YouTube Removal Highlights Media Self-Censorship 488
jamie writes "On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use — good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."
WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Speech issues aside... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Speech issues aside... (Score:2, Insightful)
And is exposing blatant hipocrisy really a witch hunt?
CNN is a whore (Score:1, Insightful)
Just remember everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Outing anyone else though is a hate crime and the democrates will see to it that you will go to jail if you do so.
Issue here is privacy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I declare a new tag (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing is, there could be an interesting story here about how the internet catches mainstream media self-censoring. But A - that's not really news and B - that's not the focus of this story. We could even ask more politically-minded questions like "why does the media self-censor" and I think that would be worth discussing. Personally, I think it comes down to cowardice. The mainstream media is under economic pressure as the barrier to entry for their particular market has all but completely eroded and as a result they want to present sensational news, but not seriously controversial news. I can think of no other realistic reason to explain the two examples of self-censoring noted.
But oh no! We get treated to a long exposition of the Bush Lie versus the Bill Clinton Lie. It's got nothing to do with tech, and as an ethics discussion goes, it's pretty poor there too. Are we honestly going to pretend that all lies are the same now? That "Honey, of course I didn't sleep with the babysitter!" is equivalent to "No! That doesn't make you look fat!"
On every single level, this "news" article fails dismally.
-stormin
Re:Speech issues aside... (Score:2, Insightful)
You're making assumptions (Score:4, Insightful)
David
Rewrite fullwise (Score:2, Insightful)
>
>On 'Larry King Live' Wednesday night, Bill Maher said many of 'the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay... Ken Mehlman, OK, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it.' When CNN re-aired the interview, the mention of Mehlman was edited out with no indication anything was missing. When a minute-long video of the original vs. censored clips was posted on YouTube, a DMCA takedown removed it (the original poster plans to resubmit a shorter clip he hopes will qualify as fair use -- good luck, since the DMCA doesn't recognize fair use). Relatedly, the Washington Post today was caught silently editing its published stories to make them less informative. Unnamed GOP officials are also saying that Mehlman will step down from his post when his term ends in January."
Slashdotter tackhead unbellyfeel oldspeak rewrite newspeak:
Slashdotter jamie unbellyfeel Amsoc. refs unhappenings. Render unperson.
Oldthinker Maher CNN reporting ungood refs sexcrimes Mehlman rewrite fullwise antefiling. Oldthinker youtube refs unhappenings malquote maher. DMCA quickwise vidmove memhole. Plusgood duckspeakers Wapo rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling.
Good Journalism NOTEQUAL to Censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like CNN is run by some right wing conspiracy. I think you have to be pretty far out on the political fringe to get all excited about CNN's minor editorial decision.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the party he belongs to has a strong anti-gay agenda and a strong anti-gay electorate. Politicians may not mind being blatantly hypocritical but once their election chances are jeopardized then they will scramble to avoid that.
In my day, it was Roosevelt's crutches (Score:5, Insightful)
The struggle between news writers/reporters and their management chain and the tendency of the management to cover their backsides and not publish anything unfavorable to {advertisers, the legal department, the higher-ups} has been ongoing ever since the invention of the newspaper. Indeed, in some form, it probably dates back even farther. This is nothing new, happens every day, and should be criticized when it occurs (particularly internally within the organization), but it's not particularly newsworthy.
The best way to handle this sort of thing is to decide what is more important---the bits from the story or your job. If you decide that the higher-ups are censoring something that needs to be heard, you tell your news director "the story airs as-is or I quit" (ideally after you have been there for a while). Sadly, most journalists don't have the stomach for that these days, but when this occurs you have to stand up for yourself or the upper management will walk all over you. Of course, this also points to a weak and ineffectual news director who doesn't have the guts to protect his/her reporters from the upper management.
However, that's probably not what happened in the case of CNN. What probably happened here is that they condensed the interview for time and cut out bits that they considered less important. This, too, happens every day. Unless the reporter was pressured to remove those pieces (and there's no reason to believe that this is the case), there's really not a story here at all. It's just the normal, day-to-day operation of a TV news outfit.
