Post-ACTA Agreement CETA Moving Forward With Similar Provisions 136
rrohbeck writes "From eff.org: 'The shadow of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is back in Europe. It is disguised as CETA, the Canada-European Union and Trade Agreement. A comparison of the leaked draft Canada-EU agreement shows the treaty includes a number of the same controversial provisions, specifically concerning criminal enforcement, private enforcement by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and harsh damages.'"
You can't win... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf,
It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote. In this case, that means voting for a politician who is not bought and paid for by the copyright lobbyists, so if you are an American, you can forget about the major parties.
Re:You can't win... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote.
Voting is a very delayed response mechanism. By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.
We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence. So that X people sign a petition/vote and then the politician gets recalled and banned from running for a year
Then those bastards would step carefully, at least on things that are universally hated.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
1.All the politicians are elected based on their programs.
2.They come to power, and forget all the promises.
3.SOLUTION: Make them pay for breach of contract. WOW, i am genius.
3. PROFIT.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I believe that the word you were looking for, sir, was reneged.. I certainly appreciated your effort though :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, "non-core promises" should be allowed, but politicians and parties should be expected to layout which promises are "core" promises and which are not ahead of time. A while ago, I saw an interesting suggestion that the law should be modified to allow politicians to make binding promises (not required, allowed). This way they could make election promises that they intend to keep and if they fail to uphold the promise an automatic removal-from-office procedure could begin. The key part is tha
Re:You can't win... (Score:4, Funny)
I really like this idea... I suppose that makes me a peto-phyle.
Re: (Score:1)
Open voting is what the country was founded on.
The flaws in this way of thinking have been pointed out time and time again. Knowing how someone voted just isn't necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
That
Re: (Score:3)
That problem has never been solved, and with closed ballots can never be solved.
What if you can track the ballots to the people who issued them (not voted on them)? In Canada, the ballots have serial numbers on them. Two poll workers issue a ballot to a voter, and confirm that a valid serial number is returned after the vote is cast by checking the serial number against the list of currently active ballots. In practice, they have a pad that they tear the ballots off of. The pad has a serial number above and below the tear, and poll workers check that the serial number on returned b
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that's easy, or practical. But matching to a person lets you go up to that person and say "your ballot was lost. Please re-vote" Then we ca
Re: (Score:2)
Electronic voting usually has one of the following two flaws:
1. People know how you vote, bad know how you vote and can use this to find where you live and could kill you or cause problems.
2. No one knows how you vote, this removes traceability and can lie about the results.
These are not likely to be problems in the USA unless it is something controversial like evolution, gay rights etc. where you will just loose your job.
But having such a system in place means the rest of the world will copy and implement
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But by all means, continue to focus on non-existent problems with the electoral system while the entire thing is gamed by closed-source software and unaccountable private industry.
If there was vote tractability, there's nothing the closed source unaccountable private industry could do to mess it up. I think you are so focused on attacking something nobody had defended (or even mentioned before you), you missed that my solution fixes *everything* you complain about, even if it were to introduce new problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And either could be worked around.
Online voting, for utmost security.
Each voter gets a specialized browser install based on a normal browser with few key differences:
- Cache is flushed every 60seconds
- Only 1 SSL key is accepted
- Only 1 host with which communication is accepted
- All communication over HTTPS only
Then the webservice portion, and i'm basing this how things work in Finland. Here you can authenticate with your real life details using your bank account details.
So y
Re: (Score:1)
Finnish voting system works great as it is, to propose online voting is to introduce problems our way does away with, such as bullying others to vote by your choice.
Imagine violent chauvinist demanding his wife to vote his way - well, that won't work under current system, no matter what he does he cannot get in the booth nor check the pad before it gets put in ballot box. But at privacy of homes? We know dark things happen there - much darker than this, so don't even begin with online voting ever being "sec
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You can't win... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is voting for abortion being a jackass? Against? Voting for gay marriage? Against? Hell, in the US, I'm sure you can say the same about creationism (which what, 40% of the people believe in?). Unionize? Break the unions?
