Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech 1324
MacDork writes "As most /.'ers know all to well, Copyright is increasingly being used as a means to suppress free speech these days. And the trend has not been lost on our 2004 US Presidential candidates. Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information considered embarrassing or harmful to their campaigns. Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."
Democracy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Republicans, Democrats... All the same.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.
Uh huh.
You got something to say, then say it. You don't need these stage props to make your point.
Fucking whiner.
I'm beginning to be swayed... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I may vote my concience this time. I'm begining to think that voting reform is a more worthy long term goal then replacing Bush the tool with Kerry the tool.
Cheers.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just remember, unless the voting results in an exact tie, you're throwing your vote out anyway, so a vote for a third party candidate is as good as any.
Re:That's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Similar maybe but not the same. Do you really think there is no difference between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration?
Kerry and Bush have similar positions but only the dumbest of the dumb would claim that "letting the states decide if gay people should get married" == "let's amend amend our most sacred document to make sure gay people never get married".
The editor is a dumbass for thinking those two positions are identical.
Re:Yes it is (Score:1, Insightful)
By election day, there will only be 4 or 5 swing states. For example, if you live in California, voting for Kerry or Bush is useless. Kerry will win the state. It's a done deal. You might as well show support for someone you really want.
Excuse me... nothing like getting something (Score:2, Insightful)
Lock it down tight and it will be alright. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm beginning to be swayed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Impossible. Even if losing makes them support voting reform, so what? They're LOSERS, and have no power to change anything.
If you have the power to make changes, then the current system is working for you and you won't change it. Or if the system is against you, then you'll want to change it but be unable.
(Notice how Congressional districts have been carefully laid to uphold the status quo)
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't dispute John Kerry served in vietnam. They don't dispute John Kerry saved a man's life. The only dispute they have is that people were not firing at John Kerry as he was saving some guys life. Oh and they don't dispute his other purple hearts either.
If I was john kerry I too would keep comparing my record during the war to GW too. They both came from privledged families and yet one volunteered to go fight for his country the other pulled strings to get into the guard so he would not.
Don't waste your vote. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, none of the veterans served on the same boat as Kerry. The doctor they have talking about his first Purple Heart apparently didn't treat him at all for the wound, so that doctor commenting on whether it was a minor wound or not is irrelevant.
Where are the "I went to Harvard with GWB ads", I ask you?
Kierthos
Re:Yes it is (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to trash kerry either. If I had to vote for one or the other, it would be Kerry over Bush. But I don't have to, so I'm not going to.
Is There Some Story or Even Some Facts Here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't blame me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, though. Demopublicans, Republicrats, same same. Both parties are feeding at the corporate trough. I'm hopeful that under Kerry we'll have Evil Lite rather than Double Evil with Cheese and Curly Fries.
I like Nader and his take on things - I've been a fan for a long time. But I don't think he has a shot - he's not going to be on the ballot in many states, some of them key states like California.
It would be nice if one day we can have a third party candidate who (a) had a hope in hell, (b) wasn't a nutball, and (c) had the stones to be a progressive rather than a "me too" corporate slave.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
Re:Mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but isn't there a particular length of a clip that is considered fair use? A lawyer can write all they want, but that doesn't mean what they write is necessarily what the law says.
And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.
Still, IANAL, but don't the courts generally give fairly wide lattitude to political speech? Using many images from George Butler's collection might be questionable, but a poignant image to their political message might be appropriate use.
Anybody who is AL know what the courts have generally done in these circumstances?
Re:Only in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Catchy phrase, but pure bullshit karma whoring.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long? Over a year, yeah. Okay, I understand now.
Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.
How long were you there, my friend?
What better reason for DRM? (Score:3, Insightful)
When corporations can absolutely control what you can archive, reuse, or replay - that will be the day that free speech is reduced to what an individual can mimeograph and hand distribute. And there are already laws that chill that speech, such as vandalism, loitering, disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly, and thousands more. Don't worry, one applies to you. Right now.
So violate copyright every chance you get. Copyright has been abused to the point where it is useless, unjust, and no longer represents the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Civil Disobedience, kids - 1 in 6 Americans can't be wrong [slashdot.org]...or can they?
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. (Score:2, Insightful)
DoS voting (Score:5, Insightful)
Instant runoff? (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds good at face value, but it would result in NYC, Chicago, and LA determining the outcome of the election. Add up the population of just those 3 cities. Now add up the population of 10 states west of the Mississippi.
Where do you think the candidates would spend their time and money? Who do you think they'll pander to?
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since all those in the photo were the commanders of other swift boats, it would appear logical to conclude that none of them served on the same boat as Kerry. I suppose reading the caption of a picture has escpaed your capabilities?
Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something (Score:5, Insightful)
I RTFA. The point was that Bush does very few interviews, and so media are so concerned about losing that privilege that they will self-censor and not allow reuse of interviews that put him in a bad light. Bush doesn't have to say anything, but by only offering interviews with companies that toe the line, he is endorsing their attempts to intimidate using copyright. This would be fair enough if he was a movie star concerned about controlling his image, but as a paragon of American values, including free speech, he should hold to a higher standard, and should explicitly allow free use of his public statements.
Make them pay for it (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but threats from law firms don't scare me. If they think my freedom and my rights are less important to me than my bank balance then they are sadly mistaken.
The fact that the law can be used to harass is a two way street. At the end of the day it all comes down to who is going to blink first. Who is willing to go the farthest, dig the deepest, and get the meanest. I don't know about other people here, but I'm one of the most vicious, spiteful, ruthless and stubborn people I know. I'm a nice guy when others are nice, but when it becomes clear that someone is trying to fuck with me my demeanor changes rather dramatically. When someone is clearly my enemy, I have no conscience, no scruples, and I'm willing to go as far as is necessary to make my enemy wish they were never born. This aspect of my personality is sometimes frightening even to me.
If I were someone these shysters were threatening, I do believe I'd tell them to put their money where their mouth is. Make them spend the time and money to pursue me. If they did...well lets just say that they'll wish they hadn't. That is the kind of vigilance that is necessary to secure and defend one's rights against abuse at the hands of others who have more money and power than you do. Make it as painful for them as possible at every turn. Make them PAY for it in ways that they just aren't willing to. Exact the maximum discomfort from them at every turn.
Lee
P.S. The scientologists can KISS MY ASS TOO!
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Sure only the (50%+1)th vote is all that counts. Problem is, you don't know whose vote that is until the votes are all in.
Let's make it simple. Alice and Bob both love cookies; Charlene hates them but loves spinach for desert. They decide to hold an election to see what desert will be offered. Both Alice and Bob have read the parent comment and decided that, since the vote can't be split evenly (three people, after all), their votes must not count. They stay home from the polls. And bam! suddenly they're having spinach for desert -- even though a clear majority favors cookies.
It's an extreme example of course -- small numbers make it more dramatic -- but it's the reality. It's called the Paradox of the Infinitesimal: Each vote is such a small part of the total that its almost negligible... but together, in aggregate, they all count.
Re:I'm beginning to be swayed... (Score:4, Insightful)
As for voting reform, I think we need a system like the Aussies. Preferential voting. Here's a page that has info about one implementation if you're interested:
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/ElectoralInfo/WP_Prefer
Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately, you really have to conclude he is as free to only give interviews to those he choses as we all are. I submit it is less about "endorsing" and more about "toeing".
Part of free speech is having the right not to speak, and President or not, Bush still has that right.
You are free to draw whatever conclusions you choose based on his choices.
Re:I'm beginning to be swayed... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. At this point, I don't even care who the main third party option is. I know they won't win this election; I just want to crack open the door for some meaningful diversity in American politics.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is short-sighted. The first step to a long term solution is to vote third party now.
And don't even think about abstaining. Not voting is functionally a vote for either of the two parties, not a vote for neither, as some suppose.
