The negotiations at the end of WWI
Goal: End the war.
the negotiations between owners and labor unions
Make money.
Kerry's plan just results in actual talking w
Kerry's plan would have been to find what North Korea wanted, and then give them the smallest chunk of that possible for North Korea to give up their weapons. That's fine, and that's a good goal. North Korea has only one thing we want: nukes. There is nothing else for us to give. That's all we could possibly get from North Korea. They have no economy. No exports. No import markets. Nothing. Zero. Therefore we are the only ones who can possibly logically make concessions. If it US and North Korea, we have nothing.
Bush's plan is cleary better because the other partners involved do have ties to North Korea that we do not. China is the only real financial support left for North Korea, for example. Japan provides medical personell and treatment to many dire cases in North Korea. See that? We have nothing. The others in the area have leverage.
If the US negotitates directly with North Korea the only result be that North Korea makes promises, gets some stuff for free, and puts it nukes on the back burner until they get what the want. Rinse, repeat forever.
Bush's plan is much better. If 6 nations work with North Korea than North Korea's goal goes from being "get free stuff" to "keep what free stuff we get".
Negogiations only work when the parties involved share the same core goals.
North Korean goals are to "keep the ruling elite in power". Everyone else's are "make North Korea non-nuclear". A big difference. To make any type of progress, these things need to square. That means you have tie "stay in power" to "be non nuclear". That is all there is to it.
Without the other nations, there is absolutely no leverage the US can hold over North Korea. Nothing. There is only empty compromise on our part.
Negotiating in North Korea on the premise that they want what the US wants is absurd. It's funny that should equate North Korea's administration and that of the United States. Without very much argument, North Korea is considered by even the most anti-US groups as the worst country in the world to live in. The worst administration in the world. The worst human rights absuses in the world.
On a scale of perfectly just to infinite evil, the United States is a lot closer to perfectly just than North Korea is away from infinitely evil.
Kerry has the absolutely worst ideas on how to deal with emerging nuclear states. He advocates dealing with the nations and trading for them to stop developing nuclear weapons. Clinton and Albright - ad Albright's urging - followed this route with North Korea. They got *everything* they wanted - food, oil, and nuclear material. Clinton made great hay with his achivement. Diplomacy works! Yah!
Except the whole time North Korea was screwing us without us even realizing it. A few months into Bush's administration what do we see? North Korea has gone nuclear. Great. Now what do we have? We have to persuade a coutry to give up something that puts them into the elite of nations.
North Korea is not Europe.
The question is why hasn't Europe done a single thing with regards to North Korea? The European solution is to talk, and work out an equitable solution. Except that there is no equitable solution to North Korea. There is a fundemental disconnect between European values and American values. This illustrates it.
And Bush's solution is to "talk" to, just 6-way talks that actually aren't happening.
Bush wants China to bully North Korea into doing what everyone else wants. The reason the talks aren't happening are because North Korea wants to wait until the election is over. If Kerry wins then everything changes. If Bush wins, things resume where they left off.
And Bush's solution is to "talk" to, just 6-way talks that actually aren't happening.
Right. Because everyone wants the US to deal with the problem, not North Korea. Why is North Korea the US's problem? Because we have what they want: money. France, Germany, China, Japan don't want to deal with North Korea - even though they are most likely to bear the brunt of any aggressive action - because it'll be expensive and difficult.
There are ways to get agreements to work out and enforce things.
Clinton thought so. But he was worng. North Korea is going to do whatever it wants to get whatever it wants. You can deal with nations who are legitimately trying to improve their citizens lives. North Korea as a country exisits to prop up the ruling elite. Period. They are only going to deal towards that end.
. Clinton did make a mistake, but that is in regards to the agreement reached and how it would be monitored, not in regards to talking.
There is no settlement that North Korea will honor. They only care about securing the future of the rulers of North Korea. Period. The people of North Korea have been starving to death for 30 years. What makes anyone think that's going to change? Kerry's approach is exactly that of Clinton - negogiate with North Korea in order to get them to stop their nuclear program. Give them the smallest concessions available. That is the exact same thing Clinton did. And now North Korea is nuclear. Kerry advocates the same plan in Iran. Iran claims to be seeking nuclear technology for power plants, even though they sit on enough easily available petrol to fuel their nation for 200 years. Kerry said during the debates that we should assist their peaceful nuclear development. Same thing that North Korea claimed in the 90's. The same result with be proven. A nuclear Iran.
And the corruption in the Oil for Food programs is largely from private companies in various countries, the governments and people are not corrupt.
That is fundamentally untrue. There were clearly corrupt corporations. But the evidence points to the fact that UN officals of all levelsd knew of the corruption and did nothing to stop it. Hussein paid off high-ranking officals in parliment and in the administration of France, including $1M to the French equivalent of Karl Rove. You cannot also discount the close connection that the supposedly private corporations of France enjoy to the government. Of the French companies on the take from Iraq, several had large interests held by the Government. The largest corruption took place in a company fully 33% owned by the government of France.
There is no evidence that corruption was changing policy at all (and such corruptions can be fixed when identified).
That's an interesting topic. The position on Iraq by France has been unchanged for 20 years. They have opposed every action against Iraq since the 80's. They are intricately linked to Iraq.
The idea of the U.S. becoming a self-sustaining economy is ludicrous. The world isn't like that anymore.
The economies of the world are becoming less integrated and more interchangeable. Much of what the US imports is not valuable because of its point of origin but rather due to its
That's what diplomacy and international relations are all about.
This is only a viable option when those other nations are working in good faith. Clinton was regarded throughout the world in highest esteem of any American president since Kennedy, or even FDR. Yet what did it get us? We worked with North Korea extensively in order to get them to stop their weapons programs. We went so far as to say: if you stop developing these weapons we will give you oil in mass, bulk food to feed your people, AND help you build a nuclear power plant to power half-your nation for the next fifty years.
It was as coup of the highest order. North Korea abandons it program and and we give them everything we promised. Secretly, the program is restarted, and bamo, a few months into the Bush administration we learn that they've been developing a nuclear program with the very reactor and fissle material that we *gave* them.