The secret ballot is actually one of the most important tools - because coercion is real and has been demonstrated. Hell, there is evidence for example, in voting to unionize. In places with secret ballots the rate of unionization is far lower than at places where the voting is open - not by a little bit, but by a lot (a lot of old style thuggery and bullying).
And yes, you'll find without a secret ballot a lot more vote buying. The population doesn't care about ACTA - so all pro-ACTA forces have to do is say "Vote yes and we'll pay you $10". If you're a "I don't care, but by doing this I get a free $10, I'm game!". And your vote tracability website offers perfect proof and a perfect list of people to send the money to. These people who would probably just ignored the vote to begin with have now got economic interest.
Open voting simply does not work at all - there have been way too many documented instances of coercion. It's why we have secret ballots to begin with.
Need one final example? Take our fine goverment representatives. On critical issues (e.g., budgets) the party "whips" will basically demand the members vote one way. Anyone who doesn't is reprimanded out from plum positions (getting kicked out of cabinet, tossed onto the backbenches, basically being ignored, etc). And you know it's an open vote when they can do things like "Republicans X, Y and Z voted against the motion while Democrats A, B and C voted for the motion".
Re: (Score:3)
So we need a Constitutional Amendment that calls for a vote 30 days after every new law is passed allowing a veto by the people (peto). Don't like the budget? Vote it down. Don't like th treaty? Peto it.
Actually....that's the reason the Federal government's power was [supposed to be] so limited. All the laws and regulations that REALLY affected John Q. Public's day-in-day-out life was supposed to be handled at the state (and even local) level. THAT way, the politician responsible for the act would at least have a chance of having to look Mr. Public in the eye after sticking it to him in the rear.
Ah....the Constitution....what a great idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite sure why this became about bashing one party or another. That's the trouble, really. Forget the parties. They BOTH suck. Hard.
The Constitution is probably one of the most ingenious guides ever written and both parties use it and abuse it as they see fit. In fact, it's high time the People of New Hampshire, for example, get us started on the right path. From their state constitution:
Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely enough we tried that in the USA and it was nuked by SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
So get involved in the primaries and a party. (Score:4, Insightful)
By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.
Why the hell are you waiting for the general election. You should be voting in the primaries, at least. Your rep doesn't vote the way you want? Deny him renomination for his party's slot on the ballot.
If you're really serious, get involved in a party's other activities. Become an officer, a delegate, etc. And be aware that it's a WAR, not a bunch of nice people playing by the rules. You have to hold their feet to the fire at all stages.
Re:So get involved in the primaries and a party. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the part about this being in Canada? We don't have primaries, and the next federal election is several years off.
Yes I did miss it.
So run yourself. Parliamentary systems have the advantage that you can have real power without selling your soul to your pick of the top two parties. Let your neighbors get to know you and you might find it a lot easier than you think.
You can win in Switzerland (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So I'm assuming that the people were overturning government decision to change away from name Doris Day, or what?
Amusing as it may have be, this was not same as Switzerland.
Re: (Score:2)
We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence.
I don't think that's a good idea. Elected representatives shouldn't be yanked on a whim anymore than laws should be passed on them. Governmental action should be deliberate, carefully considered, and with many opportunities for feedback, criticism, and discussion. The opinion of a population changes rapidly, only to return to how it was before a short time later. If a law or action is undertaken on a 'whim', that becomes the prevailing law or process, because of a short emotional peak, not out of a sustaine
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In theory I agree, but it doesn't look like thats how it works from the outside.
It doesn't feel like our representatives are representing us in pretty much any decision these days and so clearly more control by the population over the representatives is needed beyond getting to vote them out every 4-5 years by which time the policitians have got do nothing jobs lined up with
Re: (Score:2)
That's the two-party system. You need more than recall elections to fix that. Why would any politician fear being recalled if he's going to immediately land in a cushy job?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait... WHAT?!
Are you saying that
1.) We'll somehow figure out what corporations and deep pocketed donors are secretly willing to pay politicians in order to BRIBE them.
2.) Then if we like what the same politicians do, just pay them the same amount?
3.) Then after they finish their terms in office, move into the revolving door and work in the cushy, high paying jobs they were promised by lobbyists, while still having a strong influence on the government where they built up their contact books?