The Washington Post story, however, is very disturbing. If the reports of them changing their story are true, and if, in fact, Bush said the things claimed in the original version of the story, their editorial staff should be held accountable for their actions in turning a factually accurate story into a factually inaccurate story and deliberately removing highly relevant factual content from their story.
Re:Im shocked! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a very nice sentiment and would be fine if the person in question did almost anything except politics. In the case of politics, specifically republican politics, there is a platform of most things gay being "wrong, bad, perverted, or evil, etc." If a top member of this group is gay then you run into quite a few dilemmas. The laws that the GOP push affect everyone, all the time, so it very much matters what someone does "on their own time."
Re:Issue here is privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Which is why Bill Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act?
Re:I declare a new tag (Score:4, Insightful)
Admittedly, I didn't read TFA, but I think the relevance to technology is pretty solid. The networks are making it so that ordinary people can call out the old-guard information monopolists. It is widely known that most broadcasting companies long ago internalized the values of the establishment, with the consequence that people are not exposed to criticism of the establishment ... in the absence of official censorship!. Cf. "The Propaganda Model"
Youtube's not going to save us all, but it can and should start a trend toward egalitarian broadcasting of serious content & criticism.
1984 (Score:3, Insightful)
good taste, not censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Issue here is privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I haven't a clue who Ken Mehlman is, but if he is a politician, or political operative, who creates or influenced policy on issues affecting homosexuals, then his orientation may indeed be salient.
I'm not trying to say Bill Maher is wrong or right (back when I was born, it used to be a free country), but a news organization altering facts and then using copyright law to cover up that modification is certainly not okay.
Overreact much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:2, Insightful)
The pain in the ass problem is that those of us who dislike socialistic economic policies also have to join up with the crazy fundamental Christian nuts (who make up perhaps 25% of Republicans). There are gay Republicans only because the Libertarian Party has no power. Personally, I am very happy that we have a divided government right now. Perhaps it will allow the Republican Party to purge these idiotic socially ultra-conservative nuts and return to being economically conservative instead (which is the *real* base of the Republican Party).
Ladies and gentlemen, we've succeeded in taking Congress away from the Republicans. The only problem is that we've given it to the Democrats. Economically conservative gays will continue to be pounded in the ass regardless of what party they choose.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought his resignation had more to do with the Republicans getting their collective asses handed to them in the recent midterm elections.
I don't know/care whether he's gay, and would certainly not count Bill Maher as a credible source. But, if he were in fact gay, he would almost surely be pushed out of that position very quickly. The Republicans have done their best to whip up anti-gay sentiment, to "energize their base". Although flaming hypocrisy does seem to be the norm in D.C., a bogey man is more effective when you don't also provide a counter example to discredit your own claims. So they would have to push him out of the public eye.
Re:CNN is simply being responsible (Score:4, Insightful)
David
Re:CNN is simply being responsible (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:CNN is simply being responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
David
Ken Mehlman (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe time for Slashdot to branch out? (Score:3, Insightful)
When I first started scanning the stories at Digg, people would cram all kinds of political stories in there, and they would shoot straight to the top. People would whine about it, then be called "fuck-tards" for complaining about it, invited to leave, etc. Finally, Digg introduced more categories, which you can ignore if you wish. Maybe /. is headed there too?
At least this one has something to do with YouTube. But you could tell from the story summary that we would be talking about gay Republicans.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
If this were really true, then the Libertarian party would garner more than 1% of the vote. Every Republican I know is also a social conservative.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Spend the money you do get from me wisely and for the good of all citizens, then stay the F**K out of my life, my bedroom, my phone, my neighbor's bedroom, my religion etc.
Get the State out of marrige. (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I would like to see them just eliminate all the "pro-family" marriage subsidies as a result of this. Let the homophobes keep marriage, just make it a totally religious, nonsecular distinction. Get rid of it from tax law, probate and inheritance law, and other aspects where it usually comes across. If people want those things, they can lobby their congresspeople for tax breaks for everyone, not just married people; write a will and medical-power-of-attorney to sort out the inheritance and medical decision-making issues, and have the "benefits" of marriage with whomever they want.
