WTO Wants USA to Gamble Online 1287
revtom writes "The WTO has ruled that the U.S. must allow online gambling or face trade barriers. My favorite quote from the article (Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va), 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?"
Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see, there's the invasion of Iraq (against the wishes of the U.N.) and withdrawl from the Kyoto Protocol [vexen.co.uk] to name a couple.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Informative)
The protocol has a trigger clause in it for it to come into force - countries accounting for at least 55% of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions must be signed up. Right now there are 44%, Russia being seen as the critical guy to enlist as it would be sufficient to reach the target.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Interesting)
The Kyoto treaty was specifically designed to hamstring the American economy. Its stated purpose, to reduce world pollution, is nothing more than a cover story.
Com'on drop the "the rest of the world hates USA because you love freedom" routine... The American manufacturing industry might suffer if they are not able to adapt, but it's really your own fault that you haven't chosen to focus on alternative energy sources.
The windmill and fuel cell companies in my country don't seem to think that the kyoto agreement is in any way hampering them... but maybe that's just because they don't understand capitalism.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
I know I'm feeding a troll here...but, can't help it. By definition, isn't a government supposed to do just that for its people? Protect them, and make them happy? Isn't this what every government around the world does, or is supposed to do for its people?
I really don't know of any countries who are so altruistic that they put the interes
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, what you've also described is "no goverment". It's a scale, not an absolute classification. The UN is a good example of your type of government, and look how freely we (the US) dismisses them as "irrelevent". Your usage of the words communism and socialism is totally wrong, so I'm just going to ignore that sentence. Suffice it to say that the two things aren't related to each other and even less related to your previous sentence.
Note that a socialist government (which, like all governments, will take away your money to give to someone else) is not neccesarily invasive or facist. In fact, the most common reason for liberalism in government is to protect personal freedoms. It's also perfectly possible for conservatives to be incredibly invasive, for which proof I give you the American republican party.
As for the etymology of "republic", yes, it's from "publicus", of the people. It's the idea of government held in common, as public land might be.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
9/11 happened because of the attitude of Religious extremists. Do you blame Spain for 3/11 too?
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
As an outsider it's rather touching to see claims like this being made. What might simply be seen as devil-may-care arrogance is arguably not that at all - it looks more like a genuine delusion concerning the extent to which US values are shared by others.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Funny)
I fear your spelling. Is that close enough?
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's an example: [iio.org]
The position of Islam on gambling is that it is prohibited, harmful and destructive to society. Gambling is addictive by nature, a practice that takes money from the poor with the perceived, yet illusive promise that they may "win" something without having to work for it. Gambling is mentioned in the Quran, Islam's revealed text, alongside drinking alcohol as an abomination, a sin, and a grave harm to mankind.
I think this issue is an example of trade getting dangerously close to values; For example what if the WTO told us we need to lower the age for legal pornagraphy to 17, to bring it in line with some European nations? I hope the WTO forces France to allow religious symbols in school again, since their new law forbidding it will ruin the religeous headscarf, skullcap, and large cross market. No, that would be terrible, because mixing trade and values is silly.
In the US, gambling has always been heavily regulated (my views aside, it seems to be the will of the people), and they want to keep it that way. Online gambling, just like the online pharmacies pimping everything nowadays, are extremely hard to regulate.
So in short, this is not a good example of the US being arrogant, and they really do have a point regarding laws and tradition.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear, hear
This particular quote from the story is quite interesting in this context:
"It's appalling," said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. "It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue."
OK, so when the U.S. imposes its values on other countries, they shouldn't complain, but when others try to do it to them, it's A Bad Thing? Talk about double standards...
The U.S. politicians (I hate it when they are equated with the U.S. itself - there is a big difference) need to learn that in order for maintain good relations with other nations, everyone must follow the same set of rules.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Every Empire in history has grown to fat to sustain itself. Every Empire has thought itself superior to all other races - countries, then found itself outnumbered and surrounded.