This is a t
Re: (Score:1)
Voting? What, you still believe in nonsense like that?
It's called lobbying. In a corrupt system the only way to fight for yourself is by the mechanisms that are provided by the system.
As long as the people vote for 1 or the 2 sides of the same coin, nothing at all will change voluntarily, and people are really really really stupid for the most part, so it's not like everybody will all of a sudden switch to Libertarian principles of freedom.
Thus it's actually called lobbying, which means bribing.
Also won't work (Score:2)
What America really needs is to start moving back to the left. Conservativism has made progress a dirty word. We're panicking about jobs while automation is making the concept obsolete.
But I doubt you'll see that. More likely you'll see a gradual slide into dark ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Progress is a dirty word when it means ever crushing control and power being wielded by the federal government and spending without any control.
The major parties have the money because they are household names. They became this because they participate in state and local elections and hold seats close to home. If the minor parties did the same, they would or could be in the same position. However, if you think being president is all that matters, you can forget about third parties because they won't be effe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hello betterunixthanunix. I see you are not familiar with the Canadian electoral system. Our prime minister, with less than 40% of the popular vote, nonetheless rules with absolute power. Voting doesn't have a lot to do with it.
The problem is to get this out to the people. The media are firmly in the hands of the Content or Copyright Industry. They have no interest in bringing that up. They'll report on the cost of extending pharma patents, but are absolutely numb on copyright militias, and copyright term e
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Good luck with that. We've been working on it for 200+ years. Maybe we'll overcome an uninformed public that tends to vote based on selfish gain or fear, some day. And maybe it'll overcome the issue of any viable candidate only being viable if he has been vetted by the same aristocracy that essentially has to throw the bulk of their support behind the two parties every election, ever (when both of the dogs in the fight belong to you, it's pretty impossible to lose). One of these days. Yep. All we need to do
Re: (Score:2)
You can at least fire every incumbant. After that demand that lawmakers either eliminate lifetime pensions for politicians (retroactively of course) and if they do not, fire them next election. Keep doing that until would-be career politicians realize that a) they work for us b) we are the boss and c) if they want to keep working for us, they need to remember that the making of a great leader is a servant attitude, not a royalty/celebrity attitude.
Re: (Score:2)
You can at least fire every incumbant. After that demand that lawmakers either eliminate lifetime pensions for politicians (retroactively of course) and if they do not, fire them next election. Keep doing that until would-be career politicians realize that a) they work for us b) we are the boss and c) if they want to keep working for us, they need to remember that the making of a great leader is a servant attitude, not a royalty/celebrity attitude.
I mailed in my early ballot today. The problem we voters face is the parties recycling candidates. Here in Arizona almost 100% of the names on the ballot are people who have no clue what a 'real job' is. They run for one office and when term limits make them move on, they run for another. The same jerks recycled year after year. Their names become so common that they are elected to the new office because the populace all recognize their names. We NEED new ideas and honest people to run for office. The idea
Voting doesn't work (Score:2)
The Dutch voted no to Europe in a referendum, so all the parties ignored it, renamed the treaty and passed it anyway.
The only way to fix the issue is to get rid of the party system and introduce abinding referendum that is then enacted by businessmen who do what they are told and not what they believe.
Because at the core of the fault with the party system is that all politicians believe. Not in a religion but in their ideology and all ideologies are wrong 99% of the time. You can't run a country on the idea
Re: (Score:2)
It is called "voting,"
Someone has bought the whole "democracy" scam hook line and sinker. Yeah, enjoy your illusion of controlling your slavery by putting one "x" on a piece of paper every 4-6 years. Your vote is absolutely irrelevant. Politicans lie to get it, and then do exactly the opposite of what they promised. Only one thing is certain - the governments thirst for power over you, voter, is unlimited. It will continue to take everything from you until it strangles and suffocates you. That's what governments do. But be conte
Re:You can't win... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You can't win... (Score:5, Insightful)
All the above worked diligently to stop ACTA.
For some reason, governments are allergic to consumer advocate groups and sunlight.
Which is why those groups were never invited to the ACTA negotiating table and will never be invited to participate in negotiations for any other copyright-related treaties.