It's ridiculous that we still have the State sanctioning marriage and childbearing, as if we really need to be encouraging people to pump out more babies. If we need more workers, we can just import them from Mexico or India. Given the state of our educational system, they'll probably be more qualified anyway.
Re:CNN is simply being responsible (Score:2, Insightful)
So what you have is actually a case of someone letting the rest of the country on to the open secret. Bill Maher revealed nothing more than something on the level of, "Did you know. Don Rumsfield is married?" (Oh wait! We've never seen his wife! That's completely UNSOURCED! Strike that from the record!)
Yes. CNN is part of a conspiracy of silence to ensure that the Republicans can continue their cynical play on bigotry.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
This is patently untrue. Did you see the exit polls for this election? It was all about two things: 1) The war in Iraq/Terrorism (which are, thanks to the Republicans, the same thing now and much worse than either were before), and 2) Corruption.
Did you see the exit polls from the last election? The number one issue back then was "moral values."
The Republicans have a history of fiscal irresponsibilities. The two presidents who hold the record for running our deficit up are, you guessed it, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. They also have a history of passing legislation that is great for corporations and rich folks, but bad for the average schmoes and poor people. You know that booming economy we keep hearing about? Guess who's getting all of that money. Yup, corporations and the generally rich folks who own them.
The majority of Republicans aren't rich, they're middle-class folks who like to think, and who the Republicans have told, that they'll be rich someday, or at the very least, they'll be pretty much where they are now. They're betting their current economic situation on a brighter future, and for most of them, that doesn't come true. (These are the same folks who go out and charge up their personal debt to their eyeballs because today doesn't matter and the future is just a vague notion.)
So why would they take a gamble like that? Because the Republicans are packaging a nice and tidy message that these folks want to hear with their "family values" and morality speeches. They're telling these middle-class folks not to worry about economics, because what really matters is not allowing gays to get married, "pre-born" babies to be killed, and so on. The sad truth is that most Americans aren't content to just live and let live, but want their morality and beliefs imposed on others, and their message sells really well.
Meanwhile, the rest of us have to suffer having other people's morality and beliefs imposed on us while we get downsized and outsourced and take jobs with pay cuts, while we lose our health insurance and retirement benefits, while we get raises that don't keep up with the cost of living, and while our country's financial foray into the red numbers just keeps getting deeper, and deeper, and deeper.
I'm sorry, but anyone who is a Republican for economic reasons is either 1) very well off or 2) pretty damn stupid.
Re:I declare a new tag (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this insightful? It is a terrible analysis.
The point of the article is that the mass media/news in the United States is being censored. What might be more to the point is 'who cares who is doing the censorship?'. This is akin to lying to the public by withholding information.
Some of this might be due to the networks being afraid of lawsuits, but again, who cares what the reason is. This is just another example of the poor journalism exhibited in America. When I lived there, it was very difficult to find any good investigative journalism (for fear of lawsuits... e.g. CBS and the tobacco industry), nor any reference to other country's contributions to foreign projects (something is done by America or basically 'some other guys'), or even bend the story so that America is the hero even if it is Americans being rescued (e.g. a Canadian team flying in to rescue sick Americans at the south pole in the dead of winter when no one else could because of the extreme conditions... CNN reported the sick Americans as heroes and did not mention the Canadians who seriously risked their lives flying in there).
People in other countries wonder why Americans seem so ignorant of other countries. Considering the amount of time they are glued to the TV you would think they would learn more of the outside world. But the poor journalism (even somewhat xenophobic journalism) in the U.S. sure doesn't help. Censorship is just the icing on this botulism infested cake.
I liked living in the U.S., but their news services absolutely sucked. Thank goodness from living in other countries I knew what good news looked like and could find it on the internet. Interestingly, even though it is as full of bullshit propaganda as many U.S. news services like Fox (e.g. Bill O'Reilly, Hannity), you could not even get the Aljazeera news service in the U.S., at least while I was there... that is direct censorship.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Two male CEO's "marry" and one leaves their company to their "spouse" avoiding billions of dollars of tax consequences.
There are a lot of implicit rules that were imbedded in the "Male is the breadwinner and has money and Woman takes care of the home and has children" meme that was associated with marriage until a very short time ago.
