last bastion of conservatism. The two ideologies play out here with one side, the conservative side claiming to be strict constitutionalists. And the liberal side of the court is more happy to say the constitution is a living document that can be reinterpreted from time to time as the language changes - in direct contradiction of the framers. I'm not saying that the court shouldn't revisit old decisions and undo precedent, Dred Scott v Sandford for example. But we must adhere to some rule of law. Long ago liberals stopped adhering to the constitution and only bring it up as a weapon to strike out at their opponents with and is something to be ignored while it suits their agenda.
How can you say that the changing meanings of words in a language changes the sprit of the contract that was written long ago? When you
Strike the last three words
The American government realizes that the American public has become fat, lazy and complacent as a whole. I don't really care about your individual tale, and neither does the American government unless you're someone who is truly in a position to changes things as an individual.
Long gone are the revolutionary freedom loving days, and unfortunately the whole world may end up suffering for it at some point.
I thought Obama was all for Net Neutrality, and freedom? Guess that Changed too.
The USPS, government run, government owned, government controlled, no competition in the mail business by law. How is that for you?
Uh-huh. And established in the US Constitution. Great example for the GP's claim that we're not any more socialistic now than 10 years ago.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
Both Fascism and Socialism support a very strong government. This is why some conservatives/Libertarians consider them about the same thing.
For a 2-d figure that compares them see
http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm
Tim S.
BUSH was the bad guy??? Betcha if Hussein Obama gets his way, you'll REALLY see some websites disappear by the 2012 election. That is if we haven't run him out of town for running the country into the ground.
United Socialist implies that the workers have control over their own destiny, the correct term is National Socialist which implies that the state and corporations are in cahoots when it comes to running things.
Then again, the Democratic Peoples Republic of (north) Korea is hardly Democratic. What's in a name?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yes - It's time to shut down the US Government.
Were in the hell in the Constitution is the power to do this? It does not exist. Off with it's head!
Just look at all those responses... well played, troll, well played.
Nice try: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
@0:08:"..every corner of the United States. I've now been in fifty seven states? and I think one left to go one left to go and uh Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to but uh my staff would not justify it"
So lets count. he says 57 very clearly - then he goes on to say one left to go (58) then he says "and uh Alaska and Hawaii" (60). And I'm curious where you attribute your quote from. I've given you the actual video, meanwhile a google search for the phrase "Fifty sovereign states"+ obama returns nothing about an Obama quote.
Here's another funny one from the great leader. @1:49:"We should continue to push for a United Nations security council resolution to calling for an immediate end to the violence"
This shows a level of naivete has never been displayed in a president. Everyone knows that Russia is a veto wielding member of the UN security council and any threats made against Russia by the UN security council are totally meaningless. That this guy is now president and didn't know that one month prior to taking office speaks volumes of his knowledge and the knowledge of the people he surrounds himself with, or at least him and the people who write his speeches.
Somehow we need to put a stop to this practice of appointing "Czars". Anyone who can't pass muster with the Senate shouldn't be calling shots in the Executive Branch.
That's precisely what we need, even more dependence on the totally fucking broken US Senate. Right now there are record numbers of Presidential appointees in limbo, not getting debated, not getting a confirmation vote, not getting anything. These people aren't controversial, nobody thinks they'll do a bad job or that they're even partisan. Most of 'em will eventually get confirmed someday. It's just that right now some politicians in the Senate think it's more valuable to slow this process down to score electoral points. It's not like we need people managing the OMB or the Fed or any of that shit. It basically runs itself, right?
Now, if you're a politician this is all in a day's work. I mean, I get it. They get something out of this, it's a power game. But for an outsider to say "hey, let's throw some more of our critical government functions into this crazy broken process, that'd be a good idea", that's just fucking ludicrous. While we're up to stupid things, why don't we solve our nuclear waste problem by burying it in school playgrounds? These ideas are of roughly the same intellectual caliber.
And don't get me started on this Czars nonsense, where every remaining position the President does have the power to appoint is suddenly referred to as a "czar" (even if that term is nowhere in the title) and we're all supposed to be outraged that the President is appointing people to do the fucking job of running the government like we expect him to.
I voted for Obama based on my belief that he would make better decisions than McCain.
Well that was stupid.
Obviously neither of them would make good choices. So the best choice was clearly to vote in the person who could do the least harm - and with continued control of senate and house assured for the Democrats at the time, that person was McCain.