Re:Yes it is (Score:1, Insightful)
do you think kerry has an unrevealed plan pre-election to invade another country and will do so at the drop of a hat? (ala neo-con hawks)
Do you think that kerry is going to gut welfare and give tax cuts to the rich?
They might not be all to different, but the devil is in the details.
Standing outside of america looking in, I can see a gulf seperating kerry and bush in relation to right and left re: public services, a huge gulf. And I can see that the democrats understand the policy process better than revolving door bullshit lobbyists.
There ARE differences, and you DO have a choice between one or the other in a non-run-off-voting method.
You would be better off not casting your vote if you vote for Nader or the like.
I'll tell you what should be done, Nader should pull out of the race (basically handing it to kerry) on the condition that a constitutional proposal goes to the people for run-off voting. In that one act Nader could accoplish more than he ever dreamed for the future of american poltics, because from there on in. Minor parties would have a voice in their negotions with major parties (at the least) and at the best there could be whole new parties and paradigms.
NADER PULL OUT IN RETURN FOR RUN-OFF VOTING.
Because he, or anyone else, isn't going to impact SHIT otherwise.
Please, as a non-american, I beg you to vote against bush. And the only way to do that (currently) is to vote in kerry. You don't understand what Bush has done to america in the eyes of the world.
How can you go from havnig everyone sending in condolences and offering support after 9/11 and everyone hating your fucking guts in so short a time? BUSH.
He has already damaged the UN to the point where nothing is being done in Darfur. That's genocide there, on mass scale, but the undermined multi-lateral system can't respond because Bush and the chicken-hawk neo-cons have fucked it up. The international order affects everyone, but only Americans really get a vote.
FOR PITYS SAKE GET HIM OUT THE WHITEHOUSE.
Politics and Moderation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Gay marriage (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush: actively opposes gay marriage. Engages in mindless hate-speech against gays and nonsense rhretoric in an attack on my position in society. Attempts to pervert the Constitution of the nation in order to enshrine his personal bigotry in it.
Kerry: Will not actively work to create national marriage parity, but instead will allow states to decide as they have already begun to do. Will make at least some effort to avoid supporting obvious anti-gay bigotry as in Bush's above-mentioned constitutional amendment.
Wow, this is a really tough choice!
Sure I'd love to vote for someone who believes fervently in equality, but for a given office there is often no likely candidate who closely aligns with one's views. You make the best choice you can.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
strawberries would have won... but there was no representative, because to qualify to become a representative (money, connections, law school) none of the strawberry lovers (who are common people) could have been representatives.
Re:Yes it is (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, people like ME are to blame for having the audacity to vote for who I think is the best person for the job? Why don't you blame your party(assuming you're a democrat) for nominating a candidate I didn't want to vote for? Did ya think about that? Why is it my fault that your party gives me such an unappealing option? Clean up your own political house before you going pointing fingers at me and blaming me for not wanting to vote for a candidate who I do not believe will do a good job. I have to live with myself.
Re: Mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
By your reasoning, anyone who is against a US invasion of Cuba must be pro-Castro. Honestly, this whole "if you're not with us, you're against us" logic is just idiotic -- the real world is much more complicated than that. There were plenty of valid reasons to pull out of Vietnam that had nothing to do with "supporting Hanoi".
Re:Democracy.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Even this system works better if people vote their beliefs instead of voting the lesser of evils.
If the Democrats lose enough elections this way, perhaps some day they'll pick a decent candidate.
Re:Yes it is (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but I believe he will make better, more rational decisions in future situations. He will think about the consequences of his actions instead of just doing what Dick Cheney says.
Imagine what would happen if Bush were re-elected. We'd have four more years of the same. We'd have more curtailed freedom, more war based on "faulty intelligence" (w North Korea?), more hatred of Americans abroad (remember that hatred causes terrorism). We'll have four more years of Wolfowitz's "empire building" through "direct intervention". The idea scares me, and should scare the entire world.
There IS a better way. Maybe Kerry's not perfect, but compared to Bush, he's the freaking Messiah. Give the guy a chance.
The President (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well actually it is. The two major parties have created countless hurdles in most states that are designed to prevent a third party or independent from ever gaining traction. Iowa officially disbanded the Green Party because they couldn't muster 2 percent of the vote in the 2002 governor's race at which point the party ceased to exist, it was disallowed a primary this year and candidates have to petition to get on the ballot. Of course since its disbanded its even harder to garner the 2% this year to regain party status.
It takes enormous effort just to get on the ballots in most states if you aren't in the two major parties, and of course a 3rd party presidential candidate has a very slim chance of participating in televised debates.
If there was ever a cause for an addition to the Bill of Rights it should be an amendment to allow unfettered formation of political parties and to forbid the parties in power from suppressing formation of opposition parties. It is something you expect from a totalitarian state, not the worlds "Greatest Democracy".
Another problem is both the Reform and Green parties have deteriorated in to a complete shambles on their own, they simply lack a coherent organization and appear to have fallen in to chaos which is killing them without all the barriers the Dems and Republicans are throwing in front of them.
And finally most people who would opt for Nader or other third parties are so keen to see George W. go down they will vote for Kerry, even though he is a truly pathetic candidate. Fact is in the current system voting 3rd party really is throwing away your vote and the two major parties don't really care if you do it. They'd like your vote but as long as you don't for the other major candidate its the same as if you don't vote at all.
The two copyright issues cited here really aren't the most serious things in the world. Like it or not Meet the Press is copyrighted and NBC can do with it what they will. It is a little lame holding back something unflattering to the President but there is a wealth of other video and transcripts available that will do that.
There are other things about both candidates that I'm amazed the press doesn't cover though.
President Bush's cocaine use and the fact that he apparently refused his national guard flight physical when they instituted drug testing, and that he was apparently convicted in Texas for something, probably Cocaine possession, should disqualify him as President but the press almost never touches this, possibly because the Bush family did such a great job of disposing of all the proof. Its a near certainty Bush political operatives were given unsupervised access to George W.'s Guard records and amazingly the Army recently admitted some of his records, probably the embarrassing ones have in fact been destroyed.
Kerry has his skeletons too that the press never touches. His Vietnam record and the ease with which he racked up medals cetainly does deserve scrutiny. For some reason the press lets everyone think Kerry is a Kennedyesque Irish Catholic when his paternal grand parents were actually Austro/Hungarian and Jewish. His name would be John Kohn if they hadn't changed their name to Kerry when the immigrated to the U.S. in 1902. When you are electing a President these little things are good to know, since they may color his decision making on Isreal in particular, but for some reason today's Press only fillets candidates like Dean they want to drive out of contention because they aren't pro establishment enough. Dean was toast the day he had the audacity to suggest the U.S. treat Israel and the Palastinians equally. You want to get elected in the U.S. you always side with Israel all the way or you are going down.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're being short sighted.
If Democrats and Republicans get a vast majority of the votes, it'll be obvious either a Democrat or a Republican will win in 2008.
If third candidate party candidates get enough to matter, it won't be obvious in 2008.
Re: Mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's why... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, by saying "let the states decide", you are saying, "if any judge in any state thinks it's OK, then that becomes the law of the land."
Therefor, the ONLY way to stop some way-too-liberal judge in California from making laws in Texas is to pass a Constitutional ammendment.... period!
True, the two positions are anything but identical, but you have to understand both positions to know what the difference is. In your example, you clearly miss the point that these judges are going against the will of people they don't even represent. The only way to protect state's rights from foreign judges in this matter is to pass a constitutional ammendment.
Re:Only in America (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
Corrections he says he is anti-offshoring at the moment because he considers it to be a good way to win votes. Its anybody's guess if he would be anti-offshoring if he got elected or would really do anything about it other add a couple of new incomprehensible changes to the tax code that may or may not discourage it.
If you recall Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and for the Patriot Act. During the primary when Dean was killing him on these two planks he magically became a crusader against the war and the Patriot Act. As soon as he locked up the Democratic nomination he rapidly backpedaled on both issues to court indepentent voters who aren't as hard over on these two planks. Haven't heard him say anything on the Patriot act lately and his position on Iraq is nothing but muddled. He seems to be both for and against it.
