Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy

Leaked Cable Shows Heavy US Influence On Swedish Copyright Policy 171

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the pass-a-copyright-law-rover-good-boy dept.
Debuting on Slashdot, seezer writes with a piece by Rick Falkvinge about a recently release diplomatic cable. From the article: "Among the treasure troves of recently released WikiLeaks cables, we find one whose significance has bypassed Swedish media. In short: every law proposal, every ordinance, and every governmental report hostile to the net, youth, and civil liberties here in Sweden in recent years have been commissioned by the U.S. government and industry interests." This is from a Pirate Party founder and so might be slightly exaggerated, but there is certainly evidence in the cable that the U.S. exerted quite a bit of influence of Swedish copyright law. The U.S. government appears particularly vexed that the Swedish public doesn't seem to think anything is wrong with copying protected works, and (not unexpectedly) was quite concerned that Pirate Party members might actually be elected.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked Cable Shows Heavy US Influence On Swedish Copyright Policy

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @10:02AM (#37327198)

    When Julian Assange was recently accused of sexual assault in Sweden, I maintained that this had "CIA discrediting campaign" written all over it. One of the main responses to this was "But the U.S. government doesn't have any control over Sweden or what they do."

    I think people really underestimate the power and sweep of the U.S. government and its wealthy corporate allies. The IMF, the UN, the World Bank, unrest in virtually every oil-producing country that doesn't support U.S. policy, attacks on anyone who criticizes or threatens the U.S. dollar, and in a million other places--you'll find the hand of the U.S. government and its most powerful corporations either calling the shots outright or at least having a significant influence on events.

    Just look at the WIPO copyright treaty (the treaty that brought the DMCA and DMCA-like laws to almost every first-world country in the world). Hollywood and the U.S. music/publishing industry pretty much DICTATED that treaty, with the U.S. government then pressuring countries to implement it with a multitude of carrots and sticks.

    Some may accuse me of hyperbole here. And, believe me, I wish I were exaggerating. But you never have to dig very far.

    • Yea, I remember having several totally aggravating arguments with tools who didn't seem to understand that the fake rape charges being drummed up against assange were not at all related to what he was being sought for by all the world's governments.

      There are tools who are so completely controlled that this notion simply sailed right over their heads.

      • by jhoegl (638955)
        Some people cant see beyond their nose.

        We call them politicians.
        • This is just a trivial translation error. The statement, "...The U.S. government appears particularly vexed...". I can not find a single documented case of any American government staffer losing sleep about what Sweden, as a population, or culture, or government, or Web Master thinks about Copy Write laws, anywhere. Now if the parent had written, "...The Lawyers representing the Copy Write Ranting Corporations that use the staff of the U.S. government as tools appear particularly vexed..." The translati
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Funny how "friendly" countries bully each other. Globalization brings and end to the sovereignty of nations?

      • by elrous0 (869638) *

        The more power global corporations gain, the more pressure there is to homogenize every country into a "corporation friendly" environment.

    • by bzipitidoo (647217) <bzipitidoo@yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @11:31AM (#37328710) Journal

      The US Government is as much victim as perpetrator. Haven't you been listening to the US right's hatred and contempt for government? And their proclivity for blanket statements and oversimplifications? It's expressed so well in this Reagan quote: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Our scientists and researchers do their jobs and come up with answers, and the right ignores them or makes ridiculous accusations of bias and incompetence. We pay for this attitude in many ways, not least being the low morale among bureaucrats. These hypocrites who profess such hatred for government are not shy about abusing and expanding government power when they are in control. The only parts of the government they like unconditionally, and like entirely too much, are the parts to do with security and force.

      • "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it." -- P. J. O'Rourke (conservative author)

      • Haven't you been listening to the US right's hatred and contempt for government?

        Sure, I've listened to the rhetoric. I've also observed the reality. Conservatives despise government ... unless it's putting power in their hands and money in their pockets.

      • by Baki (72515)

        Although I am sorry for US citizens of good will, as a whole the influence of the USA in the world has been very detrimental lately. The issue of IP is just one example.