Everytime an American takes the stance of the barbarians get a little closer to the gates.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Global organizations, especially those dominated by third-countries (or soon to be third-world countries like France), are notorious for using the fascade of internationalism as a mask for the pursuit of their own selfish interests.
This particular case has nothing more to do with free trade than Germany banning internet sales of Nazi memorabilia. This is a law enforcement issue. Or would you claim that any nation's drug policy prohibiting the import of cocaine is an unfair trade practice targeted at Columbia?
And do a little homework before you start blathering about the US withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol. The US Senate never ratified it, since liberal poster-boy Bill Clinton never submitted it. Can't withdraw from a treaty you were never agreed to.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
The US has never protested these actions (usually because the third world countries originating these claims are doing so at the behest of US based multi-nationals that can
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Interesting)
In all honesty though none of this really matters. We have bombs and are willing to use them against people we don't like. What's WTO going to do? Jack shit that's what.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
All sorts of drugs are legal in all sorts of countries. That doesn't mean that the WTO can make the US legalize drugs imported from those countries.
Now...if the US allowed gambling across the board...that would be a different matter. But we don't. There are select areas (NV, indian reservations) that can do it. Other than that, gambling is an illegal activity. W
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking your points in order here: Yup, France and Russia had financial interests in Iraq. So did the US. You might have heard of a little company called Halliburton? Some fella named Dick Cheney was in charge while Halliburton made money out of Iraq. In the '60s? Hardly, this was around 1998 or so.. Hmmm, isn't he the Vice President these days? Wanna tell me about the horrible shady deals of France and Russia again?
Contrary to your odd belief that US support for Hussain ended 40 years ago, I would recommend that you look at recent history. During the Regan and Bush I governments the US gave quite a bit of foreign aid to Saddam's vile regime. The policy makers who did this are, in fact, the same crowd who are in power right now.
As for historic hindsight and future prediction, I'll make a prediction: Supporting dictatorships leads to problems. We've seen this time and again. The US supports dictatorship X and then a few decades later we have to fight dictatorship X. Today the Bush government is busy proping up the evil government in Uzbekistan, they're about as bad as Saddam was. Who will we be fighting in 15 years or so? Hint: Its the evil torturing bastards that the Bush government is showering with money today!
Am I glad that Saddam isn't the dictator of Iraq? Of course. Would I be gladder if the US government showed any signs of the simple intelligence required to notice that supporting dictatorships isn't a good policy? Yup. Wouldn't it be better if the US maybe supported democracies instead of dictatorships? You wanna explain to me why you are defending the Bush government when you know that in 15 years or so we're going to have to fight the war in Uzbekistan they're busy starting for us?
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
1 - Did I say that the US hadn't done anything wrong? No, I said that they weren't alone in doing things wrong.
2 - Do you know another company that had the resources to pull off the task Halliburton is doing? In sheer magnitude of the job, the list of posibilities was TINY. I think its a bit more coincidental who used to sit on what board when than your arguement suggests. Not completely coincidental, no, but more than you (and many others) suggest. BTW - I don't really know anyone who likes Cheney. Bush at least has his supporters...why he doesn't ditch Cheney and pick up someone who could win in 2008 I'll never know.
3 - Iraq was under heavy sanctions in the 90's. France and Russia skirted those sanctions and sipped oil out..more France. And as I explained already in a recent post, Iraq did NOT need that nuclear plant france built them in the 70's. In the grand scheme of things, France has a far worse record with that area than us. Hell, the whole middle east is only a mess because of France, England, and Russia anyway. And the middle east mostly hates us because of propaganda from Russia/USSR during the cold war (and the Israel issue...which *should be* more Europe than us anyway, since it wasn't us that made Israel).