I am a stakeholder in my country and I should not be frozen out of the process that creates my laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why those groups were never invited to the ACTA negotiating table and will never be invited to participate in negotiations for any other copyright-related treaties.
This is a rights issue and negotiating or concessions are not required. Quite simply - take your CETA and fuck off!
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. (Score:2)
You can't win...they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing.
Which is why you can't go to sleep after you win the first battle. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Tyrants are the moles in a very high stakes whack-a-mole game.
Thanks, EFF, for keeping track of these bloodsuckers.
Re: (Score:2)
they've got full time jobs doing this sorta thing. I suppose you could hire someone to fight on your behalf, but who's got enough disposable income for even that
Iv hear East European henchmen are quite cheap and will "take care" of any problem swiftly.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the politicians who need murdering, politicians are just the stooges, it's the lobbyists and lawyers, and CEOs of mega-corporations, and shareholders with significant shares of same.
They need to understand that declaring war on the people of the world has direct personal consequences that are not excused just because they're acting as the agent of a monstrous inhuman artificial life-form.
(note for cretins who want to take this as a serious call to action: it is not. It is is a sarcastic reaction a
Re: (Score:2)
No one is to blame. Each plays their parts. Each serving their own interests. None of them can do any of it alone.
The story of the DMCA is a perfect example of deep, dark corruption at play though. There is no escaping that it can't happen without corrupt politicians willing to sell out the rights of the people.
While I can't advocate violence as I can't imagine myself participating in such a thing, if I were to pick up a news paper to find some sort of news story where citizens responded to this type of
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be violence against the person. Spell out dog raper on their lawn in gasoline and light it. Or build a dog crap bonfire in their driveway. If that doesn't work, pelt them with the dog crap directly. Trash their cars and brick their windows. Make it a living hell to be a corrupt politician/CEO/major investor.
Be creative, mail them a fart in a ziplock bag.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't learned from history? The rich people hire stupid people to carry guns on their behalf.
Re: (Score:2)
That's them initiating the violence. Then all bets are off.
Re: (Score:2)
The 99 percent protest was shut down by cops using FORCE at the request of the 1 percent.
So the elite are already prepared to use violence to trample our rights, they've proven by the 99 percent protest that they are willing to do so.
Again Canada??? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Makes me wish that we quebecois hadn't just voted in a government that plans to delay another sucession vote for a decade. I'm even an English speaker from an English neighborhood in Montreal, and I would prefer to be in an independent francophone Quebec than continue as a citizen of Canada as more of these American-style policies are rammed down our throats by Ottowa.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We have a right wing government now and they have a majority
Re: (Score:1)
...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Blame Canada! Blame Canada! (Score:4, Funny)
Before somebody thinks of blaming us.
War on drugs (Score:5, Interesting)
Guys, I'm gonna make it easy for you: You can't possibly follow all the laws. Everyone is a criminal. And it's been that way for a long time now -- they've had a reason to get rid of anyone they want for a long time now. And who's they? Well, them, you know, the guys, the illuminati, the conspiracy, the wizard of oz, whatever. People who are more powerful than you. Accept this.
Following the law is no longer a measure of ethical behavior, and neither is violating it. This is just part of the typical evolution of societies -- Rome had the same problem, right before the Visigoths came marching over the 7th hill. Laws grow increasingly complex, eventually strangling and murdering the very things it was instituted to correct. And then, out of the ashes, comes a new society, that advances to the butter zone, reaches its golden age... and then murders itself.
No matter where you are in the cycle, the answer has always been the same: Do what you feel is right, for you'll be punished for it anyway. The law has never been there to guide the behaviors and actions of a moral and ethical person... it exists solely to educate unethical and immoral people on how to go about their business without getting noticed. That's why ethical people don't say "But it's illegal!" -- they say "That's wrong." The only people who place a high importance on the legality of a thing are the unethical... and if they have a modicum of power and wealth, then they're probably busy passing laws to rob Peter to pay Paul, and trying to convince others that legal = ethical.