I don't have any use for the Bush machine but they are hitting the nail on the head calling him a flip flopper. The quandry for independent voters, do you vote for the incumbent who is obviously bad and dangerous, or a challeneger who might turn out OK or could just as easily turn out worse, you simply can't predict what position he will have five minutes after you elect him.
Re:Yes it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes I do actually. Ala, clinton hawks(think yugoslavia).
Do you think that kerry is going to gut welfare and give tax cuts to the rich?
I have more important things to worry about than taxes and welfare. My and everyone elses freedom and rights are on the line. If you're concerned about welfare, you ought to study what happened to it under Clinton.
And I can see that the democrats understand the policy process better than revolving door bullshit lobbyists.
What are you talking about? You don't think democrats have lobbiests or that they succumb to lobbiests? Do you know who was president when the DMCA passed? To name but one of the more well known examples. Do you think that was done as pure good policy, with no influence by lobbiests?
You would be better off not casting your vote if you vote for Nader or the like
Please explain your logic here. If I don't vote at all, kerry doesn't get my vote. If I vote for my candidate(not nader), kerry doesn't get my vote. How is one any different than the other?
You don't understand what Bush has done to america in the eyes of the world.
I do understand. I just don't think you understand that the democrats and republicans have been in on moving us in this direction for years. Google for the pentagon papers for an interesting read on relatively recent American history. Two different parties, two different goals presented to the American people in public, but behind the scenes the same goals being worked towards. Nothing has changed, except the names and dates.
He has already damaged the UN to the point where nothing is being done in Darfur.
Why do WE have to do something about it? Where is the rest of the world? Why is darfur Americas fault? What do you want us to do there, invade? How do you know there's genocide going on there? We were told there was genocide going on in Yugoslavia, 100,000 dead we were told. The largest mass grave they found was a few hundred people. We shot that country up with depleted uranium, destroyed civilian infrastructure, and killed thousands, over a few hundred people. I don't want be the world police anymore. Why can't the UN and it's member parties that aren't the US grow some balls and take care of things? Sorry if that sounds selfish, but I think enough American lives have been lost in other countries, only to have us hated and ridiculed by other countries. Forget it. World police is a thankless job and I don't think my country should have to do it anymore.
Don't worry, China is going to be the next world power, very shortly. Few see it coming, but it's coming.
Re:That's why... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what judges are for. The judicial system is a counter to the legislative branch. It exists to assure liberty for people who are in the minority. America is a republic and not a democracy. Do you know what the difference is? A democracy is five wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner. In a democracy the sheep dies, in a republic the sheep lives.
Of course the 95% of the people who are straight don't want the 5% of the people who are gay to have the same rights as they do. Just like the 95% of the people who are white at one time didn't want the 5% of the blacks to have the same rights. In that case judges ruled that the majority was wrong and that the rights of the minority were guaranteed by the constitution. If the judges rule the same way for homosexuals then it's incumbent on the states to let them marry.
The judicial system exists solely to balance the the other two branches of govt. Our forefathers accurately predicted that the majority would seek to opress the minority and set in place not only a constitution and a bill of rights but an entire branch of govt to make sure those documents held up and were the law of the land.
Groupthink (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean, before, the articles only contained strong hints that I should be a libertarian liberal. But now, I'm flat out told what to think. This is a wonderful change, as I was not bright enough to understand those old school strong hints on my own.
Most refreshingly though, is that I should now hate both presidential candidates because their similar positions on 2 issues do not reflect Slashdot's approved positions. I mean, wow! Can Kerry and Bush honestly be that stupid? I mean, Slashdot's editors have figured it all out by themselves...why can't two of this nations most powerful leaders figure it out?
Anyways, I'm off to see Farhenheit 9/11, because apparently there is much truth [slashdot.org] in that movie that tech nerds like me should see.
Re:Mistake (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah yes. The old "treason" card. Very classy. I wonder where his watch was made?
Maybe if the various candidates didn't compete so hard to see who can wrap themselves in the flag the tightest it would let a little blood continue to flow to their brains.
KFG
People don't seem to understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
And we shouldn't HAVE to agree; we shouldn't have to unanimously agree on the solution in order to agree that there should BE a solution. But in a single-elimination voting system such as ours, we have no choice. We rally around the candidate closest to our view, lest we give the election to the man who is not even in the same zipcode as our beliefs.
Saying that we should vote for Nader (or whoever) anyway just so he can get federal funding for his next attempt is absolutely ludicrous. Conventional voting is fundementally flawed, fundementally biased AGAINST PROGRESS and unless people start to realize this and write their congressmen en mass, things will never change. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will lay down their collective power without a long, hard fight.
Re:That's why majority should rule (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure I follow your point. They don't need to strap bombs on kids, instead they can just drop them from an F-16 or shoot a missile from an Apache. Remember the 500 pound Israel dropped on a crowded apartment building in Gaza, as a ham handed way to assassinate one guy. It ended up killing, inevitably, all the innocent women and children in the building. A number of loyal Israel pilots sacrificed their careers, and lives, to protest that incident, along with targeting of cars with missiles on crowded streets because it shows Israel is no better or different in the indiscriminate killing department.
The world needs to realize that both sides in that conflict have issues. As long as the world divides up in two camps and chooses to pretend one side is always a saint and the other is the devil, and vice versa, its going to insure perpetual blood shed and a breeding ground for extremism on all sides.
This is a key reason why the U.S. can't win the "War on Terror" on its current path, because it can't fathom it has to fix the root causes of the animosity of the Arab world towards the U.S. and Isreal. Doing that would deprive the extremists of much of the support they are now getting from more moderate Arabs.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me that.
He claimed he had been told of atrocities. Do you deny that any such were committed by US troops? Hello? Mai Lai?
He claimed that that war was debasing the character of the country and costing the lives of its sons. Do you disagree?
So if he didn't say that, he didn't slander you. So what's your beef?
Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I'm beginning to be swayed... (Score:3, Insightful)
the democrats don't have this unity, and really don't seem to understand the importance of charisma for candidates. Well, Edwards has it, but look at Gore, Kerry, and Gephardt. yeah yeah, for us 'smart' folks we don't care about charisma. But if you're catering to sixpack joe, you really have to market it. Democrats have really been 'betamaxed' by the bush administration.
Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we do not. A Hobbesian choice is one in which no choice is actually offered. You can have any color Ford you want, so long as it's black.
I've lived through an actual "democratic" election in a third world country. You were told who the candidate was, and you voted for him.
Oddly enough he won with an overwhelming "mandate from the people."
It wasn't pretty. Mostly because there was never so much as a hint of civil unrest during the process. No bloodshed. No arrests. No fear among the populace. Nothing. Complete civil order reigned as they lined up to vote en masse for the same man. Completely democratic autocracy.
Our system may well be flawed, but it isn't anything like that. .
Choose.
If you don't like the candidate either of the "two" parties present to you, choose more wisely.
But choose.
Or they really will end up telling you who to choose someday. And you'll do it. And be happy about it.
Because choosing your leader will be somebody else's problem.
KFG
Re: Mirror (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a time tested strategy. Honestly, if everyone would read a little bit of history they'd see the pattern. Some leaders are altruistic yet succumb to the whispers(and $$) of the lobbyists. Others, like our fearless leader Bush, have an agenda and will do what ever is necessary to make it happen. Then there are a small minority of leaders with integrity. Sadly, they don't stand much chance usually.
Actually, although I don't like Kerry that much more than Bush, I think he is the lesser of two evils. A government which has trouble passing bills because there's no clear majority is also less likely to infringe on the constitution. Bush has too much power and is willing to wield it to further his administration's own goals. He believe's he's more a benevolent king than a public servant.
Re:I'm beginning to be swayed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, I'm with you on the idealism, but the problem is that the Republicans would be happy for you to vote your idealism because that way they will always win. When was the last time you saw a conservative question his party or candidate? You don't hear about it that much. They are united. They do not question the party line. And it works to the party benefit.