Why did this happen? Because the Clinton administration and Albright beleived that they were dealing with a government who wanted to help the people - to give them food, and heat, and electricity and raise their standard of living. They beleived they were working with an honest partner.
North Korea screwed the United States, and cockholded us in the eyes of the world. The ultimate 2-bit tinhorn dictator tricked the US in essentially giving up a weapon of immense power. And we even feed their people and fueled their economy as they decieved us.
John Kerry's answer - this is a truly nasty scary idea of the highest order - is to go back to North Korea, and ask them what they want to give up their weapons program. North Korea broke off all talks until after the election. Why? Because their tack will be different with Kerry in office. They will accede and give up their weapons in response to normalized relations and a lift of trade restrictions.
This is just one example of how diplomacy has failed, and failed horribly. We have no honest partner in North Korea.
Europe loves to bargain in these cases. The corruption of the UN Oil-For-Food program is virtually unheralded in the history of the world.
France never had any true support for the US invading Iraq the first time. In fact, they are a huge economic ally of Iraq. They would rather support Iraq than a tiny nation like Kuwait simply for pure economics.
Likewise, in the last few weeks, France has asked the EU to lift weapons sales bans in place since 1989 against China. Why? Pure, cold, hard economics. It is in Frances best interests to be able to sell 80's and 90's era technology to China.
The United States must realize that every passing day marks yet another decline in the plurality of values shared with Europe. We are rapidly finding we have little in common with Europe. Values wise, we are distant.
The United States has everything we need to become a self-sustaining economy. Vast, vast resouces, fine institutions of education and traning.
Hoping ATMs get ripped off is wishing ill will on actual people who have done nothing wrong. That would be like you wishing your friend got car-jacked and beat up badly for his insecure car.
Also, I do run win2k, and keep it properly updated and configured. I've _never_ been the victim of a worm or a virus.
Hear, hear to that. Good admining is key. I was, for a fashion, the sole administrator of an 8500 thin-client network, served by approximately 14 production server machines running Windows 2000.
I designed, implemented, and admin'd the whole thing - from ethernet wiring to software setup, to software design to testing and roll out of new applications.
In the 9 months or so I was running the project (until they hired their permanent IT guy I was directing the search for my ultimate successor) I was very proud of my work:
Zero down-time for users during business hours (two 8 hr shifts a day, call-center) for 271 straight days (the it went live, to the day I left).
Zero worms, viruses, trojans, mal-ware, spyware, or adware infections
Every user had Internet access and complimentrary e-mail that was allowed to be used in and outside of work
Every user had an operations guide that was exactly customized for his workstation and software needs - if you had rights to use application X, application Y, and application Z your users manual had exactly those sections in it. This was done automagically by querying the directory server and assembling pages from source PDFs.
Help-desk requests were routed through a custom knowledge base tracking system. When I left fully 70% of requests could be resolved to the users satisfaction by automatic response. On my busiest day I had to manually deal with 13 support requests
The point behind the message is that good admining and systems design cannot be avoided regardless the platform . If you have poor admins, poor systems engineering going on, regardless of your platform, you will have failures.
All it takes is one more clause in the agreement/contract
Except you have to enforce it if the agreement is broken. When you are small, and have 1000 vendors, what are you going to do, file a thousand lawsuits, each for a few grand a piece (or less)?
This sort of picking on the little guy is just disgusting; they didn't even pick a sizeable retailer. Not only is it the wrong end of the distribution chain, they went after the person least likely to be able to fight.
No, it's not disgusting. They are liable if they sell infringing products. They have to take care when choosing distributors and partners. They obviously selected badly.
Law is a system of precendents build ontop of regulations and laws. When trying to establish a precendent, you pick easy targets. It's basic, and it's not new.
In my court you do not pay court costs if you win (I have done before, as well). Only if you lose.
If you lose, the fine will be outrageous and the judge might slap community service or some incarceration atop of that if you piss him off too much.
The punishment will be within the bounds of the law, or you have a rock-solid case for appeal.
. The DHS people were doing the same thing. If they want to fight it, go to court. Expect to pay a lot of money and really be screwed if you lose, though.
That's how it should be!
My aunt and uncle were at a ballgame in the late 1980's, and came up with a novell type of umbrella that would be useful in such a circumstance.
They spec'd one out, did some market research, hired an advertising firm - everyone though it was a neat idea. They filed for patent protection, and hired an attorney to pursue the patent and move it along all the way. They went to the regional sporting goods places, got them to sign on for so many units. They went up the entire east coast had a huge number of orders. They left an occasional sample item with some big potential customers.
They ordered and recieved the items, had them in a warehouse, and started having them shipped. Maybe 5 months from inception to execution. By the time they got to the clients, a Malayasian company had gotten their hands on a sample, made a knockoff, and poached every single order.
The items were imported improperly, but had already hit the "streets". The items in question were *exactly* identical in every manner, right down to the hinges used and the size of the stiches and the design and weight and dimensions. They sold them at a massive discount relative to the domestically produced items.
The bottom line was that my uncle and his wife had 250,000 umbrellas in a wharehouse that - even if sold at cost - were a big financial loser. Sure, they had a agreements with vendors, but, are they going to go up and down the country with a band of lawyers suing 500 distributors for $2000 a piece? Each case would take more than that in legal fees.
After a few months everything fell apart for them, and their main-line business fell apart due to financial constraints. The result? 20-30 good quality jobs down the drain.
In any event, I think the government has too much time on its hands in some respects, and this incident highlights that.
Enforcing trade regulations is perhaps one of the truest, most age-old, most fundamental duties of government.
And no, that the airwaves are a public trust is not a "fact".
It is the basis of the FCC. Therefore, it is fact. It is under complete control of the government. Congress established the FCC and its regulatory powers by the Communications Act of 1934, which extended and updated the Federal Radio Commission Act of 1928.
It has been upheld at least 5 times by the Supreme Court and various appelate level courts, in each decade since the 1940's.