Don't buy their story: Do what you feel is right, and fuck the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:War on drugs (Score:4, Funny)
The GP didn't imply that there is a relation between lawfulness and wrongness. Actually he not so subtly implied the exact opposite, that the two things are different concepts and should not be confused with each other, idea that I completely agree with, by the way.
Why the hell do I attract rational and well-reasoned posters like you from time to time, despite my best efforts? I don't want you to see the logic here! I want you to fly into a frothing rage, saying how I'm oppressing some off-beat political view of yours, making giant leaps to conclusions, twisting my words, and typing in all caps with at least three exclamation points in your 15 paragraph masterpiece. Yeesh, this is slashdot... we have standards here.
I appreciate your support, but if you really want to help me out, go throw out some catch phrase in an argument... like "correlation is not causation", or imply some esoteric logical fallacy like I'm making a "straw man" or an "ad hominim" attack. If you're feeling particularly supportive, I haven't seen anything digging into my gender or sexuality in awhile and I'm really growing concerned about the overall quality of posts from my detractors! :) But above all else, you have to display a vague sense of intellectualism, implying that you're smarter than me, and making thinly veiled personal attacks. That's really what I'm looking for in a detractor.
Thanks again! Look forward to the hate mail. :D
Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Informative)
Accept this.
No. Don't. Organize. lobby. If you can't give time, give money to the applicable non-profit : EFF in US, Quadrature du Net in France.
Our ancestors fought and die for democracy. We have it much easier : we just have to work one or two hours a week to maintain it.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The elite hold all the cards and by holding our careers hostage can pretty much keep us off the negotiating table.
Who will bother getting involved in government when they're already sweating blood keeping food on the table?
Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
Our ancestors fought and die for democracy. We have it much easier : we just have to work one or two hours a week to maintain it.
And we haven't lost it. In fact, democracy is what has accelerated the problem: How many well-meaning lawmakers and citizens have clamored for "tougher laws" after a high-profile incident? Those tougher laws often remove critical elements of criminal law and due process, as well as tougher punishments under the (false) statement that it'll act as a deterrent. In truth, those tougher punishments aren't there as a deterrent, but as retribution. A critical element of our judicial process is satisfying the public's idea that the criminal "got what he deserved", which is in sharp contrast to the idea of rehabilitation or restitution. The democratic process results in a lot of people's emotions being used as the basis for justice -- but there's a fine line between justice and vengance, and when you have a democracy, it tends to fall more on the side of second than the first.
These problems can be fixed; But it won't be through fighting or dying for our country, nor will it be through blind faith in democracy. To achieve the changes needed, unneeded complexity must be removed. Control must be ceded. Our understanding of the problems need to be improved, and our personal interest and emotions removed. That is a lot harder to do for your country than taking a bullet for it -- it's easy to die. It's harder to change how we live.
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have it easier. If anything we have it much harder. The illusion of democracy in which we live today is a much more immutable beast than any kind of authoritative regimen.
It's not an illusion; we really do have democracy. But that doesn't mean we don't also live in a police state. And a lot of it is because we're a democracy, not in spite of it. We threw away trillions of dollars and our civil liberties willingly to combat terrorism -- that was popular opinion after 9/11, and it still holds a slight majority today. Nevermind that we didn't have to do either, that there were more effective and cheaper options available. Democracy doesn't prevent mass-stupidity and hysteria... if anything, it reinforces and amplifies it. The greatest thing about democracy is also the worst thing about it. While we have freedom of speech, we also have anti-gay legislation on the books. We have the right to vote, but the candidates we vote for were bought and paid for by corporate interests, not us. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point; Democracy is just a method of selection. It does not give any promises about the selection itself; We can vote ourselves into an oppressive government just as well as a military dictator can create one.
Democracy promises the vote: It does not make promises about the result.
Re:War on drugs (Score:5, Interesting)
Real democracy belongs to the realm of fantasy, together with ideas like free market and communism. They are ideas that have the common flaw of ignoring human nature.
Communism ignores selfishness and the need of desire and ambition as driving forces to achieve goals.
Free market ignores the ability of human being to organize themselves in groups and to create oligopolies and monopolies.