        Therefore, I am quite happy with the self destructive ultra right wing tea party. It is the quickest way to get rid of the USA as a superpower. I can only welcome that.

        • Take hope in one important improvement: We did not support Mubarak, not this time, despite his friendliness with the US.

          In the past, our government would have supported the ruler, as long as he professed friendship with the US, despite what US citizens or their people thought. The polite explanation was always "stability". Not so polite is "he's a bastard, but he's our bastard". Then the ruler and his cronies continue milking their people, who then hate us for supporting him. This always causes troub

    • ...the Swedish Central Bank was also a recipient of some of that $16.1 trillion spewed forth from the Fed (thanks to GAO audit), and Carl Bildt was a director at Lundin Petroleum when those massacres were taking place in Sudan (moving people off of the oil-rich lands they lived on, etc.). Plenty of reasons, not even counting DoD contracts to Swedish defense firms, for pressure from the USA.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      When Julian Assange was recently accused of sexual assault in Sweden, I maintained that this had "CIA discrediting campaign" written all over it. One of the main responses to this was "But the U.S. government doesn't have any control over Sweden or what they do."

      There is a similar case going on just now. An Italian politician have, on an open street in Sweden, lifted his 12 year old son by the hair, the son was fleeing from a restaurant where his father had pounded him repeatedly in the face. One of the owners of the restaurant rushed out and was able to go in between, before the father did something worse. There are lots of witnesses to both incidents, the father/politician have not been judged yet, but he faces time inside a Swedish prison. If he was a Swede, his

    • by Xest (935314)

      The Assange thing is really irrelevant as part of the revelation. It was clear Sweden was a US puppet state long before that when the Swedish police raided TPB at the request of US authorities, and when the Swedish judiciary later deemed a trial of the TPB owners by a judge who was an active member of a US oriented media industry lobby group to be fair. Even for those who believe Assange is guilty and the US has nothing to do with that there is still evidence enough of a separate issue here- the US has far

      • by johanw (1001493)
        "It was clear Sweden was a US puppet state long before that when the Swedish police raided TPB at the request of US authorities" Yes, anyone remember how the Swedes changed their laws about how anyone could view papers sent to their parliament when the scientology cult got involved andf bribed some US senators to interfere.
    • by AmiMoJo (196126)

      In the UK we call it the "special relationship" because we are America's best buddies... Well, second best after Israel. US says jump, we say how high?

  • ....the cartel/mafia/cabal with the U.S. government in its pockets appears particularly vexed that the Swedish public....

  • by russotto (537200)
    Exaggerating slightly? The Pirate Party "translates" this:

    Adopt the copyright law amendments on injunctive relief against ISPs and a âoeright of informationâ to permit rights holders to obtain the identity of suspected infringers from ISPs in civil cases.

    into

    Adopt "Three Strikes" making it possible to disconnect prople from the internet without a trial ("injunctive relief"), and implement the IPRED directive in a way that the copyright industry can get internet subscriber identities behind IP a

    • by jhoegl (638955)
      No... prosecution is the judicial branch. It is separated for a reason.
      • by The Moof (859402) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @10:27AM (#37327684)
        The Department of Justice does the prosecuting, which is under the executive branch. They bring their cases before the judicial branch who renders the decisions on the cases.
    • by NoSig (1919688)

      I don't know about Sweden, but in the US, prosecution is an executive function.

      You don't think it would be the least bit scary if the police were simultaneously responsible for finding suspects, collecting evidence and directly prosecuting you? That is, you believe that it's fine that the people whose job it is to impartially and accurately record the evidence against you are also the same people whose job the next day is to argue as pointedly as possible that you are guilty? That's quite a conflict of interest.

      • by bws111 (1216812)

        What is your point? You don't believe that the prosecutor and police are both executive functions? They are. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, which is run by the Attorney General, who does the prosecutions.

        The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is the judiciary. It neither investigates nor prosecutes, it adjudicates.