Never said the US was perfect, or that we didn't have dirt on us. Just tired of everyone suggesting we're the only dirty place around, and that *france* of all places is a pure little virgin. We might be Britney, but they're Madonna :P
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Interesting)
I overreacted to your post, sorry. I'm certainly not going to pretend that France is some pure nation of goodness. I just don't like it when people try and make the actions of the Bush government out to be from pure motives. I think its pretty clear that the Iraq mess was easily forseeable (as I mentioned, supporting dictators has a history of being a bad idea), and that the current Bush government is wasting resources that would be better spent hunting down Al Quida on a sideshow for oil. More to the point, you were trying to pretend that the US support for Saddam was a 1960's issue, and you know durn well it isn't.
I'm going to completely avoid getting into a discussion of Israel. Even more than the Iraq war, Israel is a topic where people seem utterly incapiable of discussion without foaming at the mouth (he said, wiping his Iraq war foam from his mouth). Its like gun control, there *is* a middle ground that would probably satisfy arond 90% of the people, but the nutbags on both sides won't let anyone talk about it. Worse, the nutbags have remarkably effective meme plagues working to polarize the non-nutbag population.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
In any event, you are trying to hide from the issue I mentioned: Uzbekistan. The government there is about where Saddam's regime was back when the Regan and Bush I governments were supporting Saddam. It is a historically demonstrable *fact* that giving money to dictators does not buy them off for long, and that eventually we wind up fighting the dictators the government supported. Uzbekistan is the next Iraq, and its quite apparent that the Bush II government is either a) composed to total morons, or b) has reasons for wanting an enemy or three around. War makes an excellent tail to wag the dog, doesn't it? Worse, history also prooves that regardless of how cozy the Bush government gets with its torturing dictatorial friends, there will always be people like you to try and pretend that its all ok. Donald Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand at a time when we *knew* that he was a mass murderer, and somehow this doesn't seem to bother you?
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem from the gubmits pov is that they aren't getting their cut.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, yeah, and so is the U.S. The U.S. has done lots of stuff in their own self-interest under the guise of globalization through the WTO. For instance, Canada tried to ban a fuel additive that scientists believed to be a carcinogen. This ban meant that they could no longer buy gasoline from the U.S., where that chemical was added to all gas. Result: the U.S. dragged Canada into the WTO Trade Court, and won claiming that the ban was illegally favouring Canadian fuel suppliers. Canada had to pay massive fines, and would have to continue to pay fines if it banned the chemical.
Then, a few years later, the U.S. bans Canadian beef saying that it's all "mad cow". Wake up! Canada actually has better industry controls than the U.S., and has already banned using animal-remnants (offal?) in feed. At least we actually FOUND our cases of mad cow. The U.S. is in for a little surprise if it thinks it's lilly-white on the mad cow epidemic. The evidence used to back the Canadian cattle blockade is just as good as that used to block the fuel additive.
And that is why we have a kettle/black situation. All countries are out for their own gain, including and especially the U.S. Greed is not an acceptible defense for these actions.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
The law was originally put in place in order to give the fe
Oh I don't know... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like our government is trying to prevent the EU from taking action against Microsoft.
Oh wait.
OK. Well it's not like our government would ever force a country to accept narcotics [geocities.com] or anything.
Oh wait.
Damn. If we were another country we'd hate our guts too.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Informative)
The case is actually pretty straightforward, I guess - in the course of GATS negotiations, the U.S. has voluntarily opened its entertainment services sector to foreign competition (check the U.S. schedule of commitments, page 71 [wto.org]) and forgot to schedule an exemption for gambling services.
This is somewhat understandable, I guess - after all, the 1994 Uruguay Round negotiations have not been called "the most complex negotiations in all history" for nothing. But now the U.S. will have to stand by its word.
A hint to the incensed U.S. Congressman: The WTO Agreements have caused significant changes in public policy all over the world, often in furtherance of U.S. interests (for example, the EU can't prohibit [wto.org], according to a Panel ruling, the import of U.S. meat treated with growth hormones). Don't cry foul when you're forced to open up your economy under the same rules you promoted and signed.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Just curious, where do you propose that will leave us as a citizen of the planet? Everyone will fear us and do what we say? Do we want to bully everyone just because we believe we're right, and everyone else is 3rd world? Personally I'd rather have people "play nice" with us out of respect and admiration, rather than fear.