Democracy ignores human nature to follow. Most people are more suited and more willing to follow than to rule. The "rule of the people" inevitably ends becoming the rule of a few people who can best herd them, and when these people come to power, laws and bureaucracies are increasingly created to keep them and their peers in power.
Personally I think democracy has one and only one redeeming trait. By design it needs lots and lots of laws and lots and lots of cooperation to work. Its own complexity makes any significant change to come slowly which is good if things are going well. That is why democracy works very well in developed countries, because it makes difficult to change what is working into something else.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, maybe I can do a better job of antagonizing you here than in the previous post. I will apologize in advance if I fail to be obnoxious enough to attend to your tastes, though. :(
Aww, don't be sad! I was just being snarky. It was a backhanded compliment.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Don't accept. Organize (Score:2)
Just got out of mod points, when I needed the most...!
Please mod parent up! Grandparent got modded +5 insightful with a defeatist tirade.
The parent got it right.
Re: (Score:2)
The law doesn't mean shit anyway.
They are designed to make everyone guilty, that way the elite get to pick who to prosecute.
Everyone's a criminal, but only those that piss off the elite get punished.
The price of freedom... (Score:3)
If this is ever stopped... (Score:2)
If this is ever stopped, then the article title for it should be... CETA Sings The Blues
YEEEEEEAAAAAAAHHHHHH! [wikipedia.org]
Tyranny through experts (Score:1)
is anyone surprised? (Score:1)
Anyone? C'mon. Someone's gotta be surprised by this news.
Obvious cheating. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dupe? (Score:1)
Isn't this basically a dupe of the story I submitted back in July? [slashdot.org]
Not that the public shouldn't be reminded again. CETA and other ACTA clones need to die.
Re: (Score:2)
CNSNews.com was founded by L. Brent Bozell III on June 16, 1998, under the name Conservative News Service and the domain name conservativenews.org.[3] According to Bozell, the website would "report news ...not touched by traditional television news outlets" and "fill the growing news void left by the establishment media in their chase for the sensational."[3] On its first day of operation the website had 61,000 hits.[3]
The name "CNSNews.com" was first used on June 15, 2000.[4]
As of 2007, CNSNews.com described its role as serving an audience which puts a "higher premium on balance than spin."[5]
"In response to these shortcomings, MRC Chairman L. Brent Bozell III founded CNSNews.com in an effort to provide an alternative news source that would cover stories that are subject to the bias of omission and report on other news subject to bias by commission. CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues." [5]
CNSNews.com's motto is "The Right News. Right now."[6]
CNSNews.com's editor from 1998-2005 was Scott Hogenson, who took a leave of absence in November, 2003 to serve as the director of radio and online operations for the Republican National Committee in the 2004 election cycle. Hogenson's leave of absence expired on November 15, 2004 when he returned to CNSNews.com in his original capacity. CNSNews.com has staff in Washington, D.C., London, Jerusalem and the Pacific Rim. Editor-in-chief David Thibault (deceased) became top editor in April 2005 when Hogenson accepted an appointment as a deputy assistant secretary for the U.S. Department of Public Affairs. Thibault died on July 20, 2007 as a result of complications with his cancer treatment.[7]
Terence P. Jeffrey became editor-in-chief in September 2007. Jeffrey was and remains an editor-at-large for the conservative weekly newspaper Human Events. He wrote editorials for The Washington Times from 1987–1991 and was research director for the presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan in 1992. Jeffrey was Buchanan's national campaign manager in his 1996 campaign.
Under editor David Thibault, CNSNews.com questioned the validity of the circumstances in which Democratic Rep. John Murtha received his purple hearts as a response to Murtha's criticisms of the U.S. War in Iraq. The Washington Post and Nancy Pelosi have commented that this approach is similar to the tactics of the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, which opposed John Kerry's candidacy in the 2004 election.[8]
Thanks Wikipedia!
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, and just last month, Dutch minister Verhagen and Secretary Teeven declared they would reject any ACTA clones. [webwereld.nl] (Dutch).
However, these are politicians promising things, so they should be reminded of their own words.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree for the simple reason that if they're hell bent on passing it come hell or high water we may as well let them have the cake they're taking from us at gunpoint.