        • Or ignores, as the case may be.
        • by NoSig (1919688)
          I see that you are correct and that I was wrong in stating that the police and prosecutor are not both executive functions. I find it no less scary - this is really not the way it should be. The police absolutely must record evidence accurately for there to be a semblance of justice, yet their ultimate boss is simultaneously responsible for making sure people go to jail based on evidence, and for the collection of the evidence. That creates an incentive to look harder for damning evidence, to ignore non-dam
      • hat is, you believe that it's fine that the people whose job it is to impartially and accurately record the evidence against you are also the same people whose job the next day is to argue as pointedly as possible that you are guilty? That's quite a conflict of interest.

        That's an alignment of interest, not a conflict. The group who records and gathers evidence then presents the evidence. There's no conflict between those two duties, both parties are interested in getting convictions on the person they gathered evidence on. It would be a conflict if the same people who gather the evidence also decide on whether the evidence is good enough to convict. That's why the judge and jury are completely separate.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It works a bit differently in Sweden. Politicians are not considered competent to meddle in spedific cases and decide who is to be prosecuted and who isn't. The job of the elected politicians is to make policy, while the decision to prosecute is in the domain of prosecutors who are bound by the law as written down and not by the whims of politicians. The reasoning behind this is that it is believed to reduce corruption.

      Now, of course politicians - enjoying power as they do - sometimes put pressure on prosec

    • by saihung (19097) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @11:05AM (#37328306)

      If you don't know about Sweden, then why are you talking about it? The Åklagarmyndigheten is an independent authority, not attached to any ministry or branch of government. Unlike the USA, where the US attorneys are part of the Department of Justice and subject to direct political interference, the Åklagarmyndigheten is not a part of the Ministry of Justice.

      • ....and so many of those characters involved in attempting to extradite Assange are financially connected to the Bonnier family??? (And the Brits should be focusing on extraditing the Murdoch family, given everything coming out about their knowledge and collusion with all that cellphone spying!)
    • Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)

      by chrb (1083577) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @11:22AM (#37328584)

      Which simply doesn't translate. The US here is asking for something like the DMCA (which is required by treaty), not for "three strikes" legislation.

      Wrong. The "injunctive relief" legislation that is being pushed is indeed ISP disconnection. From the PDF that TFA links to:

      Injunctive relief in civil cases -- EU Copyright Directive: The law implementing Sweden’s obligations under the EU Copyright Directive entered into force on July 1, 2005 (Law 2005:360 amending the Act on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works, Law 1960:729). Particularly disappointing has been the lack of a specific injunctive relief remedy against ISPs as required under Article 8.3 of the Copyright Directive (and Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive). Proposed legislation to provide such a remedy is now pending in the Swedish Parliament.(3) If adopted by the Parliament, the amendment would go into one of the major deficiencies that rights holders have faced and which IIPA highlighted in its 2008 submission. (3)(http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2008/2008SPEC301SWEDEN.pdf)

      And if you follow the link to the 2008 IIPA paper on the proposed legislation...

      civil litigation, without preliminary injunctive relief, is just too slow to act as a deterrent.... Unfortunately, we have also heard that the present draft proposal does not contain a right to injunctive relief in a civil case against ISPs, and that it therefore fails to cure Sweden’s inconsistency with Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive and Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive. In September 2007, a report was issued by Swedish Chief Judge, Cecilia Renfors (“Renfors Report”), recommending that the upcoming legislation contain provisions requiring ISPs to take action to terminate the contracts of certain users who repeatedly use the Internet to infringe copyright.... While this report and, in particular, the suggestions regarding disconnection of repeat infringers is welcome, it does not go far enough to bring Sweden’s legal and enforcement regime into harmony with international trends even assuming that the proposed legislation is adopted in its present form

      So, not only do they want ISP disconnections, they actually want even stronger laws.

    • by mapkinase (958129)

      Aren't you the one who are "slightly exaggerating" PP's "slight exaggeration"?

      You wrote:

      "Which simply doesn't translate"

      While in the original text it says:

      "Translated into ordinary language, this says:"

    • by jbr439 (214107) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @11:38AM (#37328850)

      ... The US here is asking for something like the DMCA (which is required by treaty), ...

      DMCA-like legislation is not required for treaty (are we talking WIPO here?) compliance. Canda's Dr. Michael Geist has gone to great lengths to explain why.