The Democrats seem constantly divided up between many camps. Kerry may be the lesser of two evils but I just will not stand by and watch conservatives turn this country into an intellectual, spiritual and (for most of us) economic wasteland. Yes, that sounds a bit harsh, doesn't it? Well, it's time liberals started playing by the same linguistic rules as the conservatives. It's time to make 'conservative' a dirty word.
Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians" (Score:3, Insightful)
Bear in mind that pro-palestinian news sources give Hammas members and bodyguards of terrorists the deceptive label of 'civilians.'
From http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2527.shtm
( a pro-intifada site)
In addition to Sheikh Yassin, 7 Palestinian civilians, including 3 of Sheikh Yassin's bodyguards, were killed and 17 others injured, including two of Sheikh Yassin's sons.
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:1, Insightful)
And, um, no. Vietnam Vets Against Kerry is not brought to you by the Republican Party. Just like Fahrenheit-911 was not brought to you by the Democratic party. (However, the Vietnam Vet guy is giving all him procedes from his book to charity... You can't say the same for McMoore)
Oh, and I thought Clinton held the copyright for cokeheads that avoided service in Vietnam. Why is it such a big deal now. No one cared when Clinton was running against Dole. I can see how Dole got his Purple Heart!
and yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though I'm not a fan of the USA, I must agree they are, at least in this respect, more fair and consistent then almost all european countries. While I fully endorse anti-racism as my own worldview, I do not agree with any anti-racism laws that ptohibits the mere expression of thoughts, EVEN when they are racist.
Freedom of speech is something that you can not (or at least, should not) make dependend on ones own views, or else you have no freedom of speech. I mean, it's always easy to let others speak when you agree with it, but that's not the point of it; rather it's meant to let other people be heard too, even though you fully and utterly disagree with them.
This argument is mostly lost in europe, where politicians somehow think they should muffle and forbid speech they don't agree with and which may offend some group.
Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils? (Score:4, Insightful)
True enough. But anybody reading please keep in mind that republicans have started going around trolling liberal-leaning blogs (like /.), parading as ultra-liberals. Their point is to give pep-talks such as this to sway the liberal votes away from Kerry, towards Bush.
I'm certainly not accusing you of being such a troll, but I just want other readers to be aware that such right-wing efforts are going on.
Anyway, as for me, I think the stakes of this election are way too high. Think of all the REALLY controversial stuff Bush didn't do because he needed to maintain his swing voters. He'll have no such obligation to them if he's re-elected.
I really don't think Kerry is that evil. At least not much more than most other candidates, including Nader. I voted Nader in 2000 (my state was solidly democratic), so I totally know where you're coming from. But IMHO the stakes are WAY too big this time around.
This time I'm voting Kerry for several reasons. He seems much more centrist, so hopefully he can unite the majorly partisan congress. Remember that the big-time conservatives would hate Nader nearly as much was we hate Bush, and this would cause even more partisan splitting. Gingrich really fucked the country up by effectively making war against the 'other' team, and now the whole politics is way too fractured. I'm hoping Kerry can pull the more moderate republicans to him, bringing some sanity back to the Capitol.
Also, it seems like the election will be close again. This time I want my popular vote to be counted for Kerry. When they said Gore got more popular votes last time than Bush, my vote wasn't counted. If Gore would have lost the popular vote by 1 vote, I would have been sad that I didn't vote for him. So yeah, I want the results to include me for Kerry.
Anyway, I don't see Kerry doing anything particularly damaging, especially anything that Bush wouldn't have done already. And my biggest priority is to make sure Bush doesn't drive this country off a cliff any more than it's already been pushed, so I must do all I can to get Bush out. If that's voting for Kerry, then that's fine with me.
But anyway, I really don't think Kerry is all that bad. I don't know of any candidates that are perfect, and ALSO not too radical that they'd be able to effectively form a coalition with the other Congress members.
Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians" (Score:5, Insightful)
You are saying bombing an apartment building was justified because someone you don't like was in it. I don't remember exactly who the target was in the incident I'm thinking of. If it was such a noble act I doubt the U.S. would have condemned it as much as they did or not would 20 or so Israeli Air Force pilots would have forfeited their careers over it. There are so many civilians killed by both sides I lose track.
To make of for my bad memory here [haaretzdaily.com]. is an article on another bombing that just happened, 17 dead, 15 civilians, 11 children. Is Haaretz Palastinian propaganda? Perhaps the children were body gaurds or relatives of some terrorist so maybe its OK they were killed too.
You see I don't think you should, with good conscience, try to pretend one side is always the right one in this particular situation. Its reached the point both sides are very wrong and they should both be very ashamed.
Re:Instant runoff?, Electoral college fix (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Mirror (Score:4, Insightful)
The tragedy for the US, particularly those who served over there, was tremendous. They paid dearly in blood for the hubris of callous cowards like Bush and Cheney. What men like Max Cleland, John McCain suffered is bound inexorably to adjectives like "unspeakable" "horrific" "unimaginable," but they would likely count themselves amoung the lucky. And the price that the Vietnamese paid for their ignorance of American politics was nothing short of awesome (the bad kind).
That John Kerry saw his youthful idealism for what it was, and used an obscure by the book regulation to try and correct what he saw as the problem at its source (poor leadership an ocean away) is a mark of what might well be the early onset of his wisdom. It's a far cry from how Cheney avoided his draft board, of how Bush Jr. used his father's influence to insure another man took his place.
I suppose we shouldn't be so supprised that it's the cowards in positions of power who stand between the dead and the country that dearly wished to make amends with the inequities of past and present by honoring them. Or maybe they're terrified that people will remember honor, duty, sacrifice, and dignity when they see it, and find them lacking.
Re:Yes it is (Score:2, Insightful)
Which Kerry are you thinking of, exactly?
H.J. Res 114: To authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
ref [senate.gov]
"But in reality Kerry is not so far from Bush in his views on the Patriot Act. The Massachusetts senator claims he not only stands by his vote for the legislation, but that he authored most of the law's money-laundering provisions and thinks some aspects of the act actually need strengthening (like improving intelligence information sharing)."
ref [msn.com]
You may see a lot at stake, but there is NO benefit to voting for Kerry over Bush. There is no substantial difference in their policies. If you want something different, vote third party.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've made a commitment with some of my friends that we will not vote for the lesser of 2 evils
but instead we will vote for who we really want to be in office.
My democrat friends all want to vote for Kerry because they hate Bush.
And my conservative friends all want to vote for Bush because they like Bush.
I hate them both.
To tell truth though I havn't seen any politician that I like.
It's sad...
I really want to contribute to a better world, but I don't see how I can.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I was the staff photographer for Howard Dean's campaign and if anybody were to use one of my images without permission I'd be writing a DMCA letter too (they, even republicans, would however be free to buy an image and if I agreed with the cause I might donate it but I want the option to donate my work not have it stolen).
It's not about suppressing speech it's about paying people for their creative talent.
Copyright law is about balancing ownership rights and public interest. It's gone too far with the whole music thing but the examples cited here seem like reasonable enforcement of ownership rights.
Re:That's why... (Score:3, Insightful)
As I see it, a vote for a third party carries far more weight than a vote for one of the primary parties. When you vote, for instance, Libertarian, your vote gives them proportionally more media coverage, funding, and ballot access than either of the established parties receive. As recent example, both Greens and Libertarians received enormously disproportional amounts of coverage (the Greens in particular) after the 2000 election. Why? The percentage of their votes, in many states, was well above the margin between the two primary candidates. Most political analysts believed that the Green Party significantly swung the outcome of the 2000 presidential election, and as a result, they gained more media coverage than anyone could have predicted.