Part of the reason for encouraging marriage was so there would be plenty of soldiers and plenty of young people to support the older people.
The rules are changing and marriage isn't keeping up.
What is the difference between a 40's non-fertile female marrying a 40's male vs another 40's female to society?
What's the difference between a 40's non-fertile female marrying her 20's son? or Daughter?
If producing babies are not involved, then the law needs to be pretty crystal clear. Whenever love or large amounts of money are involved, people are going to push it to the breaking point.
I really can't see a difference personally.
And my first comment increasingly applies to men and women (and always has among the rich who married rich to preserve the family fortune). The owners of two privately held companies could marry to avoid huge tax consequences provided they are male and female.
What ever the case- civil unions are *NOT* as simple as they seem at first glance. Today we want everything to be spelled out- when marriages were invented nothing was spelled out.
Re:DMCA confusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Entity A posts some content to service C.
Entity B alleges that he is the copyright owner, that the content A posts infringes his copyright and that he wants C to remove it.
C removes it. C renders no opinion on this; he simply removes it as required by the DMCA.
The End.
How come I hear all these stories about "oh, they DMCA'd me and now my content is gone and there is nothing I can do!" stories, when it sounds like all they have to do is reply stating that it does not infringe and why, and then the content is back up. This law seems like an excellent way to take down obviously infringing content quickly, while giving someone who has real content a valid way to get out of it. It might be better if they get a change to reply FIRST though, before the content is taken down.
Re:Just remember everyone (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
If Bill Gates wanted to ruin your life- there is not a damn thing you could do to stop him in a libertarian society.
An underlying presumption of libertarian philosophy is that by some magical means very powerful people will not abuse their power.
Fiscal conservativism doesn't have a party. (Score:5, Insightful)
In large sections of the country, although Republicans may be more socially conservative than Democrats, they're certainly not anywhere near the level of the rabid, religiously-motivated, hateful far-right (really authoritarian) bloc that seems to be most Democrats' stereotype of conservatives.
Given the bipolar political system, if you want a political party that supports lower taxation and doesn't believe in providing "bad luck insurance" by punishing people who plan ahead (say, by saving up money or property to give to their children rather than spending it) to pay for others' mistakes, you don't have a lot of choices.
The Republican party over the past few years has been almost completely hijacked by religious-right, and by ultra-hawks who have run up the deficit in order to fund the war. However, this doesn't mean that the Democrats are any more attractive than they have always been; basically offering only marginally more fiscal control, in order to fund welfare and other social programs. It's only because of the depths to which the Republican party has fallen, and sold out its core values, that the Democrats look fiscally responsible.
I would say that many Republicans that I have met in New England (and if you look at 'Yankee Republicans' in general) are not really that socially conservative on an absolute scale, and are torn between disliking the quasi-socialist fiscal policies of the Democrats (particularly New England Democrats), and the authoritarian social policies of Midwest and Southern Republicans. I suspect if you looked at stances on the issues, many Northeast Republicans (say, Olympia Snowe) would actually be very fiscally conservative Democrats, if they were in another part of the country, and vice versa.
Re:CNN is simply being responsible (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not an explosive charge by any stretch. It's a guy being funny.
Also, this isn't a news show. It's an interview show. Different rules can and should apply. I mean, if you tried to censor every lie the average Republican guest on that show spouts, you'd end up reairing two of the episodes back to back in the same time slot as one. You can't fact check every random thing an interviewee says on an interview show, and if you start picking and choosing which pieces of an interview to air based on your own personal biases and based on guesses of factuality, you're skewing the interview, which is a journalistic no-no.
Not necessarily ... Dick Cheney (Score:3, Insightful)
FOX News link -- too lazy to do better [foxnews.com]. IMHO the hypocracy of the Republicans is one problem, but the farce of "family values" when your dad is actively legislating against your life is even more astonishing.
Of course, they definitely kept Mary Cheney out of the public eye. In fact, the Cheneys overall seem to be kept in a locked box somewhere and only unleashed when it's time to sling some serious shite.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:1, Insightful)
Aren't we happy that we're having a constructive discussion? We've really moved forward on clarifying the issues. Apparently the #1 issue for America is dumb voters voting for the wrong party. (rolls eyes)
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
While the inability to empathise is not itself bad, I suspect you'll find that all bad acts in our world have that inability as their common prerequisite.