I would have voted for Obama if the Republicans were still in power. Only when parties actually HAVE to work with each other does government start approximating sane choices. Otherwise you are voting for the Lemming option, where the government runs off a cliff because all of the people in power think the cliff polled really well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because it certainly isn't any Europe in reality.
"And yes, Europe's politics are better than America's. Much better. And yes, it's not just because they're Left, but because they're less authoritarian."
Would this be the same "non-authoritarian Europe" that just banned Burqas in France, that has a mass-surveillance state in the UK, and bans firearm ownership in much of the continent? The same Europe where the EU has not only allowed but directedauthorities to gather and save the communications data of European citizens for an indefinite amount of time? THAT Europe? Authoritarianism with good intentions and a velvet glove is still authoritarianism.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I voted nay for Obama which meant I had to vote for McCain, but the only reason I voted for McCain was because I may as well abstain rather then vote for a third party.
I agree that third parties aren't a good option (and I say that as a strong supporter of some in the past, including donating money to libertarian candidates).
Since that hasn't really worked out the next best approach is to support the Tea Party. The idea there is, you strongly support candidates that are fiscally conservative and wish to reduce spending. In reality nothing else matters, since the federal government SHOULDN'T have much say in what we do anyway regarding marriage and other personal things, it doesn't matter where they fall on the social spectrum - if they support smaller government then the people are freer to do what they want, period.
Now currently the Tea Party is mostly having an impact on Republicans, but as the common sense idea to reduce spending and influence of government grows, the Tea Party (or something like it) will naturally start to evolve to promote Democratic candidates that also want to reduce spending and the size of government. That is not at all at odds with fundamental beliefs of the Democratic party, just as reduction of spending was once not at odds with the Republican party either.
Ignore the slander being directed at the Tea Party painting them as anything but fiscally oriented, and work to support it if you truly believe in independent ideals and third parties. Because if you can start to change the major political parties from the inside, that is very powerful.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You can't be socialist without also being a fascist in the end. How else to implement the controls over people Socialism deems best for them?
Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If republican's are for a smaller government, why did the federal gov balloon during their era.
If Democraps are for a socialist government, why do the give in to every corporate request that they make?
Join one of the two major parties. Doens't matter which one.
Then start voting for people in primaries who aren't either of the things you listed. Get involved at the local level in political discussions
It's obvious overcoming the two party system is near impossible. So, work the system. Change it from within. But it's hard work. Do you really care enough do do this? Because in the end real change is hard work..
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
.
Read his fucking book - you idiots, "Mein Kampf" and "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer.
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
Sure they want to block online Pharmacies. After all, they know our country is sick and they don't want you folks trying to fix it.
So for all the schmucks currently stuck on GoDaddy, any recommendations for DNS registrars located outside of the US that have a history of not messing with their registrant's information?
This would also be an excellent time for a non-US registrar to have a domain transfer related sale, say x% off if you transfer from GoDaddy or any other US registrar. Assuming GoDaddy didn't try to lock your domains "for your protection" to block you from transferring...
PS - Oh wow, verification captcha was Patriot...
"This net neutrality and online privacy advocate is infringing on our ability to make money by selling user information to generic viagra sellers. Block it."
Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them]
[audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
[murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat]
I think you just answered it. Now expand it past just drugs, and you are getting somewhere...
HC is a big scam. Everyone knows it. Everything is vastly overpriced. They know people will pay. So we do. This is largely a domestic issue, and if you don't think it has anything to do with lobbyists your a fool. There is a good reason why pills are 20$ rather than 20 cents. Even up here in Canada our HC system is being destroyed by profiteers.
Why does a a cancer treatment cost 4000$ a month when the drug costs 2 dollars to produce? The drug company will way "because we spent 100 million on H&D and have to recoup costs". Yet if you look at their books, they might have spent 20 million on all their drug research, and that cancer treatment will never get cheaper despite how many other drugs they research or how much time goes by. Now compound that by a government monopoly, then times that by basically running a cartel, and you have the current state of affairs.
I know all the USA people will think this a communist idea, but I would love to see our government say "fine, if that's how you want to play, then the Canadian government is now going to get into the business of making drugs... perhaps we will become the largest, and undercut the rest and supply the world...". The idea is fraught with problems, but I certainly don't see the "market" correcting itself, considering the greed at the price of human suffering over say the last 50 years the current system has proven what it is capable of.