Broadcasts are granted licenses and are to be renewed if the station meets the "public interest, convenience, or necessity."
It is a fact. FACT.
but don't make it sound like physicists detected radio waves and their public trust detectors went off as well.
I never made an such claim or insuation.
I am saying that it is obvious without strict regualation of the broadcast airwaves there would be choas such that absolutely no widespread useful communications would be possible. If a teenager has a choatic life, it does not inhibit others who are far form him from having a stable/productive/valuable life. That is the difference that you fail to comprehend. Choas in the broadcast sprectrum leads to disruption for everyone, not just he one causing the choas.
like viewing NFL games outside the specified market area
That's not illegal! It's an artifical restriction that the media and sports industry setup to maximize profits!
Cultural events and theater are for making money.
No they aren't. Public theater loses money or breaks even.
Political events are DEFINITELY for making money
They are our civic duty. Debates, rallies, etc. Not commerical.
I happen to like Howard Stern's slice of the spectrum, now go find a slice of the spectrum YOU enjoy; leave mine in peace before we think your slice is not of benefit or interest and try to get it freed up for more boring stuff.
I love Stern, and listen to him everyday. Somehow you can't grasp the concept that even though he is funny and entertaining, he is not appropritate for broadcast medium.
Traffic is overregulated. Why put up a stoplight and regulate everything to a crawl, when a 4-way stop sign will allow people to effectively regulate themselves better than the government can in many situations?
This all depends on the situation. Enlightened self-interest is what is at stake here. Your interest is to get to where you are going quickly, without dying, and without your property being destroyed. Logic and liberty dictates that the best way to do that is drive cautiously, be courterous to your fellow drivers, and obey minimal regulations - sides of the road, blinkers, etc.
The problem is that you may think you doing something to further your interests, when in fact, you are doing the opposite. Heavy traffic is a topic that is greatly studied. 4-stops are more efficent when traffic is low; in heavy traffic, you need to balance the ratios of inflow appropriately: a 4-way stop allows traffic to flow equally poorly in all directions, regardless of the queue of cars behind one sign.
Bring it back to broadcast medium. You're not talking about a small amount of regulation -- you're talking about turning every radio and TV into the equivalent of a traffic light, where the government ultimately decides what serves the public interest and what doesn't.
No, I am saying, eliminate the commerical aspect from the broadcast airwaves. Private band communications should be auctioned off and sold, on a virtually exclusive basis - we still need some safety valves for the protection of society at large. After the commerical aspect is eliminated, allow anyone who passes a HAM-style operators test which demostrates competency obtain a free frequency and area.
You are entrusting the content of all our broadcasts into the control of the federal government...not protecting freedom, but withholding it.
No, I am suggesting turning the power to broadcast over to individuals with a non-commerical interest. The current system government enforced monopolies is a travesty. What I suggest is the most liberal and most libertarian use of the public airwaves possible.
And just when the hell was that?
The time before World War II, during and immediately following World War II.
Before radio, you were very unlikely to ever hear an opera, or hear a play being performed on the other side of the country, or hear the President's voice first hand.
At best, they've encouraged / required broadcasters to provide some useful content. The argument was that the airwaves are a finite resource and that the public deserves some payback for their use.
It's not an arugment, it's fact. Without a regulating body, the airwaves would become permanetely choatic, and nothing of any value would be broadcast.
Right now, nothing any commerical radio station broadcasts is of any significant public value.
Even NPR is of limited (but substantially greater than commerical radio) value.
Shock-jock stuff may be fairly new, but sitcoms, soap operas, and advertizing have been there pretty much from the get-go.
Not from the get go. I encourage you to read about the first uses of broadcast television.
The first things broadcast in the US were George Gerswin, a very fine British play, the political leaders of the city of NY having a debate, and the like.
A quote from one source describing TV:
"TV was used (among other things) to entertain the troops, provide updates on the war, and to teach the public civil defense and demonstrate emergency first-aid procedures. "
Like I said before -- your position on this is decidely Marxist. You are being pretty contradictory.
It is the furthest thing from marxism. Liberty needs defending from time to time. Thats the purpose of government. Creating permanent monopolies is the opposite of liberty, it is the opposite of freedom.
You have to think about this one at some point. It's not like you think. A small amount regulation provides more freedom than no regulation. There are other cases where this is true. Think, for example, traffic laws. Trade some freedom for the ability to efficently travel just about any where in the whole country.
Then I can assume that you're for censoring all comercial music from the radio waves (since Britney Spears does not serve the public interests)? If so, wow...that's an interesting position.
Yes, I believe the public airwaves should be devoid of virtually all commerical programming, including music and talk radio.
That type of entertianment is perfectly valid, however, not on a government granted monopoly.
What if the airwaves used by satellite radio were deemed public? The point is that satellite and terrestrial radio are pretty much the same thing.
No, that's incorrect. The satelitte systems are digital, narrowband, nationwide/semi-global, and private. They are private one-to-one communciations. Much like an Internet connection.
Standard radio is broadcast. You have to shield electronic devices from picking up those signals. A 50-cent transistor can recieve the signal and reproduce it to a small transciever.
Besides, what is so offensive and dangerous about talking about human sexuality (specifically the humor of human sexuality) in a frank manner? What is the danger in talking about human bodily functions in a humorous way? I think it's funny, other people think it's funny -- so what's wrong with it?
It's not dangerous at all. It's perfectly benign. But the goal is not to be not dangerous. The goal is to beneficial to society. That's the purpose of government involvement in the airwaves - to promote the general welfare, to benefit the public. Commerical interests are just that - commerical.
Look at it like this. If the government sells the right to broadcast on a certain channel, that restricts the ability of others to do the same. I would like to broadcast a recording of my opinion on a frequency, but I can't because all the available spectrum has been purchased by commerical interests. That is a suppression of individuals ability to promulgate diverse, unrestricted, free speech.
Finally, 18-35 year olds are targeted because they make up a majority of the advertiser's market.