Not equal incidents. (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, the blogger insists that the blog subject is about the WP comitting censorship, not abut the President's evasiveness. IMO, the public has a right to know, but the administration has an agenda and a strategy, and we are not automatically entitled to know what that is. We, as the public, are not entitled in all cases, to pass on decisions that we have delegated to out elected representatives. The solution is to find a way to elect people who make good decisons in a trustworthy environment. Neither of those conditions exists at this time.
Re:Speech issues aside... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you just found the flaw in the argument.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it will allow the Republican Party to purge these idiotic socially ultra-conservative nuts and return to being economically conservative instead (which is the *real* base of the Republican Party).
Sorry, I'm an old-timer fiscal conservative. Which means I've hated the Republican party since Reagan came into office. Before 1980 the Republicans were for smaller government and less spending. But for the past quarter century, they have been spend crazy. They have created a far far bigger bloated government than any Democrats ever did. For the past 26 years, the Democrats have acted much more fiscally conservative than Republicans. If you are a fiscal conservative and still a Republican these days, you are as ignorant of the world around you as people who claimed 'the world changed on 9/11'. Wake up.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet for the last 30 years or so, the Republicans have been the undisputed champion of big wasteful government. The Democrats have consistently been better "Republicans" than the Republicans.
Maybe you should stop and look around a little bit instead of repeating ancient sayings that lost their truth decades ago.
The Republicans have proven that not only do they want to fuck up the country, but given the slightest opportunity they will run full speed ahead toward that goal regardless of how illegal or unconstitutional they have to go to do that.
Only somebody with a delusional religious belief in a freaking political party of all things, and a complete ignorance of the last 30 years could possibly attempt to defend the Republicans by claiming the Democrats want to fuck up the country.
Take the worst ideas the Democrats ever had taken to the extreme, throw in radical religious lunacy, and you have todays Republican party.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporations are EVEN stronger than people like Gates, plus they are basically immortal and can assign blame to a few human "cells" and shed them to avoid legal consequences.
It's rapidly corrupting a republican democracy- I don't think liberatarian philosophy ala Ayn Rand would stand a chance against lawyers and corporations.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
In the wake of a highly unethical and unpopular war, war profiteering, deaths of hundreds to thousands of people in New Orleans and a laundry list of scandals from (mostly) republicans all over the place in washington ranging from pedophelia to corruption to traiterous acts such as leaking the identity of field operatives in the CIA, are you seriously telling me you have the audacity to sit there and post this drivel of "scandals" about infedelity and elephant crap?
I was actually living in NYC for Rudy's entire reign, so I have at least (hopefully) a little credability here....
Here's a couple clues for ya bro, cause you're a fellow slashdotter and I really want to help you out:
1) The Elephant Dung incident wasn't that big of a deal.
2) A whole lot of famous (and not so famous) leaders have been unfaithful to their wives. Look up some interesting facts on google on your own time. Rudy's wife was a bitch, a really mean person, and they were practically divorced when he started messing around.
Here's some more pointers:
* Rudy is a tough nut and handles pressure increadibly well.
* Rudy is a great leader.
* Rudy took on the freaking NY MOB by HIMSELF and WON. Now who say that?
* We should judge our leaders by their leadership ability, character, views, etc. Not by who their shagging.
Note: I am not a republican, nor a demacrat.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fiscal conservativism doesn't have a party. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:2, Insightful)
Give me Reagan or Bush Sr. any day. (Really wanted Steve Forbs years ago...)
Wow.
There is almost no difference between Shrub and Reagan.
Same idiotic fiscal policies, same treasonous, scandal ridden foreign policy, same exact people involved.
Same record setting defecits.
It always amazes me when I hear "conservatives" talking up Reagan.
His administration signalled the Republicans' complete and utter rejection of their old platform in favor of huge oppressive government and no fiscal sense whatsoever.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
A libertarian society has the minimum government influence, in order to maximize personal freedom; taken to the extreme, the government has no role beyond enforcing contracts and preventing outright violence. The problem with this is that nothing stops Bill Gates from paying the local water and power companies to not do business with you. Under current government such attempts would almost certainly be illegal (harassment).