I can't wait until the baby boomer generation dies off and my generation can become political leaders.
What's more likely, I think, is that he thought to say "forty seven (of the fifty) states" and it came out "fifty seven states". I can totally believe that much more than he thinks there are 60 states.
57 instead of 47 is a piss easy mistake to make when chatting.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
This is where the creativity begins. Throughout history we the people have survived the the shackles of governance. Our creative minds have been free to develop new technologies and processes to hold them at bey. This creativity is how we have what we have, the internet,Facebook, Youtube,and everything else. What will tomorrow bring? "No one is thinking if everyone is thinking alike" General George S Patton
Actually this is the "right" way to go about it. In spite of the common public perception that the constitution prevents discrimination and requires due process the reality is that it does so only for government or other PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS. When people complained that the company that they were working for read the e-mails that they sent out to non-work related parties using the company's computers, network, servers and software and that their rights to privacy in mail were being violated only a few chimed in that there is no privacy attached to using the company's resources for your own purposes unless the company has told you it is permitted to do so. And there is no right to privacy when you are using someone else's e-mail system and support infrastructure. They own it, they allow you to use it on their conditions and if they don't monitor it they may wind up being liable for what you have done with it. Not to mention the price they may have to pay if you get their equipment infected/infested with malware that then goes on to impact the productivity of everyone in the work environment.
The government is prohibited from doing things like that with the US mail (for example) unless certain criteria are met such as being part of an ongoing criminal investigation that is supported by some evidence and by a warrant from the judicial branch. Their hands are, and should be tied, in regard to doing things like that. Corporations are not allowed to discriminate in hiring and in treatment of individuals or groups in certain areas of corporate conduct. There is no law that say that ISPs, Registrars, or Network Access Providers can't discriminate against or refuse service to users who have signed up for their service. Especially if they are violating Terms of Use that regulate using the service. Having them do the discrimination and punishment without due process is placing this enforcement in an area where it is actually allowed even if we don't agree with it.
Americans seem to have wandered far from the days when a Boycott was an effective tool to use when we disagreed with the policies and/or actions of companies. We rely on our governing institutions to handle everything for us and to be responsible for things that aren't within their jurisdiction because we have become lazy thinkers or have mistaken ideas about who needs to take responsibility for things that we deem unacceptable.
We need to talk to each other, understand what forces and principles are involved when issues arise that we think need to be remedied and then DO something, not simply enjoy the feeling of relief we experience when we vent about the perceived injustices and then let the problem be handled (or, actually, not be handled when we fail to take the action needed) by unspecified "others" to solve the problem.
Looking at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Canadian_federal_ridings), it seems clear that the Canadian ridings (dividing the provinces into voting districts approximately by population) are analogous to House of Representatives districts within each US state, each one of which is winner-take all for that particular district in House elections.
What you're saying [in US terms] is that in Canada, whoever wins the House gets the Presidency. That not necessarily happening is a major difference between the US and British representative-democracy systems.
WP also says there are 308 such ridings; what you're saying is the winner of each of those essentially gets one vote for Prime Minister, albeit indirectly. That would be like each US Representative electoral district getting one electoral vote, rather than aggregating by the winner of each state, but with the executive election distinct from the legislative election.
Aggregating by each of 435 separate units would be an improvement over aggregating by each of 50 separate units, and comes to mind as an improvement in the Electoral College while still keeping it (and thus easier to implement the fix)
Maine and Nebraska already do this, but they're small. Nebraska going 4-1 for McCain over Obama was the first time there's been a split at all.
As http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:111th_US_Congress_House_of_Reps.png shows, larger states can (and are more likely to) have somewhat-divided congressional representation, thus having less of a swing on House membership (and having less of a swing on Electoral College membership under this kind of system
A few small provinces have at-large ridings with populations smaller than the average divisions of the largest provinces; there's an analogus issue with the smallest US states.
The skew in state Electoral College totals from equal representation in the Senate is a separate issue in the US system.
~~~~ [KingAlanI]
The same problem with plurality in the general election applies to the primaries as well. It is turtles all the way down.
Yes it is.
But a million turtles are impossible to deal with. 20 are not.
You have no idea how few people it takes to take over a party body at the state district level. The Tea Party managed it in Utah and I think a few other places.
The only "change from without" that will work is violent change, and no-one wants that (well, except for some anarchists I guess).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What happen to Net Neutrality?