Wrong. They are targetted because single white 18-35 year olds have more disposable income than other group of people in the country. They are an easy target. It is vastly easier to convince an 18 yr old to spend $8 to see a movie than it is to convince a 45 yr old to spend $8 on a movie.
They also listen to more radio than anyone else.
That's untrue. They are amoung the least likely to listen to radio. The older you are, the more likely you are to listen to radio. For every rock station in the country there is an easy listening, big band, and classic rock station. (I tried to look up stats for you, but the ones I have access to via Arbitron are under lock and key for 24 months from date of publish!).
Are you opposed to commercial radio in general?
Only over the public airwaves.
If you don't like other American's decisions, why should your opinion be shoved down their throat?
It's quite the contrary! The opinion of a few are being shoved down the throat of the millions! Most people have spoken - which is why the radio market has shrunken just about every consecutive year since in the last 4 decades! An amazing feat consider the country has nearly doubled in population.
The fact remains that the will of a few - what a few want - is what is broadcast over public airwaves. What I want has nothing to do with what I am saying. Natural resources - like the limited EM spectrum - ought to be used to benefit all of American society, not just a slice of middle-to-upper-class profitable citizens.
Commerical radio distorts - amazingly - what is perceived to be the mainstream. Howard Stern is not appealing to the vast, vast, vast, majority of the country. Even in the markets he is on he is not always the #1 show on in the morning. Where he is #1 he is hovering in a 10-20% share of the market. That means that less than
I don't agree that we should censor it though.
Denying someone a broadcast license is not censorship. I do not have a broadcast license. Is my opinion being censored?
Nope. Not all.
People have a right to voice their opinions.
Absolutely. God-given.
I think what we need is to open the airwaves even more
No, I think we need to move all commerical speech off the public airwaves, and open it up to more NPR-style, public-affairs orientated, local broadcasts. This will give more voice to more people.
Opening the airwaves up more will only further giveway to national broadcasting companies and the whatnot who wish to lockup the marketplace.
People should be able to 'own' frequencies, and be able to use the courts to protect their rights.
No, I don't . I would presume. But my position is supported by the fact that Stern does not have 300 million listeners, or anything near it.
Gee, I wonder if anyone has bothered to tell the electromagnetic spectrum about its lofty social purpose?
Why bother, it's not alive, it has no feelings.
Utter nonsense. I'll bet that not even 70% of the public has ever even heard Stern's show, and therefore have no basis whatsoever to hold an opinion.
You are probably correct. However, try this experiment. Stop ten people on the street, and read them a ripe howard stern quote (regarding Columbine):
"There were some really good-looking girls running out with their hands over their heads. Did those kids try to have sex with any of the good-looking girls? They didn't even do that? At least if you're going to kill yourself and kill all the kids, why wouldn't you have some sex? If I was going to kill some people, I'd take them out with sex."
Ask them afterwards: do you find that patently offensive?
Then, read them a quote from NPR:
"The 2000 presidential election prompted a reexamination of the Electoral College's role in American democracy. As the nation braces for what could be another disputed election, experts disagree on the merits of the current voting process. Today on Talk of the Nation we examine voting technology and methods."
Ask them if they are offended.
Do that, and report your results to me. Seriously.
How convenient for the government; to be able to regulate modes of speech through socialism and invoking 'the public good' (think of the children!).
This isn't a "mode of speech", it's a medium.
I suppose the airwaves were labeled 'public property' under the guise of the reality that they are limited. Only one entity can use a given frequency, and the number of usable frequencies are limited.
This is right. Without this protection, everyone would try to use the same, easiest to work with frequencies for their product/project/fun/mischief.
I suppose the airwaves were labeled 'public property' under the guise of the reality that they are limited. Only one entity can use a given frequency, and the number of usable frequencies are limited.
Close! But not quite. If you use a piece of land it does not inhibit me from using a piece of land off here, to the side. See how that works? If two people try to use the same band, that band is destroyed for either of them. If you have 10 people trying to use the same band, all of the sudden, well, no one gets anywhere.
People should be able to 'own' frequencies, and be able to use the courts to protect their rights.
That is applying a phycial model to non-tangible product. How could someone stake a claim to a frequency? There has to be someone who decides who owns what. Otherwise no one has any value whatsoever. Choas on the airwaves destroys it's value for everyone and anyone at the same time.
Excuse me, but if 70-80% of the public at large finds it patently offensive, why is he #1 in most or all of the markets he's broadcast in?
The problem is that one or two people could easily monopolize the entire spectrum without fail.
I have a large power source. I have some physics knowledge. I could take just about any local radio station off line by broadcasting endless noise on the same frequency. All of the sudden something that had value has been removed.
The airwaves are public because without government intervention there would be no value to them whatsoever. In a few months or years communications would be totally fractured without regulation. There would be absolutely no end-to-end communications that could work. Any time any company established a product, a competitor or just plain asshole could disrupt it by broadcasting his/her own signal right on top of it. Bamo. Out of business.
I am a libertarian in the truest sense of the word. But fundamental regulation of the airwaves is probably one of the only legitimate powers government has grabbed up in the last two centuries.
I am registered Libertarian, and as such, I am tempted to agree with you.
However, you are wrong. The airwaves are in the trustest sense of the word a public resource. We have regulation for many reasons, one of them being, frequency pollution. If not for ownership and stewardship of the airwaves, you would immediately have one, maybe two radio stations nationwide. Someone with tons of money would errect two or three massive 2-3 billion watt stations that would simply drown out every other form communication.
Government exisits in the truest libertarian tradition, I believe, to apply a modicum of regulation to those things ripe for abuse. Some things are made worthless by unfettered access, but are made vastly valuable by some restriction. The airwaves is one of those things.
Slashdot Mirror
The negotiations at the end of WWI
Goal: End the war.
the negotiations between owners and labor unions
Make money.
Kerry's plan just results in actual talking w
Kerry's plan would have been to find what North Korea wanted, and then give them the smallest chunk of that possible for North Korea to give up their weapons. That's fine, and that's a good goal. North Korea has only one thing we want: nukes. There is nothing else for us to give. That's all we could possibly get from North Korea. They have no economy. No exports. No import markets. Nothing. Zero. Therefore we are the only ones who can possibly logically make concessions. If it US and North Korea, we have nothing.