      However, the US likes the DMCA and is hell-bent on ramming it down every other country's throat. And, sadly, the governments of most countries (including Canada's) are willing accomplices in this farce.

  • Annoying (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsa (15680) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @10:22AM (#37327570) Homepage

    It's pretty annoying that the US think they can and should govern the whole world.

    • Re:Annoying (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Exitar (809068) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @10:26AM (#37327652)

      It's even worse that the western governments agree.

    • by PPH (736903)

      We can't even govern ourselves. Watch our House of Representatives in action for a real clown show.

      • by Tsingi (870990)

        We can't even govern ourselves. Watch our House of Representatives in action for a real clown show.

        Not true, the "persons" that elect the government are very well represented.
        Remember that judicial precedence has created a situation where corporations are "persons" and must be treated equally under the law.
        "Persons" can donate as much money as they want to political parties.
        So... Corporations can donate as much as they want, anonymously, to political parties.
        Corporations have billions of dollars.
        "People" do not.
        So, in a true and just society, corporations should be allowed to do anything peop

        • by tsa (15680)

          Corruption is legal in America.

        • by Smauler (915644)

          I'll give it three or four years at most.

          People have been giving it 3 or 4 years at most for decades.

          The reality is that most people are still happy enough in the west. They have food, employment (most of the time), and a decent standard of living. It's very difficult to get angry when you have your basic needs.

          The only thing that will change this status is if people lose food, employment, or a decent standard of living. I can't see this happening any time soon. Basically, governments can do what they

          • by Tsingi (870990)
            Sadly, you may be correct.

            The people in the middle east seem to be tired enough of the shit to do something about it. Basically you're both facing the same adversary.

            • by hitmark (640295)

              Well they have also been faced with rising food prices thanks to bad wheat harvest in Russia and such.

              As a certain Roman comedian said "bread and circus", or in these days in Europe and NA, fast food and "reality" TV...

      • by AmiMoJo (196126)

        Believe me, you have nothing on the UK House of Commons. Watch Prime Ministers Questions, you will be shocked. School children would be embarrassed if they acted that way.

    • by brit74 (831798)
      It's pretty annoying that the Pirate Party and the Pirate Bay are working to make Piracy the de-facto standard around the world by giving everyone access to pirated stuff (damn be the creators who worked their asses off creating it), and then to have the Pirate Bay send insulting letters to creators when they want their work removed. I'd consider the US to be a pathetic lapdog if it sat around doing nothing to protect creators from thieves.
      • by tsa (15680)

        It's indeed annoying and I agree that the Pirate Party Bay should be stopped. However, since the Pirate Party is Swedish, this is a Swedish problem and the US has nothing to do with it.

      • by nx (194271)

        The Pirate Party (PP) and the Pirate Bay (TPB) are different entities. TPB was (at the time TFA refers to) a privately run torrent tracker and search engine, with servers in Sweden. PP is political party. I assume the letters you are referring to is the correspondence published on TPB. Most of that is to lawyers, not creators. But I don't suppose that makes a difference to you.

        I'm not clear what it is exactly you're advocating. Do you support the interventionist policies of the US government? For something

  • Democracy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by geoffaus (623283) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @10:28AM (#37327700) Homepage
    Yep the U.S. are all for promoting democracy around the world except when people might vote for someone they dont like
  • Or more correctly. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jellomizer (103300) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @10:31AM (#37327732)

    United States tries to protects its own interest.

    It's not PC but it happens, the US also bends to allow other nations interests to go threw too. It is called Diplomacy. These stints of making a compromise that prevents issues from building up and becoming a major issue.

    The reason why it is not made public because the average Joe doesn't understand the concept of a good compromise where at the end both sides are equally unhappy. So they will make these small viewed complaints (Swedish make copyright policy just so we can get the latest American Blue Rays films) While the complexity of international trade is ignored, not realizing this effects shipment of more then just Films, but software, books, and other sources of information. If a company doesn't see your country as a profitable place to sell goods they won't sell to you. And you end up with loosing out on receiving goods and services that make that company unique. This isn't just about a monopoly every company has something that gives it a competitive advantage over someone else. Blocking trade has probably been considered more costly then the Copyright Policy.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      United States tries to protect its corporate interests.