Third parties also gain in less inflammatory ways when they receive more votes. It helps them receive campaign funding from the federal government, for one. A few more votes one year, in many cases, will allow the party to run several more candidates the next. All thanks to more funding. Even more importantly, in many states, more votes are the precursor to ballot access, which in turn helps the party concentrate on campaigning rather than petitioning. Today, ballot access is one of the most pressuring obstacles facing third parties; in states like Georgia, only one third party candidate has ever been on the ballot for the United States House of Representatives.
How does this happen? In Georgia, third parties must submit a petition signed by over 5% of the number of registered voters in the district in order to get on the ballot for any office. When the voter roles haven't been purged in a decade, leaving both dead voters and invalidated voters still listed, the true number in many cases exceeds 10%. Even worse, due to gerrymandering, many third parties have no clue about the final geographical layout of districts, until a month or two prior to the petition deadlines. When the district lines are changed again and again, many petition signatures which were once valid are no longer, since the signatory no longer lives within the correct district. I am digressing substantially from my original purpose, but there is plenty to read regarding ballot access, for those who are interested.
Back to the original topic. We've covered voting for third parties, but if you look closely, does it really matter if we have a Republican or a Democrat president? It's a toss-up to how much they will suck, and it's usually irrelevant what party they're from. Bush hasn't been the best president ever, but Clinton was pretty poor, too. And now, it seems like the two parties are converging. Republicans are creating bureaucracy and spending like crazy. Democrats are opposing gay marriage and won't stop the drug war. As far as I'm concerned, it's two heads of the same hydra.
So go ahead, throw away that vote of yours. I insist.
Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils? (Score:5, Insightful)
(okay, got my asbestos suit on)
I'm a Kerry supporter, but I tend to think he doesn't go far enough in his views. For instance, he's not in favor of gay marriage, although he is in favor of civil unions. (Bush, for the record, is in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning *both*, so the original submitter of this story has it wrong). I see absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and so I'd really like Kerry a lot more if he fully supported the right of gays to get married.
Why, then, aren't I supporting someone who *would* fully support that right? Because the question isn't who best represents my views, the question is who would be the best for the majority of the people. *My* personal views are never, ever going to be perfectly represented by the person running the country unless *I* run for president. Since that will never happen, I have to choose the person who I think best approximates my views and has the best chance of effecting positive change. I have no problem with that, because the question is not, and never has been, which candidate is best for *me*. The question is which candidate is best for the *country*.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason 'it's obvious' is because it's assumed so few will vote otherwise. Self fullfilling prophecy, or vicious circle. Take your pick.
The ONLY way to change things is STOP perpetuating them.
If one vote for a third party candidate is a 'wasted' vote, then it's just as 'wasted' on the republicrat, err democans. The value of one vote doesn't change because of who you vote for, it only changes if you cheapen it in your own eyes by voting for someone you don't like just to not vote for someone you despise.
I'd rather vote FOR someone than against someone.
A third party CAN get in, it wouldn't be the first time.
Mycroft
Re:Where was the outcry? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
That upward mobility is largly an illusion. It took a while, but the rulers have finnally figured out how to keep people down (and preserve their God like standards of living). The trick is to have a small middle class, and the occasional new entry in the ruling class. The poor of the world end up spending all their energy trying to move up, and the middle class are wasted just trying to stay middle class.
The large amount of upward moblity seen in America/Europe around 1950 was largely due to the population crash following WWII. Now that the baby boomers have fucked thier way back to a surplus of laborers (and the cold war's ended) Globalism can kick in full steam with all it's truely nasty implicatons. Capital flows to where ever labor's cheapest, and just the mere threat of closing factories will keep unions from ever exisiting. That's the real scary thing actually. When unions form, the bosses just leave. No workers protests, no beatings, no sensational stories about worker abuse. Just a bunch of starving people nobody cares about.
I guess the point I'm driving at (albeit poorly) is Capitalism is perfecting itself. It's approaching a perpetual system of hard working fools and the Capitalist Kings they work for. The only thing I see stopping the trend is another population crash. Which is all well and good, unless you happen to be a member of the crashing populace.
That depends. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if you're George W. Bush.
Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also believe he wouldn't form his cabinet from diehard conservatives, that he would work better with the UN, etc.
Bush also wants to privatize more services, including medicare, which I strongly disagree with. Bush has also blurred lines between state and religion, which I don't think Kerry has any intention of doing. Bush is adamantly pro-life, Kerry is pro-choice.
Those are some key things off the top of my head about differences between Bush and Kerry. I guess Kerry doesn't have much specifics for fixing the economy, fixing Iraq, fixing health care. But some of Bush's moves (major tax cuts, privitization, alienating UN) which failed one could be pretty sure Kerry wouldn't have initiated on his own anyway.
Re:Uh, just to keep the 'bullshit' straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
There is one major thing that sets them apart #2 (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton had to appologise to his wife.
Bush will have to appologise to the nation (and the world).
On Gay Marriage (Score:1, Insightful)
But, it would seem to me marriage is a legal contract between a small group of people (polygamy), the society in which they reside, and each other. They stand before their society and seek to be recognized as group that will uniquely act in the interests of each other and share in all things. For this, they're granted certain short-hand privilages with respect to each other and their combined property. They're bound to and empowered by each other to make decisions that only a person's most trusted allies, and confidants could possibly make in the most dire, intimate, important and final moments of a person's life. It's not inherently religious, though a power higher than that of a society is often appealed to during the creation, recognition, and declaration of such a bond.
And that should one, on religious grounds, object to two dudes or two chicks making such a profound agreement, one must necessarily object to any element of the state presiding over such an agreement in any capacity. And should spend their time campaigning to judges from marrying people, or allowing the state to presume to authorize such wholly divine blessings, to say nothing of the sacrilege that is common-law marriage, and divorce. How can the laws of man rip apart what the magic sky man has seen fit in his wisdom to join?
Just the fact that Bush thinks that good, patriotic, tax paying, americans, who aren't incorprated in the cayman islands, should be denied to take on and delegate such responsabilities to expediently appease people who just haven't thought it through, well it says a lot about him. He doesn't like freedom. He doesn't think people should be able to live their lives in peace without government telling them how to do it. In reality, he doesn't like families or communities. He likes bullshit, and thinks people are easily distracted by fear and shiny objects. I think that if for one week journalists did their job, Americans would prove him gravely mistaken.
"If voting changed..." (Score:5, Insightful)
Ken Livinstone [wordiq.com], the current Major of London, can be a bit of a prat sometimes, but other times he has a point. When did voting (by all the people in the country), alone, last change something?
In the UK the 'opinions', and I use the term in the looses sense of the meaning, between the two main parties are almost identical. It's becoming like the US (or how the US is portried in the UK), of "(s)he with the most money" or "(s)he who is most photogenic" will be elected
It could be worse, much worse, but the present system of politics dominated by large corporations, almost buying their way (or their cronies way) into power cannot be good, in the long run, for the average Joe on the street
Jaj
Re:Only in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than picking something that is more than 100 years old and settled, try for something now. Go in front of the white house and wave a picket in favor of Al Qaeda. Put on the picket things like
etc. etc.etc.
Get a tv crew to come down, and then watch what happens.
Also, ask any national news person how free things really are these days. Other than fox news, you might be surprised what these journalists would say.
Freedom is not the ability to bitch about a long ago war. Freedom is the ability to critize the current and even recent government. Think about Bush allowing Reagan and Poppa Bush to hide all sorts of things. The Freedom of Information act was put in place for a reason. Now Bush preverts it and allows them (and himself) to hide past actions. BTW, I do note that Kerry has not said that he would remove that presidential order. I find that sad.