The fatal flaw of libertarian philosophy is that coercion is defined as using force against someone. It is flawed because it ignores another coercive strategy: resource deprivation. If I control the only source of water in a desert, I hold power of life and death over all other residents, and can kill them without ever once using force against them (except when they try to take water by force, at which point libertarianism allows me to use it in defense).
People in the current technical society aren't self-sufficient, they depend on support infrastructure to stay alive. People with lots of money can buy that infrastructure and then coerce others by threatening to cut them out of it, at which point those other people either obey or starve to death.
In short, government stepping down and relinquishing power over some aspect of society will simply result in the next most powerful individual or organization taking over. Power doesn't disappear simply because someone gives it up; in a libertarian society, since the government refuses to wield power, someone else will. And since that someone else doesn't have any responsibility to citizens, he can rule as a ruthless tyrant.
Just look at any nation where the government collapses: if a new one doesn't rise quickly, local warlords take power over their area and then begin to fight amongst each other. Somalia is a good example of this.
Libertarianism is a very simple philosophy, simpler than even Marx's theories; like them, it assumes that as soon as $EVIL has been removed and everyone been converted to the correct worldview, everything will be wonderful. No such ideal has ever delivered what it promised, so why should libertarianism ?
Call the EFF, this is an abuse. Plain and simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry Bill or Larry or who ever in the media companies where threatened and told to abuse this law. You just made the case.
Re:Yer right, and something's got to be done. (Score:3, Insightful)
Marriages were about *PROPERTY* not about "true love".
Agree on the other points too- you raise children, then maybe the state gives you a break since we currently view it as good for society (I don't but I think we are overpopulating ourselves to death).
Otherwise, why should a childless couple of any gender mix be able to form a legal contract governing inheritance, power of attorney, distribution of property, support (alimony), etc. that is banned to other couples?
Separate MARRIAGE (religious) from CIVIL UNION (Secular). And then separate MARRIAGE (Catholic, Baptist) from MARRIAGE (Other religion that is cool with gay marriages). You shouldn't be able to force the catholic church to marry two gays because it's against their religion. You shouldn't be able to bar a pro-gay marriage religion from marrying gays.
Re:Fiscal conservativism doesn't have a party. (Score:3, Insightful)
Authoritarian?? Social conservatives are the opposite of authoritarian, as their highest goal is to return the control of social issues back to the peoples' representatives (where the Constitution put it in the first place), instead of the Supreme Court.
Which is why they tried to use the Constitution to define marriage. It all makes perfect sense.
Re:Did you read the partent post? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where exactly are the liberals forcing Republican women to have abortions, or forcing heterosexual Republicans to marry gays? Sorry, they aren't forcing their beliefs on you. If the Republicans don't want to have abortions, don't have them. Don't want to be in a gay marriage, don't marry one. No forcing going on. Republicans are forcing their views on others by preventing everyone from doing things they disagree with.
Freedom to practice religion is a good thing. You are free to practice yours. Just don't try to force yours on me.
The Fed *SHOULD* be running a debt in the bad times, it should be running up lots and lots of debt, and in good times it should be making a surplus.
Then the only 'good times' we've had in the past 26 years was for a few when a DEMOCRAT was in office and rejecting crappy budgets by Republicans who were putting too much in them. The debt has been growing [brillig.com] at an astronomical rate for the past 26 years. Anyone who thinks this is sustainable or a good idea is an idiot.
Maybe think a little for yourself rather than repeat partisan talking points.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Inciting to murder you political opponents, even in jest, reveals a lot about you and the fascist mentality you express. You're no better than Pol Pot on the left or McVeigh and the whackos on the right with that sort of a saying.
Guys like you make it damn hard for me to argue against Republican caricatures of the left - your delusions and ignorance, mixed with the amazing ability to ignore facts that show you to be wrong (30 years of f**king up the country for Repubs? Um... they balanced the Budget under Clinton, amongst other things), mark you as a self-blinkered raging fanatic. Every bit as nasty as those whom you purport to hate. You demonstrate that you have chosen to define yourself by what you hate.