      Fixed for you.

    • by sgt_doom (655561)
      United States tries to protects its own interest.

      Negative, douchebagger, although I realize you are repeating what you have read, with your bot filter always on.

      The point being, the government works on behalf of its owners, the bankster/oil cartel, and not in ITS interests!

    • by Kjella (173770)

      The reason why it is not made public because the average Joe doesn't understand the concept of a good compromise where at the end both sides are equally unhappy. So they will make these small viewed complaints (Swedish make copyright policy just so we can get the latest American Blue Rays films) While the complexity of international trade is ignored, not realizing this effects shipment of more then just Films, but software, books, and other sources of information. If a company doesn't see your country as a profitable place to sell goods they won't sell to you.

      Haven't we all learned that the marginal cost of reproducing information is ~0? What are they going to do, not sell Hollywood films and software and books and other sources of information? For one TPB would grow tenfold, secondly domestic printing presses and whatnot would go wild printing out of copyright books. This is an empty bluff and we know it, in the choice between small profit and no profit they'll take the small profit. But they will of course howl and scream that they must have large profits or t

    • by Tom (822)

      You made a leap of faith at the beginning of the "If a company..." sentence.

      You see, if a company thinks that, it can do as you wrote, or it can talk to the foreign government, or it can do all kinds of whatever it wants.

      But we're not talking about a company talking to a government, or talking to its partners in the foreign country, or its customers. We're talking about a government talking to a government. And you can be fairly certain that the words used were not "companies A, B and C have asked us to tel

      • by Terrasque (796014)

        From the article:

        [Linked document] comes from the copyright industryâ(TM)s trade association IIPA, mainly consisting of record and movie companies. They have listed six demands on the Swedish Government, which stand to find in the linked document:

        1. Adopt the copyright law amendments on injunctive relief against ISPs and a âoeright of informationâ to permit rights holders to obtain the identity of suspected infringers from ISPs in civil cases
        2. Prosecute to the fullest extent the owners of ThePirateBay [sic]
        3. Increase the prosecutorial and police manpower devoted to criminal Internet piracy enforcement
        4. Commence a national criminal enforcement campaign to target source piracy and large scale Internet pirates
        5. Ensure that rights holders may pursue the new civil remedies easily and quickly
        6. Take an active role fostering ISP-rights holder discussions to effectively prevent protected content from being distributed without authorization over the Internet

        The documents also show that US threaten to put them on the Special 301 Report [wikipedia.org] if those are not followed.
        How much of a political pressure that is, I have no clue (but, Canada, China, Russia is on the Priority list there, and Spain, Norway, Finland and Italy among others, are on the list, so probably not that much).

        Also from there:

        -- The sensitive domestic politics that the GOS needs to manage in
        order to step up internet piracy enforcement in Sweden. The GOS
        struggles, with good intentions, against a very negative media
        climate and against a vocal youth movement. For example, we want
        to highlight the risk that negative media attention on the file sharing
        issue gives the Pirate Party a boost in the EU Parliamentary
        elections in June 2009.

        Cute :)

    • The reason why it is not made public because the average Joe doesn't understand the concept of a good compromise where at the end both sides are equally unhappy.

      So what you're basically saying is "the reason why democracy is circumvented is because ...". In other words, you're providing an argument for an oligarchic society with sham elections where people who vote don't actually know what their elected representatives stand for.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Wait until you hear about what the IRS are making foreign banks do to all their customers in order to weed out US citizens living abroad...

    • by polar red (215081) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @11:31AM (#37328736)

      The IRS making US citizens pay their taxes ? the nerve !

      • by Bucky24 (1943328)
        Well that begs the question, if you're a US citizen, but living abroad, you don't really benefit from the army, social security, government maintained roads, parks, or other public services that taxes go to pay. So should you really have to pay taxes?

        Unless your assets are in a US bank, then I can see paying tax on interest or investment income.
        • by Duradin (1261418)

          You are benefiting from services someone back in the US would never need but still pay for. Someone back in the states really doesn't need the diplomatic corp and even abroad you're getting the benefit of US military power (see Maersk Alabama).