Re:Gay marriage (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's start with incest, paedophila, and beastiality, because they all come down to the same principal: informed consent. In our society it is generally believed that sex should be consensual (rape is illegal) as otherwise we would be infringing on anothers rights. The problem is, to be able to consent, the other party has to understand what it is they are consenting to. That's more than just understanding the physical process involved, but (in our society anyway) understanding the emotional issues attached to such things. This is why paedophila is considered criminal - it is harmful to the children, because the children (even if they do "consent") don't really understand the full implications of what they would be consenting to. My understanding is that beastiality falls into the same category. It is interesting that we extend this protection to animals where otherwise we would not, but that's how it is. The other issue with beastiality is a "cleanliness" issue. Mostly this the same sort of "cleanliness" that directs the finer points of a kosher diet, but there are some remaining issues (transferring diseases across species, which has been known to happen through beastiality and related pursuits can definitely be problematic). Still going with holdover taboos we come to incest - a large part of our reaction to incest is based on an old taboo which centers around the issues of inbreeding. All very reasonable and sensible. The issues with incest do extend beyond this though - we're essentially back to the informed consent: most incestuous relationships involve exploiting the familial relationship into something more, and at least one party is usually not in a position to give informed consent.
I believe that leaves us with cannibalism and necrophilia. With these certainly no obvious harm is being done (presuming it is post-mortem cannabilism, and the person isn't being killed to e eaten) to the immediate parties, however, our society generally holds that a person (and their immediate kin) has rights over their remains - refer to organ donation, leaving your body to science, what have you: there are plenty of laws that consider damage done post death to still be harm to the individual. Based on that, necrophilia is out, as a dead person cannot give consent. Likewise cannibalism. That, of course, leaves the possibility that a person could will their remains to be used for such purposes. Why they would choose to do that I do not know, but that is their choice. In that case, personally, I don't think I would stand in the way of such thigns. Cannibalism, on some level, makes sense (read Stranger in a Strange Land).
And then homosexuality - well, that's sexual intercourse between two consenting adults who have full knowledge and understanding of what they are entering into. No harm to either party, so I don't see the problem there.
Jedidiah.
Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians" (Score:3, Insightful)
And there is a difference between bombing a terrorist that constantly surrounds himself with children as a human shield, and setting out to intentionally kill innocent civilians.
Re:Well Duh (Score:1, Insightful)
Problems with Libertarian Party platform (Score:5, Insightful)
First, they oppose "victimless crimes". This means some changes that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Plutonium is a controlled substance in the United States, and an elimination of consentual crimes would make it uncontrolled. I want possession of plutonium to be controlled, frankly.
Second, the libertarian approach toward justice is somewhat different than that I approach. I view justice as a dissuasive mechanism, something that can be used to stabilize situations. Libertarians view it as a restitutive mechanism, a method of restoring the state before the crime was committed. I believe that this approach leaves crime profitable unless law enforcement operates perfectly and 100% of damaging crimes are caught.
Third, I very, very strongly disagree with their proposed changes to jury trials. They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law. This effectively reduces the value of a written code of law, means that laws may basically be retroactively changed after a crime was committed, and means that extremists may use jury trials as a political platform, which I do not think is an appropriate place for rational and open discourse. I can understand how frusterated they are with being a minority party and wanting minority parties to have more political power, but I do not think that this is a good mechanism. I am particularly surprised that vote reform, one of the most valuable changes that would allow minority parties to gain political influence, is not a fundamental part of their platform -- I guess that if they ever get into power, they are unlikely to want to give up power to minority parties. Sigh.
Fourth, their platform on American Indian Rights -- the return of Indian lands to Indians -- is simply ridiculous. It might sound nice, and there might have historically been some nasty games play ed to obtain land ownership, but you can hardly kick people off of land where they now live.
Fifth, I utterly disagree with their "zero regulation" model of business. Their claims that all monpolies arise from government intervention is, frankly, wrong. I can't see how they intend to deal with natural monpolies, unless they expect to simply ignore them. They do not deal with artificial mopolies, which I can't believe the government directly causes in all cases...unless they want to also repeal all forms of IP, which will be, well, overly extreme in my book and almost everyone's.
Sixth, their "no taxes" model makes no sense. It's just ridiculous. We've tried not having *federal* taxes, and that just didn't work. The mind boggles at the thought of local and state taxes being eliminated. How do they expect to have a functioning government? Even they must allow for the operation of certain skeletal structures, like a judicial system, or their own rules will not be enforced.
Seventh, their proposed method for dealing with pollution simply ignores the game-theoretic models that have convinced people that pollution is a public-good problem that requires intervention. Who cares if the children 100 years down the road get screwed over? The person causing the damage will be gone!
Eighth, they propose deregulating the postal service. This would probably mean an end to mail that can reach anywhere in the United States, even if it reduced costs to the other people.
Ninth, I think that their policy on secession is stupid. Sounds very idealistic, but why doesn't, say, GM Seattle secede from the United States, and avoid paying business taxes? Their workers can still *live* in the United States and enjoy the no income taxes that the Libertarian party promotes. I just don't see it working.
Tenth, their policy on annexation is like the Guano Act plus a million. It would produce an unmanagable United States if a
Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians" (Score:4, Insightful)
If a wife aids and abets her husband in committing a crime, she can be found guilty of that crime in an American court as an 'accessory.' I'm not saying "bombing an apartment is justified because someone I don't like was in it." I'm saying that if someone's wife participates in millitary activities, then she is millitary and not a civilian.
If you're going to protest the accidental deaths of children from bombing (which you should) you should also protest the deliberate Palestinian use of children as young as 13 and sometimes younger in various attacks.
To put it simply, if a group of people chooses to involve 'civilians' in offensive warfare, then it is dishonest to continue to describe those people as civilians. They are either millitants, or militia.
While I agree that 'mistakes have been made on both sides,' the notion by itself doesn't solve the problem. Any effective plan will have to involve specific detailed proscriptions.
Re:Only in America (Score:3, Insightful)
A strong argument could be made that when it comes to freedom in IP, the US lags. In terms of actual individual speech, I can't possibly see how it could get much rosier. You can say anything you want. I think you would be damned hard pressed to find another nation that is so liberal in terms of what the laws protect for freedom individual of speech.
People need to get a grip and get things in perspective. I am not voting for Bush in the upcoming election and I all around think he is dumber then a pound of bricks. However, I don't let my dislike of his policies fabricate disillusions that I am living in a fascist police state or that he sits around all day figuring out ways to kill babies for shits and giggles. People don't disappear. No matter how nutty and vocal you are, no one is going send the corporate death squad run by Dick Chaney after you. Get a grip and realize how badly the media (and politicians in general) has you hyped up into a frothing mess to the point where you will believe anything so long as it sounds bad for Bush.
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and was utterly blown away at how many people in the audience ate up some of the most one sided and utterly racist propaganda I had ever seen in my entire life. If at any point you can't at least understand the other side's argument and rationally see why they would think that way, then I 99% of the time it is because you have turned fanatic and will eat up any bullshit that fits in line with your beliefs. Nothing is more destructive to the political process then when people become a frothing mess that isn't able to at least understand the others sides position. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but you need to at least understand it first. The worst thing about this election year is that both side's bases are so riled up that they are utterly blind to anything that lands outside their current pre-programmed views.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Democracy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that "democracy" means rule by the people - in other words, you'd have to have referenda on everything. Most folks agree that this would be pretty impractical.
But "representative democracy" changes the meaning of the word fundamentally. Now, it's no longer the case that the people have the power. Instead, the people decide who gets the power.
Yet this is a major distinction. Think about a plutocracy. Plutocracy is any form of government where the people who have the most money get the power. But here's the important point: the definition says nothing about *how* they get the power, or how the decision to give the power to them as made. If they happen to get the power through being voted for, that doesn't change the fact that it's still a plutocracy. If people are happening to vote for the people with the most money (and thus the most media coverage), they create a plutocracy.
Likewise, if people always vote for the party that their family has always voted for, they create an oligarchy.
The idea that "the people can rule in a representative democracy by forming parties and getting involved" is also a lie - the current system, whereby the party that has the most votes still gets in even if the majority of votes were for other parties (but not for the same other party), basically ensures that only the established parties ever have a hope of getting power. It makes it impossible to "work your way up" because, if you're not already at the top, you get nowhere.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You have it right at first blush. Unfortunately the process is much more long and convoluted. We do have a party primary and it may even have a "Run Off" and then we have a General Election system.