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Interesting)
Haha, you wouldn't believe how many Americans have said to me "Your a third world country". I'm Canadian..
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the Rochefoucauld quote, fear of being despise
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Informative)
But as far as Machiavelli goes, that particular quote is one of the most commonly taken out of context. If you do ever bother to read the rest of the text, you'll find that Machiavelli goes on to say that, on balance, it is still good to try and be loved, and to not go out of your way to do things that make you feared, as it is much easier to rule and get what you want if people at least generally like you. There's a lot more complexity to a lot of what Machiavelli wrote, including that one, than can be gleened from a simple one line quote.
-Tom
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Which one is still around today? Is it still better to be feared?
As long as Rome was powerful could do as it pleased without reprecussions. Once it started to weaken it's enemies were able to tear it down.
Switzerland has been around in an independant form for over 500 years and is still healthy and will continue to be healthy. It's because they play well with others
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if in 50 years when China is the dominant superpower you will take the view that it is alright for them to bitchslap the US because "they have the power and the might, they don't need to play well with us".
Re:Nothing New Here (Score:5, Interesting)
We're not the first nation to think that way. A century or so ago, one particularly keen observer of empire wrote:
"Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget - lest we forget!"
It happened to Britain, and to Spain, and Rome; it will happen to us too. Nothing lasts forever. With luck, we'll go out the way the British did, gracefully and with a certain amount of good will in the world. But if people like you have their way, it will be more like the way the Romans ended things: ever weaker, arrogant and paranoid and half-mad, harried by people who hate us, until we're a shattered wreck of remembered glory.
make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:4, Interesting)
If we are talking about banning paying for your gambling via the net w/credit cards that's one thing (protecting people and companies from the fortunes lost via this method of payment) but if we are seriously worried about GROWN PEOPLE becoming corrupt by the evils that await them through alcohol and gambling we seriously need to rethink what the fuck is going on in our country.
As an adult you should be allowed to choose what happens to you. I wasn't aware that I needed people in Washington telling me what is and is not good for me... Especially when it comes to gambling, the purchase of adult beverages, and the premature ending of pregnancy. These are NOT issues that should be regulated by the State, Federal, or local governments.
So the rest of us are going to pay a price due to WTO trade sanctions because our government would rather play Parents than government. I don't think that this is the way to go.
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is... We have a two party majority and those two parties have chosen their "values". We no longer have this diverse group. We have this party and ITS belief system.
Gambling, alcohol, and abortion are not inherently evil and should not be treated as if they are because of relgious backed b
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think that a political party would survive long if it DIDN'T match what people thought?
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
290 million people with only two opinions?
Are there no Irishmen there?
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:4, Insightful)
There *is* such a thing as the common good, seperate and distinct from what is good for each individual. Deny this and you can have lots of confident-sounding black and white opinions that would destroy any society you applied them to.
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
I just noticed I have deviated largely off our original topic. I guess I just wanted to disagree with the "abortion views are based entirely on religious arguments" part of your post, not the rest of it.
* While this is IMO largely a construction of the church, I know people who believe it and have no religious leanings of any kind.
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:4, Informative)
Such as the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League [godlessprolifers.org], for example.
Not morals (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not morals (Score:4, Insightful)
If "things would fall apart" in a society in which "anything you have can be taken from you", please explain why everything from asset forfeiture to eminent domain and the IRS haven't resulted in complete social collapse?
Meantime, because we aren't allowed to kill at a whim, I still get 50+ spams a day.
I'm beginning to think these law things are overrated :)
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. There are other ways look at it. One other way to view the situation is one of your rights vs. my rights.
One could decide the murder is wrong because you're interfering with my "right" to life.