Bush's plan is cleary better because the other partners involved do have ties to North Korea that we do not. China is the only real financial support left for North Korea, for example. Japan provides medical personell and treatment to many dire cases in North Korea. See that? We have nothing. The others in the area have leverage.
If the US negotitates directly with North Korea the only result be that North Korea makes promises, gets some stuff for free, and puts it nukes on the back burner until they get what the want. Rinse, repeat forever.
Bush's plan is much better. If 6 nations work with North Korea than North Korea's goal goes from being "get free stuff" to "keep what free stuff we get".
Negogiations only work when the parties involved share the same core goals.
North Korean goals are to "keep the ruling elite in power". Everyone else's are "make North Korea non-nuclear". A big difference. To make any type of progress, these things need to square. That means you have tie "stay in power" to "be non nuclear". That is all there is to it.
Without the other nations, there is absolutely no leverage the US can hold over North Korea. Nothing. There is only empty compromise on our part.
That statement isn't statistically valid.
Your statement is utter B.S.
Count all votes for any elected American, ever. Put them in seperate categories.
Bush got more than ANY other elected person in American history. Period, end of story.
Did he get a greater percentage? No. Did he get a greater proportion of the voting public? No.
Does any of that change the bare, straight, unbiased fact that I report?
NO.
Everyone wins, but in the long term, a redefinition is needed of the rules of the game.
Bush got more votes than any American in history.
No matter how you slice it, he won this election. Electorally, popular vote, plurality of states, plurality of precincts, plurality of counties.
What exactly do you want to change in regards to the rules of the games?
Ahh, you are a fool. If two parties do not share the same core goals then you cannot have any sort of productive intercourse.
Look at every negigoated settlement in the last 50 years and you'll see that both sides wanted the same core fundamental things.
Negotiating in North Korea on the premise that they want what the US wants is absurd. It's funny that should equate North Korea's administration and that of the United States. Without very much argument, North Korea is considered by even the most anti-US groups as the worst country in the world to live in. The worst administration in the world. The worst human rights absuses in the world.
On a scale of perfectly just to infinite evil, the United States is a lot closer to perfectly just than North Korea is away from infinitely evil.
Kerry has the absolutely worst ideas on how to deal with emerging nuclear states. He advocates dealing with the nations and trading for them to stop developing nuclear weapons. Clinton and Albright - ad Albright's urging - followed this route with North Korea. They got *everything* they wanted - food, oil, and nuclear material. Clinton made great hay with his achivement. Diplomacy works! Yah!
Except the whole time North Korea was screwing us without us even realizing it. A few months into Bush's administration what do we see? North Korea has gone nuclear. Great. Now what do we have? We have to persuade a coutry to give up something that puts them into the elite of nations.
We have lost almost all of our options.
North Korea is not Europe.
The question is why hasn't Europe done a single thing with regards to North Korea? The European solution is to talk, and work out an equitable solution. Except that there is no equitable solution to North Korea. There is a fundemental disconnect between European values and American values. This illustrates it.
And Bush's solution is to "talk" to, just 6-way talks that actually aren't happening.
Bush wants China to bully North Korea into doing what everyone else wants. The reason the talks aren't happening are because North Korea wants to wait until the election is over. If Kerry wins then everything changes. If Bush wins, things resume where they left off.
And Bush's solution is to "talk" to, just 6-way talks that actually aren't happening.
Right. Because everyone wants the US to deal with the problem, not North Korea. Why is North Korea the US's problem? Because we have what they want: money. France, Germany, China, Japan don't want to deal with North Korea - even though they are most likely to bear the brunt of any aggressive action - because it'll be expensive and difficult.
There are ways to get agreements to work out and enforce things.
Clinton thought so. But he was worng. North Korea is going to do whatever it wants to get whatever it wants. You can deal with nations who are legitimately trying to improve their citizens lives. North Korea as a country exisits to prop up the ruling elite. Period. They are only going to deal towards that end.
. Clinton did make a mistake, but that is in regards to the agreement reached and how it would be monitored, not in regards to talking.
There is no settlement that North Korea will honor. They only care about securing the future of the rulers of North Korea. Period. The people of North Korea have been starving to death for 30 years. What makes anyone think that's going to change? Kerry's approach is exactly that of Clinton - negogiate with North Korea in order to get them to stop their nuclear program. Give them the smallest concessions available. That is the exact same thing Clinton did. And now North Korea is nuclear. Kerry advocates the same plan in Iran. Iran claims to be seeking nuclear technology for power plants, even though they sit on enough easily available petrol to fuel their nation for 200 years. Kerry said during the debates that we should assist their peaceful nuclear development. Same thing that North Korea claimed in the 90's. The same result with be proven. A nuclear Iran.
And the corruption in the Oil for Food programs is largely from private companies in various countries, the governments and people are not corrupt.
That is fundamentally untrue. There were clearly corrupt corporations. But the evidence points to the fact that UN officals of all levelsd knew of the corruption and did nothing to stop it. Hussein paid off high-ranking officals in parliment and in the administration of France, including $1M to the French equivalent of Karl Rove. You cannot also discount the close connection that the supposedly private corporations of France enjoy to the government. Of the French companies on the take from Iraq, several had large interests held by the Government. The largest corruption took place in a company fully 33% owned by the government of France.
There is no evidence that corruption was changing policy at all (and such corruptions can be fixed when identified).
That's an interesting topic. The position on Iraq by France has been unchanged for 20 years. They have opposed every action against Iraq since the 80's. They are intricately linked to Iraq.
The idea of the U.S. becoming a self-sustaining economy is ludicrous. The world isn't like that anymore.
The economies of the world are becoming less integrated and more interchangeable. Much of what the US imports is not valuable because of its point of origin but rather due to its
That's what diplomacy and international relations are all about.