Essentially the thumbnail sketch is that a candidate appears with interest and begins raising money. The money most often arises from some company who has a desire to manage some government function for some private reason. As it appears that support is appearing like a magnet this draws more support and so on. The actual process has pretty well eliminated the "Party" differences. There is only one political party in the USA at this time. It is the "Republicrat Party." The process for each office takes about 2 to 4 years prior to the actual voting. By the time voters even hear the names the choice has already been made. I was told for example by a Republican friend of mine that Bill Clinton (Democrat) would be the next president in 1990. He already knew which way the money was blowing.
The fact that the Americans have not insulated this money trail from foreign control has essentially moved the control of major US Races outside of the representation of US interests. As such we in the USA are becoming more and more hostile towards our government. This may come as a shock to some foreign persons but the things you hate in our government are most often the result of your corporate interests acting in our government.
We for example are a most peaceful people and are really sick of war. This is pretty universal! We are sick of our government doing unkind things that get us into wars. We are sick of the dishonesty. This is getting to the point that many of our members at national level in the US Congress are getting sick of what is going on. I have talked with several and even the Republicans are mad at George W. Bush over these issues. Frankly if it wasn't a matter of political suicide they would have thrown him to the wolves some time ago because of his disloyalty to the USA. Don't look to Mr. Kerry to solve this. He represents an evem more corporatized group. His position is not even cloked in this matter.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not About Free Speech (Score:2, Insightful)
And as far as domestic issues: How are two issues "most" issues?
Re:Democracy.. (Score:1, Insightful)
100% of society (Score:5, Insightful)
There are 2 brilliant people
There are 20 greedy people
There are 20 gullible people
There are 10 who are opposed
There are 48 apathetic people
5 greedy people ambush 2 brilliant people
5 greedy people convince 20 gullible people
20 gullible people make lots of noise
38 apathetic people restrain 8 who are opposed to restore calm
5 greedy people, 20 gullible people, 10 apathetic people, and 2 who are opposed vote
5 greedy people sit back, enjoy the show, and profit.
Using copyright to quell political speech is a tactic of the greedy people perpetuated by the apathetic people who simply want things to quiet down so we can go back to trying to pay bills and keep up with rising taxes.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Democracy.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Democracy.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:100% of society (Score:3, Insightful)
Go team!
Re:Democracy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Republicans bear no closer resemblance than Democrats to being similar to what their party was formed for.Instead we have two selfishly mentally retarded political philosophies battling it out every 4 years jerry springer style for your vote.
DON'T give it to them.
DO something that won't give the same results time after time.
Have some guts to stand up to the morons who say your vote wont count if you vote outside popular parties.How else will they ever get the message or we actually get someone USEFUL into office? What does it matter if your vote doesnt count when your vote only goes to a candidate that is NO BETTER or consequentially different than his opponent?
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the height of insanity.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the the forms of speech that are being suppressed also fall in the creative realm. Just becuase the President used a private venue to make political statements does not mean that those that performed the "creative talent" should have exclusive rights to control who sees that political statement. In my opinion, commercialized political speech should not enjoy copyright protection -- creative talent or otherwise. Most people are not going to bootleg copies of the president, video or otherwise for personal gain. For the most part, those that would use copies of a the president would use it to persaude othes to reach a conclusion -- they would use it in support of their political speech. The only people that might use video or pictorial representations would be news media and the campaigns -- a very small portion of the country.
Copyright law is about balancing ownership rights and public interest. It's gone too far with the whole music thing but the examples cited here seem like reasonable enforcement of ownership rights.
How is this a case where the public interest is being preseved and protected? I am a republican, but I see no reason why Bush's statement on NBC should be allowed to hide behind a copyright law. As stated many times, the President own's neither his words nor his likeness when speaking on political ideas in a public forum. It is quite debatable that the TV (broadcast over publicly owned airways) could constitute a public forum. Further, the nature of the interview was quite political. There is very little creative talent involved. And what is there to protect? Presdient Bush can run about and say the same things over and over again, and it can be captured again and again. The problem is that the people that hold and control the copyright are not the orginator of the controversial or interesting arguments or the ideas. The only creative talent or innovation may be the way the interview happened, the filming, etc.
Political speech by an elected offical should not enjoy copyright protectection regardless of the forum if that speech is publicly displayed in any form. TV and radio included.
Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies (Score:3, Insightful)
>First, you're basing your vote off of hatred? And not real "you killed mah daddy" hatred, but Hate Week hatred? That's lame, right there.
>Second, where do you get off saying "improve" ? Don't you really mean "cause to deteriorate more slowly" ?
Try checking attributions. It was the original poster that said he hated both candidates. The point in reply is, if he doesn't dislike them equally, then there is something he can actually do to reduce the chance that the one he dislikes more will get elected. If there is one of them that he dislikes less, doesn't that make it less bad (for him) if the one he dislikes less gets in? And isn't a less bad outcome better than the worst, and isn't that relatively an improvement?
-wb-
Moderation Not Working Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that if an article is slightly against Kerry it is modded down and articles referring to Bush as "chimp" and his advisors as "goebbels" are modded highly? I thought name calling was usually flamebait or at the least a troll. Regardless, the tone of this discussion and the soundbite level of understanding most posters have is dissappointing. If people would only try to understand government with the passion they approach picking out their favorite text editor or scripting language.
Bush's actions with respect to Iraq are troubling. Kerry's actions surrounding his service in Viet Nam and possibly his actual service is questionable. Even worse, some of the promises from both campaigns are totally unkeepable. If you think hate for the president is what has kept our allies on the sideline and that changing leaders will suddenly bring France and Germany and NATO into Iraq, you will be dissappointed. Nothing happens between nations without a price. If you believe that the economy is all better, believe me, when the fed raises interest rates and people can't unlock the equity in their homes so easily... we are in for trouble.
Regardless, it's nice to see people who feel such passion about firing the president. It's too bad that both Bush and Kerry do not represent what is best in America. In fact, both of them appear to be self-serving egomaniacs who are interested in wielding power for power's sake. That is a national tradgedy, and using DCMA to supress the opposition is exactly the kind of tactic I'd expect from both of them - and we can expect more of the same if either is elected.
Re:Why GW does few interviews. (Score:3, Insightful)
But I didn't see 9/11 coming. That's what pushed everyone off the deep end and started it all. Unfortunately, Mr Bush didn't repond well to the preasure - but I never expected him to have to face that kind of preasure either. His cabinet is another matter though - they know better, and instead of helping to keep things on an even keel went nuts with every rabid thought they never dreamed they'd actually get the chance to indulge.
Kerry is not pro-offshoring (Score:3, Insightful)
TROLL (Score:1, Insightful)
"Bushism"
"Can't possibly form logical sentences..."
Bush never said people who oppose the Iraqi war are unpatriotic, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. You also gave absolutely no support for your satement that John Kery isn't a fan of communism, but Bush would if it supported him.
Oh, that's right, you can't because your post is nothing but blatant FLAMEBAIT.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Democracy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Democracy.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything dealing with the likeness of any public servant should be public domain. I don't foresee this, alone, to be a full solution, but it's a start.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
That is why US elections are referred to as "Beauty Contests". People vote for the candidate they find most appealling. So they are forced to make compromises when it comes to policy positions.
If your goal is to determine what the majority opinion of the populace truly is, then you would have to drop the "Beauty Contest" method and adopt preferential voting. Preferential voting requires that the voter rank the candidates in the order that the voter would like to see win (1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.).
The benefit of prefential voting is that you tally up all of the votes that a candidate receives (for example, 3 points for a 1st place vote, 2 points for 2nd, and 1 point for 3rd) and the person with the largest weighted vote total is the winner. The benefit is that you have quantified the preferences of the masses.