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        you mean the the IRS taxing income earned in another country that has already been taxed by that country? damn right the nerve

      • His beef isn't with IRS making US citizens do something - being citizens, they're up to sovereign US government to abuse as it sees fit. The point is that US intervenes into the affairs of foreign banks to do so.

  • Who elected these people ? What claim do they have to represent the people of the United States ? I sure don't remember anyone touting their kowtowing to foreign special interests at election time.

  • The US government seeks to support US business interests in other sovereign nations. In my view, this goes beyond the constitutional basis for the US government. Some may (and will) disagree with this, but each nation needs to be respected as this nations needs to be respected. If you cannot persuade honestly and openly, then you are going too far where international relations are concerned.

    In fact, I see this as government interference with business... the very same interference that these businesses cl

    • by brit74 (831798)
      > "In fact, I see this as government interference with business... the very same interference that these businesses claim to be against!"

      I'm pretty sure that the "no government interference with business" group of people still support government laws against theft. I don't think there's any contradiction in that. (Similarly, people who want to live in a free society still want laws against theft, murder, etc. - and that's also not a contradiction.)
      • by erroneus (253617)

        "theft" you say?

        This is talking about definitions of "theft" and copyright infringement is not theft. Please remove your head from between your buttocks and observe the facts. It may be convenient to call infringement theft, but it is not. That's why there is a different name for the offense.

        The problem is actually, not that there are "lawless nations out there allowing people to steal" it's that their laws are different and respect intellectual property differently. This boils down to one government se

  • This is what diplomats DO all day. They try to influence policy in foreign countries to promote the interests of the government of their own country. (Which is separate from consular services, the other part of an embassy that handles visas, citizen services, etc.) Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't. The country they are operating in is more than welcome to tell them to go jump in a metaphorical lake.

    • by mbone (558574)

      You are correct, this is what diplomats do.

      Now, how much do I have to pay to get them to do things for me ?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Diplomats may do this all day and Americans may even benefit from this. The article, however, is written by a Swede who finally has clear evidence that a foreign power is manipulating his government into acting illegally. From my understanding, the negative public opinion that the diplomat is worried about is the strong belief Swedes have that they should run their own country.

      You are right that sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail. But the price of that failure when it becomes general knowledg

    • Norway wasn't going to prosecute DVD Jon, but we (at the bidding of the MAFIAA) pressured them to do so, then to appeal his exoneration.

      I like that my country is powerful and influential, but our influence shouldn't extend to interfering with the internal justice systems of foreign countries.

  • by mbone (558574) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @11:05AM (#37328304)

    After reading this, does anyone doubt that the indictment on Julian Assange was motivated by US interests ?

    • by am 2k (217885)

      Unfortunately, the leaked cables won't help shedding light on this, for obvious reasons.

  • Dear Media Companies (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @11:25AM (#37328634)

    The spirit of copyright was to protect the authors for a limited amount of time in return for the works to fall into public domain after a fixed, limited amount of time.

    You screwed everyone by effectively removing the public domain part of the copyright idea, so we're screwing you out of the protected part.

  • by Odinson (4523) on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @01:09PM (#37330152) Homepage Journal
    I for one would like to welcome the 51st state of the United States of America!

    Sweeds you will be issued sweat shorts, 'nutrition' bars, and boxed sets of 'The Kardashians' to help indoctrinate you. :)

    There are many rules, too many to read, but the TV 'news' will help guide you as to which ones are actually being enforced.

  • I don't get it; Big Business wants it both ways. They want the USA to protect their corporate interests around the world *at taxpayer expense*, and then, their CEOs get on TV and shout that we need smaller government, and the government should get it's nose out of business, and there needs to be less regulation.

    Well sure. If the fat cats want unbridled capitalism with no restraint, then I say let that also be the end of copyright law, patent law, and every other government agency that works for Big Business

    • by iggymanz (596061)

      some big business do just that, except they use U.S. soldiers and private security both.

An inclined plane is a slope up. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...