You could try and say that our "rights" are really just a moral code, but I don't really believe that. I think moral codes have certai
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Morals do not enter into it. It is all about FREEDOM. You can't kill a man or steal his possessions because your right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose. It is about ensuring that everyone has this freedom, not on moral grounds, but on basic, common sense. If you are allowed to kill s
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:3, Interesting)
The humanitarian point of view would be those actions are wrong because they deprive others of rights.
Gambling, or prostitution, or drug use does not violate anybody else's rights. Therefore, you should be free to do as you wish. There are arguments to be made that these vices contribute to other crimes that do violate others' rights, but the fact
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:4, Insightful)
My wife and I have had discussions about this, especially in relation to Gay marriages and how the gov't wants to ban them. We don't agree with the gov't banning gay marriages (and we are "Christians" ), but I can clearly see why they would want to.
Think about it from this perspective. You are a "good Christian" in a high position of power who sees the country "going to hell in a handbasket" because of all the "immoral things" going on. You feel it is your place to enact laws to stop these "evils" from "infecting" the county.
So you do. And because there are lots of other lawmakers like you, they go along with it. And who would, when it is put in the context that *you* are going to the great lake of fire for going against a law that says it's bad to have gay marriages, etc, etc. In fact, if you are going against it, you must be ready to be destroyed like all of those other immoral sinners from Sodom & Gomorrah.
Which is the whole point behind free will. If you are gay, and you get married to your partner, then go for it. If my wife or daughter has to have an abortion to save her life, yes it would hurt us terribly, but that should be our choice to make.
So basically, right on brother. If we are willing to impose our values on the rest of the world, we should be prepared to have their values imposed on us.
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd understand that point of view a lot more if a legislator - just one - would stand in front of a podium and say "I believe homosexuality is wrong. Just like J. Edgar Hoover, however, I also happen to be a flaming cock-sucker. I believe we need a law to prevent gay marriage because without such a law, I might divorce my wife and get married to my gay lover."
Or Tipper Gore standing in front of a podium saying "I heard some rap music on the radio last weekend, and it made me want to go out, get stoned, fuck around, and kill the pigs! I'm asking Congress for a law against violent/sexual/drug lyrics because I'm afraid of what I might do without a law to protect me from the music I hear on the radio."
Or John Ashcroft standing in front of the statue of blind Justice, saying "I like the b00bies on that statue back there, and I also like Janet's b00bie. B00bies make my dick hard! I believe we need a law that mandates standards of decency because I can't fight the terrorists when I'm walking around with a hardon 24/7 because of all the b00bies."
Just give me one example where a do-gooder has ever proposed a law to protect themselves. It's always someone else they're trying to protect, isn't it?
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I really don't get your point. I mean, your argument sounds really good and convincing...But what is it you're actually saying? They're called "representatives" for a reason--it's their job to propose laws entirely for the benefit of other people.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against censorship, legislating morality, etc. It's just that your argument seems rather silly. Just try applying it to other issues. Take prison rape, for instance. Does a legislator actually have to be afraid s/he will end up in prison before you'll allow them to change the system to make it less likely? Do you have to be black to be concerned about civil rights? Do you have to be a parent to protect children from child pornographers? Do you have to be victim to do the right thing?
If you disagree with them about the definition of the "right thing", fine, argue on those grounds. But it seems to me that you're criticizing them on a standard you wouldn't apply to anyone else.
Not religious value (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. knew what it was getting into when it signed GATT. We figured the screwing was going to be one-way, as if people in the Third World are too stupid to take advantage of us in return. It hasn't exactly turned out that way.
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there are a few people who genuinely care about the life of the infant, as opposed to caring about their need to spread the religion. My counter-argument to this is that the life of people who already exist and have worked hard to establish themselves takes priority over the unknown. (And if they haven't worked hard, then how are they going to support the child?) Think pragmatically, not at moral extre
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean murder?
Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence.
Murder and abortion are different things as each has a clear cut meaning. You cannot reinvent the defintion of common words in the language of your choice as "evidence". The commonly understood definition of murder, unless you're using it out of context, in which case you're just not very bright, requires a connection to the legality of the killing being done. Abortion is legal. The commonly understood definition of murder requires for the killing to be unlawful. Therefore, abortion is not murder, so no, that's not what the poster meant. Please try not putting words in other people's mouths just because you don't have a basis for your argument.
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:make us pay for relgious value! thanks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I know it's hard to grasp, but most people gamble for a little entertainment. Go to a casino, see a show, eat a good meal and play a few games.
There are a few (very few) who will gamble away every dime they have, then sell their house and throw that away too. Addictive types will honor their addictions. Why penalize the vast majority because of a few losers?
It's like soft drugs and prostitution. Most who dabble in either do it for entertainment. Other than a few addictive types, little or no harm is done to them or society. Alcohol and tobacco do more harm, and they're legal.
The harm comes from the law. Being illegal, these activities make huge profits, the criminals get involved, then the cops, judges and lawyers. Since all these types have vested interests in the illegality involved, the laws pretty much never change.
Re:Grow up (Score:4, Insightful)
That's funny. I could swear that being high out of your mind was no excuse for causing mayhem. How about this as a rule: "If you hurt someone else, you will be punished". Being drunk/high/gambling is not necessarily harmful to anyone in itself, but if you do something stupid while in that state, you will rot in jail.
Pot/Kettle Black (Score:3, Insightful)
Great... now we'll be outsourcing (Score:5, Funny)
Non-issue (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment is the perfect example of why we need a "-1 Predictable" comment moderation.
Sincerely,
Everyone tired of reading the same 5 jokes in every fucking thread.
Re:Non-issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear that the WTO will let the USA go if (Score:5, Funny)
But they DO (Score:5, Insightful)
I do wish the government would force the SEC to clamp down on dodgy reporting, accounting and corporate governance.
Interesting quote -- huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't that odd? Why would the "specifics" remain confidential while the decision isn't? Is this typical of WTO activity, or is there some relevant info to be inferred from this?
Re:Interesting quote -- huh? (Score:5, Informative)
what ? (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of issue should it be made? (Score:5, Interesting)
political?
I suppose you could make something of it, why is it that porn site eula's (which NO one concerns themselves with) all contain language to the effect that, you must be in a region/country/community where this is legal..
Much like the RIAA finally realized they must go after the individual. Legitimate enforcement is to have to be made against the folks doing the gambling, not the gambling sites. that's where the law is being broken.
If I am from a state that bans gambling, and go to vegas, I'm not breaking the law. if I go to montecarlo.com, where am I? in whose jurisdiction?
"Imposing Views"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Imposing Views"? (Score:3, Informative)
the randomizer chips and other control circuitry in a slot machine must be certified by the gambling commission, if tampered with the casino has a very good chance of being shut down on the spot and fined massive amounts of dollars, as well as possibly being liable to being sued for every dollar ever lost to their slot machines
Seems crazy to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Consultations, please (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps he could consult with William Bennett regarding virtue and gambling.
I couldn't agree more with this comment (Score:5, Insightful)
Setting the issue of morality aside this is an issue of hypocrisy incarnate.
The United States is the big brother of the world and that is quite possibly the weakest argument I could possibly imagine. It seems to me that our governing body in the US needs massive replacement if the best persuasive arguments they can make sound like this.
If the United States is really the leader of the free world it should really start leading by example and drop this 'do as I say not as I do' attitude. It is utter crap and my vote at the polls will reflect this.
We use economics threats as a diplomatic tool and if we can dish it out we should be able to take it right back!
Am I off base here?