This is only a viable option when those other nations are working in good faith. Clinton was regarded throughout the world in highest esteem of any American president since Kennedy, or even FDR. Yet what did it get us? We worked with North Korea extensively in order to get them to stop their weapons programs. We went so far as to say: if you stop developing these weapons we will give you oil in mass, bulk food to feed your people, AND help you build a nuclear power plant to power half-your nation for the next fifty years.
It was as coup of the highest order. North Korea abandons it program and and we give them everything we promised. Secretly, the program is restarted, and bamo, a few months into the Bush administration we learn that they've been developing a nuclear program with the very reactor and fissle material that we *gave* them.
Why did this happen? Because the Clinton administration and Albright beleived that they were dealing with a government who wanted to help the people - to give them food, and heat, and electricity and raise their standard of living. They beleived they were working with an honest partner.
North Korea screwed the United States, and cockholded us in the eyes of the world. The ultimate 2-bit tinhorn dictator tricked the US in essentially giving up a weapon of immense power. And we even feed their people and fueled their economy as they decieved us.
John Kerry's answer - this is a truly nasty scary idea of the highest order - is to go back to North Korea, and ask them what they want to give up their weapons program. North Korea broke off all talks until after the election. Why? Because their tack will be different with Kerry in office. They will accede and give up their weapons in response to normalized relations and a lift of trade restrictions.
This is just one example of how diplomacy has failed, and failed horribly. We have no honest partner in North Korea.
Europe loves to bargain in these cases. The corruption of the UN Oil-For-Food program is virtually unheralded in the history of the world.
France never had any true support for the US invading Iraq the first time. In fact, they are a huge economic ally of Iraq. They would rather support Iraq than a tiny nation like Kuwait simply for pure economics.
Likewise, in the last few weeks, France has asked the EU to lift weapons sales bans in place since 1989 against China. Why? Pure, cold, hard economics. It is in Frances best interests to be able to sell 80's and 90's era technology to China.
The United States must realize that every passing day marks yet another decline in the plurality of values shared with Europe. We are rapidly finding we have little in common with Europe. Values wise, we are distant.
The United States has everything we need to become a self-sustaining economy. Vast, vast resouces, fine institutions of education and traning.
Your analogy is malformed.
Hoping ATMs get ripped off is wishing ill will on actual people who have done nothing wrong. That would be like you wishing your friend got car-jacked and beat up badly for his insecure car.
Then it actually happening.
Hear, hear to that. Good admining is key. I was, for a fashion, the sole administrator of an 8500 thin-client network, served by approximately 14 production server machines running Windows 2000.
I designed, implemented, and admin'd the whole thing - from ethernet wiring to software setup, to software design to testing and roll out of new applications.
In the 9 months or so I was running the project (until they hired their permanent IT guy I was directing the search for my ultimate successor) I was very proud of my work:
Zero down-time for users during business hours (two 8 hr shifts a day, call-center) for 271 straight days (the it went live, to the day I left).
Zero worms, viruses, trojans, mal-ware, spyware, or adware infections
Every user had Internet access and complimentrary e-mail that was allowed to be used in and outside of work
Every user had an operations guide that was exactly customized for his workstation and software needs - if you had rights to use application X, application Y, and application Z your users manual had exactly those sections in it. This was done automagically by querying the directory server and assembling pages from source PDFs.
Help-desk requests were routed through a custom knowledge base tracking system. When I left fully 70% of requests could be resolved to the users satisfaction by automatic response. On my busiest day I had to manually deal with 13 support requests
The point behind the message is that good admining and systems design cannot be avoided regardless the platform . If you have poor admins, poor systems engineering going on, regardless of your platform, you will have failures.
All it takes is one more clause in the agreement/contract
Except you have to enforce it if the agreement is broken. When you are small, and have 1000 vendors, what are you going to do, file a thousand lawsuits, each for a few grand a piece (or less)?
This sort of picking on the little guy is just disgusting; they didn't even pick a sizeable retailer. Not only is it the wrong end of the distribution chain, they went after the person least likely to be able to fight.
No, it's not disgusting. They are liable if they sell infringing products. They have to take care when choosing distributors and partners. They obviously selected badly.
Law is a system of precendents build ontop of regulations and laws. When trying to establish a precendent, you pick easy targets. It's basic, and it's not new.
In my court you do not pay court costs if you win (I have done before, as well). Only if you lose.
If you lose, the fine will be outrageous and the judge might slap community service or some incarceration atop of that if you piss him off too much.
The punishment will be within the bounds of the law, or you have a rock-solid case for appeal.
. The DHS people were doing the same thing. If they want to fight it, go to court. Expect to pay a lot of money and really be screwed if you lose, though.
That's how it should be!
My aunt and uncle were at a ballgame in the late 1980's, and came up with a novell type of umbrella that would be useful in such a circumstance.
They spec'd one out, did some market research, hired an advertising firm - everyone though it was a neat idea. They filed for patent protection, and hired an attorney to pursue the patent and move it along all the way. They went to the regional sporting goods places, got them to sign on for so many units. They went up the entire east coast had a huge number of orders. They left an occasional sample item with some big potential customers.
They ordered and recieved the items, had them in a warehouse, and started having them shipped. Maybe 5 months from inception to execution. By the time they got to the clients, a Malayasian company had gotten their hands on a sample, made a knockoff, and poached every single order.
The items were imported improperly, but had already hit the "streets". The items in question were *exactly* identical in every manner, right down to the hinges used and the size of the stiches and the design and weight and dimensions. They sold them at a massive discount relative to the domestically produced items.
The bottom line was that my uncle and his wife had 250,000 umbrellas in a wharehouse that - even if sold at cost - were a big financial loser. Sure, they had a agreements with vendors, but, are they going to go up and down the country with a band of lawyers suing 500 distributors for $2000 a piece? Each case would take more than that in legal fees.
After a few months everything fell apart for them, and their main-line business fell apart due to financial constraints. The result? 20-30 good quality jobs down the drain.
In any event, I think the government has too much time on its hands in some respects, and this incident highlights that.
Enforcing trade regulations is perhaps one of the truest, most age-old, most fundamental duties of government.