Might want to check the mirror first when you ask what's wrong with this country (all of us should). I think your hatred of the Religious Right has blinded you. You live on hatred every bit as much as those "God Hates Fags" people do, you guys deserve each other - leave the rest of us the hell alone.
Stop with the hate, enough already.
Re:Fiscal conservativism doesn't have a party. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm from a very rural area. Most of my old hometown friends are farmers. The inheritance tax isn't an issue for any of them. None of them knows anyone who has lost a farm because of it. If you know of a documented case, please post it. Otherwise, it's nonsense.
Only 2% of estates pay any estate tax at all. Most of those just pay a relatively small amount. The inheritance tax only has a real effect on a very small fraction of the top 1% of estates. A quarter of the total estate tax is paid by only about 500 estates each year. Half of the estate taxes each year come from only about 3,000 estates in the entire country. Current estate tax exempts the first million of an estate, and for the owners of businesses (including farms) it's even higher.
Republicans have been challenged over and over to provide one example of someone losing their farm because of the estate tax... they haven't. It just doesn't happen.
OT: Illegal immigrants reduce outsourcing (Score:2, Insightful)
Other choices that would also be made more attractive include moving all or parts of the company to other countries.
Re:Fiscal conservativism doesn't have a party. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's true, and I'll emphatically agree with you there. In fact, I'd like to condemn everyone here on Slashdot for killing unborn babies. After all, every time you've not had sex with a member of the opposite sex, that's another dead baby. A pre-coital baby, perhaps...but "regardless of their stage of development" includes those, too. My condemnation is doubly levelled at those evil religious folks who think that it's dirty to fornicate - how dare you kill all of these babies with your misplaced morality!
Not a great analogy, right? "Well, that's ridiculous," you argue, "there's a line that has to be drawn somewhere. You're only talking about a potential baby, and you're not really killing it since it was never alive in the first place." I agree. I don't fancy killing humans any more than you do; however, that doesn't mean I agree on your definition of human. A potentiality means balls in this world. You may think that human life begins at conception, because you can't think of a more plausible time for God to put the soul in. But our legal system doesn't deal in souls, and a lot of scientists will tell you that up until fairly late in the birth cycle that embryo bears little to no resemblance to a human. So despite what you may believe, this is not an open and shut case (same goes for the other side - I would argue that there is a decent period of time before actual birth during which we probably should call it human; of course, this is the current legal situation, so I can't really complain). If you wish to impose your moral view on the rest of society, feel free to back it up with something other than religion - if you can, for instance, prove that an embryo feels pain after a month in the womb, I'll be listening. But if all you can back it up with is your personal conviction, then I'm sorry, you're free to choose what to do yourself, but the Constitution won't let you choose for others, regardless of whether the majority of your peers agree with you.
That said, don't despair - a good number (daresay a majority? only time will tell...) of those currently on the Supreme Court don't seem to care for the Constitution's minority protections all that much, so you may end up getting your way in the end, founding fathers be damned.
Re:WTF (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank god for that. Do we really need THREE parties absolutely divorced from the real world? The democrats really don't understand the social situation in the world (and want to inflict their's on it). The republicans don't understand the real ideological situations in the world (and want to inflict it on others). The libertarians don't understand the economic situations in the world (and want to inflict it on others). The greens, while a half assed party, aren't much better, they seem to also to completely ignorant of economic factors (the exact opposite of libertarians, indeed), and want to inflict it on others.
Bah to every party. People should all register as independents, eschew all parties and idiot ideologies, and learn to think for themselves.
Though I must admit, personally and only personally, that the Dems and the original republicans (pre-Goldwater, pre-Reagan) were closest to the people's wishes.The libertarians and greens are so far in left-field to be irrelevant to most people.
I think government has nothing, nor should have anything to do with people's private life, as long as it doesn't infringe on the lives and rights of others. Last time I checked gay's really had no influence on me, or anyone else. How is this involved in politics? Is God's opinion relevant to the vast majority of people? I doubt it. Live and let live is the law of the day, the rest is media hype, and listening to the loudest minorities.