Article 20 of the GATT protects morals but... (Score:5, Informative)
Article XX: General Exceptions
Subject to the requirement that such measures are not applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures:
(a) necessary to protect public morals;
The WTO probably decided the US is discriminating since it allows gambling in a lot of similar situations. Anyways, with lotteries, Nevada, and Indian Casinos its probably hard to argue gambling is against America's public morals.
Not the first time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Good point Sir. But hasn't the US imposed its values on other countries?
Iraq will soon be a democracy because you didn't like dictatorships. Chile became a dictatorship because you didn't like a left-wing president.
It's not only that, Sir. You have even violated the Intellectual Property Act [eu.int]. You tried to extradite an Australian under the similar regulations. And let's not forget the Byrd Ammendment [japantoday.com]
Sir, your government has shown over and over again that it is nothing but nasty playground bully, and shown great contempt and disregard towards the wishes of other sovereign nations.
But fear not, sir. Empires rise. Empires fall. The taller they stand, the harder they fall.
Moderate this comment
Negative: Offtopic [mithuro.com] Flamebait [mithuro.com] Troll [mithuro.com] Redundant [mithuro.com]
Positive: Insightful [mithuro.com] Interesting [mithuro.com] Informative [mithuro.com] Funny [mithuro.com]
It's our job... (Score:3, Funny)
And damn right too, it's our job to force OUR values on other countrys, who ever gave the idea to the world that this was a two way street here?!
*sigh*
Gambling is, at its heart, a con game, a scam. (Score:4, Insightful)
Gambling sites are popular with identity thieves, and I applaud credit card companies that refuse to authorize transactions originating with offshore gambling websites.
I'm not some neo-conservative, either. My objections to gambling websites are mathematical and ethical, not moral.
As far as keeping them off of US soil, I guess I'm in favor of keeping the ban in place. It's not like there are hordes of consumers clamoring to blow their money on rigged online gambling. Or are there?
Huh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not ban the stupidity tax? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not ban the stupidity tax? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pot/Kettle issue misses the point (Score:5, Insightful)
The interesting trend here is for individual laws of nations to be "leveled" or "normalized" to reflect the laws of other nations only because it simplifies the economic situation to do so.
In other words, the W.T.O. turns out to be a tool to not only resolve trade disputes but also to (attempt to) force nations to change their laws. This should make us nervous. It should also make us reflect that "the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" -- II Timothy.
gambling and the tech community (Score:5, Insightful)
Gambling is basically a tax on poor, dumb people that benefits rich entities. It promotes a something-for-nothing, perverse work ethic.
Now you might say, what about all these dot-com millionaires that are now showing up on the World Poker tour? They're not playing against the house; they're playing against the other players - there's definitely more skill and talent there than pulling the arm of a slot machine.
Personally, I don't really care one way or another. Gambling is just another diversion. I would prefer it not in my community, nor online, but if people want to blow their money, it's their choice. I do worry sometimes about the bad message this says to society that they can "strike it rich" without really having to work hard.
What idiot gambles online anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
People who call this gambling are much like the people who confuse the shell game or the three card monty with "games of chance" or "games of skill" (they are really very expensive performances of close up magic).
Re:What idiot gambles online anyway? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of all, don't play online poker or anything else where you're playing against other gamblers that might cheat. Cheating is bad enough in online games where you're not playing for money; you can imagine how bad the cheating problem must be if $5 or $10 or $100 a hand is at stake.
Quote from the article (Score:4, Insightful)
"The U.S. says it wants open competition," he said. "But it only wants free trade when it suits the U.S."
Well I ask, what does one expect?
Internationalization is good to a point, as most things are... but watching out for one's own wellbeing is #1 on the priority list.
US known for not playing fair (Score:5, Insightful)
Vietnam, a relatively poor country compared with other WTO members, is hoping to join next year. PovertyThe Catfish Farmers of America decided they weren't getting the profits they used to; Vietnam was supposedly dumping catfish on the market. Since they knew that they had no proof for any of this, they decided to claim that only American catfish could be called "catfish". Tariffs ranging from 37 to 64 percent have been slapped on Vietnamese catfish with nothing more than allegations.