And no, that the airwaves are a public trust is not a "fact".
It is the basis of the FCC. Therefore, it is fact. It is under complete control of the government. Congress established the FCC and its regulatory powers by the Communications Act of 1934, which extended and updated the Federal Radio Commission Act of 1928.
It has been upheld at least 5 times by the Supreme Court and various appelate level courts, in each decade since the 1940's.
Broadcasts are granted licenses and are to be renewed if the station meets the "public interest, convenience, or necessity."
It is a fact. FACT.
but don't make it sound like physicists detected radio waves and their public trust detectors went off as well.
I never made an such claim or insuation.
I am saying that it is obvious without strict regualation of the broadcast airwaves there would be choas such that absolutely no widespread useful communications would be possible. If a teenager has a choatic life, it does not inhibit others who are far form him from having a stable/productive/valuable life. That is the difference that you fail to comprehend. Choas in the broadcast sprectrum leads to disruption for everyone, not just he one causing the choas.
like viewing NFL games outside the specified market area
That's not illegal! It's an artifical restriction that the media and sports industry setup to maximize profits!
Cultural events and theater are for making money.
No they aren't. Public theater loses money or breaks even.
Political events are DEFINITELY for making money
They are our civic duty. Debates, rallies, etc. Not commerical.
I happen to like Howard Stern's slice of the spectrum, now go find a slice of the spectrum YOU enjoy; leave mine in peace before we think your slice is not of benefit or interest and try to get it freed up for more boring stuff.
I love Stern, and listen to him everyday. Somehow you can't grasp the concept that even though he is funny and entertaining, he is not appropritate for broadcast medium.
You can't understand that?
Traffic is overregulated. Why put up a stoplight and regulate everything to a crawl, when a 4-way stop sign will allow people to effectively regulate themselves better than the government can in many situations?
This all depends on the situation. Enlightened self-interest is what is at stake here. Your interest is to get to where you are going quickly, without dying, and without your property being destroyed. Logic and liberty dictates that the best way to do that is drive cautiously, be courterous to your fellow drivers, and obey minimal regulations - sides of the road, blinkers, etc.
The problem is that you may think you doing something to further your interests, when in fact, you are doing the opposite. Heavy traffic is a topic that is greatly studied. 4-stops are more efficent when traffic is low; in heavy traffic, you need to balance the ratios of inflow appropriately: a 4-way stop allows traffic to flow equally poorly in all directions, regardless of the queue of cars behind one sign.
Bring it back to broadcast medium. You're not talking about a small amount of regulation -- you're talking about turning every radio and TV into the equivalent of a traffic light, where the government ultimately decides what serves the public interest and what doesn't.
No, I am saying, eliminate the commerical aspect from the broadcast airwaves. Private band communications should be auctioned off and sold, on a virtually exclusive basis - we still need some safety valves for the protection of society at large. After the commerical aspect is eliminated, allow anyone who passes a HAM-style operators test which demostrates competency obtain a free frequency and area.
You are entrusting the content of all our broadcasts into the control of the federal government...not protecting freedom, but withholding it.
No, I am suggesting turning the power to broadcast over to individuals with a non-commerical interest. The current system government enforced monopolies is a travesty. What I suggest is the most liberal and most libertarian use of the public airwaves possible.
And just when the hell was that?
The time before World War II, during and immediately following World War II.
Before radio, you were very unlikely to ever hear an opera, or hear a play being performed on the other side of the country, or hear the President's voice first hand.
At best, they've encouraged / required broadcasters to provide some useful content. The argument was that the airwaves are a finite resource and that the public deserves some payback for their use.
It's not an arugment, it's fact. Without a regulating body, the airwaves would become permanetely choatic, and nothing of any value would be broadcast.
Right now, nothing any commerical radio station broadcasts is of any significant public value.
Even NPR is of limited (but substantially greater than commerical radio) value.
Shock-jock stuff may be fairly new, but sitcoms, soap operas, and advertizing have been there pretty much from the get-go.
Not from the get go. I encourage you to read about the first uses of broadcast television.
link
The first things broadcast in the US were George Gerswin, a very fine British play, the political leaders of the city of NY having a debate, and the like.
A quote from one source describing TV:
"TV was used (among other things) to entertain the troops, provide updates on the war, and to teach the public civil defense and demonstrate emergency first-aid procedures. "
Your point is just false.
Like I said before -- your position on this is decidely Marxist. You are being pretty contradictory.
It is the furthest thing from marxism. Liberty needs defending from time to time. Thats the purpose of government. Creating permanent monopolies is the opposite of liberty, it is the opposite of freedom.
You have to think about this one at some point. It's not like you think. A small amount regulation provides more freedom than no regulation. There are other cases where this is true. Think, for example, traffic laws. Trade some freedom for the ability to efficently travel just about any where in the whole country.
Then I can assume that you're for censoring all comercial music from the radio waves (since Britney Spears does not serve the public interests)? If so, wow...that's an interesting position.
Yes, I believe the public airwaves should be devoid of virtually all commerical programming, including music and talk radio.
That type of entertianment is perfectly valid, however, not on a government granted monopoly.
What if the airwaves used by satellite radio were deemed public? The point is that satellite and terrestrial radio are pretty much the same thing.
No, that's incorrect. The satelitte systems are digital, narrowband, nationwide/semi-global, and private. They are private one-to-one communciations. Much like an Internet connection.
Standard radio is broadcast. You have to shield electronic devices from picking up those signals. A 50-cent transistor can recieve the signal and reproduce it to a small transciever.
Besides, what is so offensive and dangerous about talking about human sexuality (specifically the humor of human sexuality) in a frank manner? What is the danger in talking about human bodily functions in a humorous way? I think it's funny, other people think it's funny -- so what's wrong with it?
It's not dangerous at all. It's perfectly benign. But the goal is not to be not dangerous. The goal is to beneficial to society. That's the purpose of government involvement in the airwaves - to promote the general welfare, to benefit the public. Commerical interests are just that - commerical.