So in the 2000 US Presidential election for example, the average Ralph Nader voter would have ranked Al Gore 2nd and Goerge W Bush 3rd. This would mean that a vote for a 3rd Party candidate is no longer meaningless since they are now free to vote their conscious while still voicing their opinion on the mainstream candidates.
However, since most voters cannot grapple with a simple butterfly ballot, there is no way they could figure out a rank the candidates ballot.
Post should have been rewritten (Score:3, Insightful)
And yeah, I have an opinion, a strong opinion, on why it does in fact make a difference who you vote for and whether it makes more sense to vote for a third-party candidate or not. But I won't share it here because it isn't relevant to the actual topic. Jeez, if I want to have a pointless, terminally threadjacked smack-down conversation about the presidential race I'll go hang out on Fark.
Re:Typical Ignorant liberalism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, instant runoff is _all_about_ diversity of candidates. Do you think that two candidates who are nearly identical on all the issues is somehow diverse?
Oh, wait. You're just a troll.
Cheers.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Take a look at voting records. On your average vote, there is a *distinct* "taking of sides" by parties. Furthermore, these "taking of sides" are ideologically distinct - they don't take one side for one vote, and then when a similar vote comes up again, take the other side. This is because parties have an ideological base. Now, you may not *agree* with all of the points of this base, and your alliegences may be split on different issues, and you may want to see *sharper divisions*, but that doesn't change the fact that the parties are in general *distinct* and *consistant*.
Read the slashdot article on the "8 worst internet laws". Of the 93 worst offenders listed, 18 were Democrats. Of the top 25, only two were Democrats. Both parties the same? What BS!
Read the ACLU rankings. For 2001, the Democrats average 74%; the Republicans 14%. Sure, you can complain to high heaven when your Democratic rep votes on that other 26% against civil liberties - but for God's sake, its a choice between 26% and 86% votes against civil liberties! Don't trust the ACLU? Read the EFF archives - they'll tell you the same thing.
All of this "third parties are the answer!" stuff is tripe. People get enraged about the 26%, or more commonly, have an alignment that's mixed between both parties - and then they assume that the majority of the people in the country are not only mixed in alignments (which they are), but that they're mixed *In The Same Way*. Well, guess what? They're not. They're not even close. Deal with it.
If you can't accept politicians who aren't *completely* aligned with you, you must *expect* to be marginalized.
Absolutely -- popular vote isn't perfect (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm a Nader voter (and I'm not, I prefer voting for someone who could legitimately be President rather than protesting the whole scene), I'd have voted Nader-then-Gore-then-Bush in 2000. My Nader vote wouldn't have split the vote -- and Bush in all likelihood wouldn't be in office. You can vote your conscience.
There's no inconsistency between instant runoff and the electoral college. In that way it'd be a less radical change than what Colorado is proposing right now (and one other state already does) -- splitting the electoral vote by percentage of the popular vote. That change seems simpler, but it does away with the sort of geographic weighting you're talking about, and does nothing to address the "wasted" votes.
Get it right Slashdot! (Score:1, Insightful)
"Timothy" claimed that: "Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information embarassing or harmful to their campaigns." But follow the links, and you'll discover that neither leads to a story about what either candidate is doing.
The Wired story is about NBC refusing to give a movie maker permission to include a clip from a Bush interview on "Meet the Press." Whatever NBC's rationale is, they're not Bush, and from research on the media elite, we can assume that roughly 90+% of the network's decision makers will be voting for Kerry.
The same is true of the Kerry link to a Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry website. It tells of a New England filmmaker who's treatening to sue the group over their use of two photos that are very unflattering to Kerry. He is a friend of Kerry, but the action is still his own and not that of the Kerry campaign.
Slashdot should learn from the traditional news media, where fact checkers are often used to confirm stories. Before it posts a story, it should at least take a few seconds to see if the links say what the home-page poster claims. All too often they don't.
Until that happens, I'll continue to tell friends that Slashdot interesting for the reader comments, but that the site itself is run like a junior high newspaper--sloppy, irresponsible and childishly rebellious.
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog [inklingbooks.com], Seattle
Re:Democracy.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who would deny gay men the right to a big wedding is just cruel
Kerry supports the employment non-discrimination act. I don't get why republicans want quasi-religious issues to get in the way of the best choice for the most solid economy. He supports the family medical leave act, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, gay and lesbian adoption rights, the appeal of 'don't ask don't tell', and finally, supports civil unions.
forget the ideological side of things. lets talk practical.
bush still holds a platform that allows hospitals the legal right to deny gays and lesbians the right to visit, say, their partner in the hospital on their deathbed. or to file join taxes. or to bereavement / sick leave to care for a partner. or to decide if a deceased partner should be cremated or buried.
and there is hundreds more such issues.........
Re:Gay marriage (Score:3, Insightful)
It is interesting how times have changed and the fears of the olden days are no longer with us. Still we have been able to justify the usage of the laws/rules and have an inherent almost instinctive view on them. I guess morals are deeper then a belief in religion or someones sence of rational. In order for homosexual mariage to become accepted, there need to be a clear rational dividsing line seperating it form the other taboos we have instilled in society.
Re:Democracy.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Admit it, you are uncomfortable around gay people.
BTW I'm straight.
Re:Problems with Libertarian Party platform (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm. Could be. I wish their summary had hyperlinks.
It sounds to me more like they are saying that juries should use the right of jury nullification that they already have more than they do now. Jury nullification basicly means that the jury thinks that the law shouldn't apply in this particular case, so they vote innocent despite the evidence.
The problem is that when you *combine* encouragement to use jury nullification with (and this is crucial) volunteer juries ("yeah, *I'm* a member of the KKK, and I'd *love* to be on a jury!"), you now have a platform for activists. It tends to deemphasize the influence of moderates.
I don't have a problem with more community involvement in legislation. The problem is that the legislature exists for a reason -- it's somewhere that a point can come up, arguments for each side can be produced, and high visibility can be given to things that will affect people. There is accountability to constitutients.
While the jury nullification mechanism *is* a safety door, and a very useful one, it's not intended to replace the legislature, and attempting to do so can have some real problems.
You must have missed the part about strict liability. If they pollute on your property you will be able to sue them; If they can manage to limit the pollution to their own property somehow, then its their problem.
Ah, but the problem is that members of the world don't have complete knowledge of their environment. Secret polluting has happened before -- should it be necessary for people to constantly check to see whether someone is dumping pollutants into their drainage system, or should the EPA work backwards from their own testing sites? What if there is something that we have a concern about, but aren't yet certain of damage? I can't sue during such an evaluation phase. What about dumping into international waters, or putting diffuse air pollutants into the upper atmosphere? What if it's hard to track back sources -- who should be sued for the hole in the ozone layer? What if a land owner wants to use his land for the storage of radioactive waste? Perhaps he has sealed containers, but what about the risk *if* there's, say, a fire? He cannot be sued until he actually causes damages. I just don't think that lawsuits are sufficient to solve public good problems, to solve problems deriving from the fact that we have incomplete knowledge, and so forth. When the United States granted land rights, it did not do so with stipulations as to use -- what if we now realize that we can kill off a species permanently, removing a potential animal from the utility of everyone in the world, and the person that owns the land that that animal lives on has no interest in allowing it to live? How would you address this with a lawsuit.
Their policy on annexation isn't that bad. It just says that you can claim stuff that nobody else has(which is just about nothing these days). How do you think people originally obtained property?
Until two different people claim things for their country and a dispute starts. And what metric to you use to determine whether someone "has" something? Christopher Columbus claimed the Americas. What about a chunk of sea in an international shipping lane? What about an island that two countries both have claimed, but is unoccupied? What if I claim the Moon -- is it "mine"?
And if it's such a minor point, why is it a fundamental plank in the platform?
Whats wrong with leaving crap orbiting the earth? It's not big enough to block the view of the sky, and it's not going to fall and hit someone on the head. I don't see how it would harm anyone.
Another public-good problem. Orbit space known not to contain debris is an extremely valuable good. If private space exploration is allowed,