The US really claims the WTO can help poorer countries. Well, the Vietnamese are well on their way to climbing out of poverty, but this catfish story has been a huge blow to the country. The US wants it both ways; I wonder how long it will take before the US starts paying a price for crimes like this.
this is big for Online Poker (Score:3, Informative)
The Online Poker community (which is usually treated differently then the gambling community) has been very curious as to how this works, esp. since there are probably a higher percentage of poker players who are profitable as opposed to games where the house has the advantage -
but then, we only care about the WTO when it is profitable for us to...so I doubt anything will come of this -
RB
US once linked trade to human rights in China (Score:4, Interesting)
We are not very far removed from the years when we linked China's trade status to progress on human rights in China (things more important, IMHO, than online gambling: the one-child policy, Tibet, civil rights, political prisoners, ad infinitum). Congress debated giving China MFN trade status every year, and every year Democrats (basically) said to give it up and grant them permanent trade status, and every year Republicans (basically) raked China over the coals.
It all ended when CLinton signed a bill in 2000, passed by the House and the Senate, to make trade status permanent, contingent upon their entry to the WTO. The idea was that WTO membership would make China responsible for its abuses and create other enforcement mechanisms, like tariffs and sanctions, so there would be no need to review their trade status every year. China entered the WTO in 2001.
If the US won't abide by the WTO decision on online gambling, it will send a strong message about the WTO to nations like China, who have far more compelling reasons to resist sanctions.
It's Amazing.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Another biased presentation of a story brought to you by Michael
There's no "force" invovled here (Score:5, Insightful)
If we decide to refuse to abide by a WTO ruling, black helicopters full of WTO troops do not descend on major U.S. cities and impose curfews. Soldiers do not hold our grandmothers at riflepoint and foce them to gamble online.
By refusing to follow the WTO's rulings, all that happens is that we get kicked out of the WTO. Presumably this will have any number of negative effects on our economy -- but I'm no expert. If you don't want to be bound by the rulings of the WTO, then go vote for someone who will pull us out of it. But don't go on about how other countries are "forcing" us to do things that we don't want to do. Sheesh.
jf
So easy to allow yet enforce; stop the US funds. (Score:3, Insightful)
Forget blocking web sites, just make it hard to fund. Existing money laundering rules will pick up on any US dollar payments.
If someone wants to gamble in foreign currency on a foreign web site then thats nothing to do with the US goverment.
Just plain stupid. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing keeping them alive is prohibition.
It just goes to show our real priorities (Score:4, Insightful)
Socialists hate the WTO because it promotes corporate greed and capitalism at the expense of everything else. Many conservatives hate the WTO because it undermines national sovereignty.
And yet lawmakers in the United States do little or nothing until the WTO tries to force the U.S. to accept Internet gambling; once that happens, you have lawmakers screaming that the U.S. should withdraw from the WTO.
In my humble opinion, this can be summed up thusly: "Right cause. Sickeningly wrong reason."
Bricker Ammendment (Score:4, Interesting)
This may create more support for the effort to revive the Bricker Amendment [freerepublic.com] (see also here [libertyhaven.com]). Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
in the United States only through legislation which would be valid
in the absence of treaty.
and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization.
All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed
on treaties by this article.
by appropriate legislation.
Re:International Trade Law (Score:4, Insightful)
It is debatable wether today the US is bigger an economy than the EU, and it certainly is not bigger enough to fix the rules, as you can see with the steel tariffs, the export tax breaks disputes in the WTO, the GE and Microsoft anti-trust rulings, etc.
In any case, be sure to enjoy your own arrogance, because within two decades the US will be at most the third economy in the world, after China (internal growth) and the EU (external growth).
A country that failed to economically strong-arm Nigeria and Mexico into a supporting war they didn't give a damn about should notbe too delusionnal about its economic influence.