Look at it like this. If the government sells the right to broadcast on a certain channel, that restricts the ability of others to do the same. I would like to broadcast a recording of my opinion on a frequency, but I can't because all the available spectrum has been purchased by commerical interests. That is a suppression of individuals ability to promulgate diverse, unrestricted, free speech.
Finally, 18-35 year olds are targeted because they make up a majority of the advertiser's market.
Wrong. They are targetted because single white 18-35 year olds have more disposable income than other group of people in the country. They are an easy target. It is vastly easier to convince an 18 yr old to spend $8 to see a movie than it is to convince a 45 yr old to spend $8 on a movie.
They also listen to more radio than anyone else.
That's untrue. They are amoung the least likely to listen to radio. The older you are, the more likely you are to listen to radio. For every rock station in the country there is an easy listening, big band, and classic rock station. (I tried to look up stats for you, but the ones I have access to via Arbitron are under lock and key for 24 months from date of publish!).
Are you opposed to commercial radio in general?
Only over the public airwaves.
If you don't like other American's decisions, why should your opinion be shoved down their throat?
It's quite the contrary! The opinion of a few are being shoved down the throat of the millions! Most people have spoken - which is why the radio market has shrunken just about every consecutive year since in the last 4 decades! An amazing feat consider the country has nearly doubled in population.
The fact remains that the will of a few - what a few want - is what is broadcast over public airwaves. What I want has nothing to do with what I am saying. Natural resources - like the limited EM spectrum - ought to be used to benefit all of American society, not just a slice of middle-to-upper-class profitable citizens.
Commerical radio distorts - amazingly - what is perceived to be the mainstream. Howard Stern is not appealing to the vast, vast, vast, majority of the country. Even in the markets he is on he is not always the #1 show on in the morning. Where he is #1 he is hovering in a 10-20% share of the market. That means that less than
I don't agree that we should censor it though.
Denying someone a broadcast license is not censorship. I do not have a broadcast license. Is my opinion being censored?
Nope. Not all.
People have a right to voice their opinions.
Absolutely. God-given.
I think what we need is to open the airwaves even more
No, I think we need to move all commerical speech off the public airwaves, and open it up to more NPR-style, public-affairs orientated, local broadcasts. This will give more voice to more people.
Opening the airwaves up more will only further giveway to national broadcasting companies and the whatnot who wish to lockup the marketplace.
People should be able to 'own' frequencies, and be able to use the courts to protect their rights.
No, I don't . I would presume. But my position is supported by the fact that Stern does not have 300 million listeners, or anything near it.
Gee, I wonder if anyone has bothered to tell the electromagnetic spectrum about its lofty social purpose?
Why bother, it's not alive, it has no feelings.
Utter nonsense. I'll bet that not even 70% of the public has ever even heard Stern's show, and therefore have no basis whatsoever to hold an opinion.
You are probably correct. However, try this experiment. Stop ten people on the street, and read them a ripe howard stern quote (regarding Columbine):
"There were some really good-looking girls running out with their hands over their heads. Did those kids try to have sex with any of the good-looking girls? They didn't even do that? At least if you're going to kill yourself and kill all the kids, why wouldn't you have some sex? If I was going to kill some people, I'd take them out with sex."
Ask them afterwards: do you find that patently offensive?
Then, read them a quote from NPR:
"The 2000 presidential election prompted a reexamination of the Electoral College's role in American democracy. As the nation braces for what could be another disputed election, experts disagree on the merits of the current voting process. Today on Talk of the Nation we examine voting technology and methods."
Ask them if they are offended.
Do that, and report your results to me. Seriously.
How convenient for the government; to be able to regulate modes of speech through socialism and invoking 'the public good' (think of the children!).
This isn't a "mode of speech", it's a medium.
I suppose the airwaves were labeled 'public property' under the guise of the reality that they are limited. Only one entity can use a given frequency, and the number of usable frequencies are limited.
This is right. Without this protection, everyone would try to use the same, easiest to work with frequencies for their product/project/fun/mischief.
I suppose the airwaves were labeled 'public property' under the guise of the reality that they are limited. Only one entity can use a given frequency, and the number of usable frequencies are limited.
Close! But not quite. If you use a piece of land it does not inhibit me from using a piece of land off here, to the side. See how that works? If two people try to use the same band, that band is destroyed for either of them. If you have 10 people trying to use the same band, all of the sudden, well, no one gets anywhere.
People should be able to 'own' frequencies, and be able to use the courts to protect their rights.
That is applying a phycial model to non-tangible product. How could someone stake a claim to a frequency? There has to be someone who decides who owns what. Otherwise no one has any value whatsoever. Choas on the airwaves destroys it's value for everyone and anyone at the same time.
Excuse me, but if 70-80% of the public at large finds it patently offensive, why is he #1 in most or all of the markets he's broadcast in?
The problem is that one or two people could easily monopolize the entire spectrum without fail.
I have a large power source. I have some physics knowledge. I could take just about any local radio station off line by broadcasting endless noise on the same frequency. All of the sudden something that had value has been removed.
The airwaves are public because without government intervention there would be no value to them whatsoever. In a few months or years communications would be totally fractured without regulation. There would be absolutely no end-to-end communications that could work. Any time any company established a product, a competitor or just plain asshole could disrupt it by broadcasting his/her own signal right on top of it. Bamo. Out of business.
I am a libertarian in the truest sense of the word. But fundamental regulation of the airwaves is probably one of the only legitimate powers government has grabbed up in the last two centuries.
I am registered Libertarian, and as such, I am tempted to agree with you.
However, you are wrong. The airwaves are in the trustest sense of the word a public resource. We have regulation for many reasons, one of them being, frequency pollution. If not for ownership and stewardship of the airwaves, you would immediately have one, maybe two radio stations nationwide. Someone with tons of money would errect two or three massive 2-3 billion watt stations that would simply drown out every other form communication.
Government exisits in the truest libertarian tradition, I believe, to apply a modicum of regulation to those things ripe for abuse. Some things are made worthless by unfettered access, but are made vastly valuable by some restriction. The airwaves is one of those things.