Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech

MacDork writes "As most /.'ers know all to well, Copyright is increasingly being used as a means to suppress free speech these days. And the trend has not been lost on our 2004 US Presidential candidates. Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information considered embarrassing or harmful to their campaigns. Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."

Democracy..

[dBLiSS]

Like in all great republics, democracy is but an illusion.

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this a troll? The fella speaks the truth. The best slaves are ones that think they are actually free.

Re:Democracy..

[Viceice]

RTFA. This guy wanted to use a short clip from NBC's Meet The Press in his documentary and offered to pay for a license to use it, just like all the other clips he paid for in his documentary.

NBC said no, not for any copyright related reason, but because it was "not very flattering to the president."

Re:Democracy..

[KarmaMB84]

I find it funny that we can't reuse previously broadcasted clips that are of a political nature without begging a corporate entity.

Re:Democracy..

[Fuzzle]

That's two words, and since the person using this clip would be earning a profit off of the footage, I believe that oversteps fair use and necessitates the licensing fees. I could be wrong though.

Lessig's View & Arguement

[KrisHolland]

Copyrighting the President [wired.com]

The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is free. But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?

Re:Democracy..

[flyneye]

The whole topic isn't a troll.It's an outstanding reason to vote libertarian and encourage others to do the same.
Republicans bear no closer resemblance than Democrats to being similar to what their party was formed for.Instead we have two selfishly mentally retarded political philosophies battling it out every 4 years jerry springer style for your vote.
DON'T give it to them.
DO something that won't give the same results time after time.
Have some guts to stand up to the morons who say your vote wont count if you vote outside popular parties.How else will they ever get the message or we actually get someone USEFUL into office? What does it matter if your vote doesnt count when your vote only goes to a candidate that is NO BETTER or consequentially different than his opponent?
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the height of insanity.

Re:Democracy..

[utlemming]

It's not about suppressing speech it's about paying people for their creative talent.

The problem is that the the forms of speech that are being suppressed also fall in the creative realm. Just becuase the President used a private venue to make political statements does not mean that those that performed the "creative talent" should have exclusive rights to control who sees that political statement. In my opinion, commercialized political speech should not enjoy copyright protection -- creative talent or otherwise. Most people are not going to bootleg copies of the president, video or otherwise for personal gain. For the most part, those that would use copies of a the president would use it to persaude othes to reach a conclusion -- they would use it in support of their political speech. The only people that might use video or pictorial representations would be news media and the campaigns -- a very small portion of the country.

Copyright law is about balancing ownership rights and public interest. It's gone too far with the whole music thing but the examples cited here seem like reasonable enforcement of ownership rights.

How is this a case where the public interest is being preseved and protected? I am a republican, but I see no reason why Bush's statement on NBC should be allowed to hide behind a copyright law. As stated many times, the President own's neither his words nor his likeness when speaking on political ideas in a public forum. It is quite debatable that the TV (broadcast over publicly owned airways) could constitute a public forum. Further, the nature of the interview was quite political. There is very little creative talent involved. And what is there to protect? Presdient Bush can run about and say the same things over and over again, and it can be captured again and again. The problem is that the people that hold and control the copyright are not the orginator of the controversial or interesting arguments or the ideas. The only creative talent or innovation may be the way the interview happened, the filming, etc.

Political speech by an elected offical should not enjoy copyright protectection regardless of the forum if that speech is publicly displayed in any form. TV and radio included.

Re:Democracy..

[LocalH]

As others have said, this should not apply with the President. In fact, I'd go even further and say that ALL public appearances by ANY public servant should be PUBLIC DOMAIN, with no copyright at ALL. Whether it's on TV or not. That MtP with Bush? That segment should be PUBLIC DOMAIN. Butler's photograph? It should be PUBLIC DOMAIN.

Anything dealing with the likeness of any public servant should be public domain. I don't foresee this, alone, to be a full solution, but it's a start.

Re:Democracy..

[ron_ivi]

So who would be for reasonable copyright use? Badnarik [badnarik.org]?

Just remember, unless the voting results in an exact tie, you're throwing your vote out anyway, so a vote for a third party candidate is as good as any.

Re:Democracy..

[gilroy]

Blockquote the poster:

Just remember, unless the voting results in an exact tie, you're throwing your vote out anyway, so a vote for a third party candidate is as good as any.

What? Sure only the (50%+1)th vote is all that counts. Problem is, you don't know whose vote that is until the votes are all in.

Let's make it simple. Alice and Bob both love cookies; Charlene hates them but loves spinach for desert. They decide to hold an election to see what desert will be offered. Both Alice and Bob have read the parent comment and decided that, since the vote can't be split evenly (three people, after all), their votes must not count. They stay home from the polls. And bam! suddenly they're having spinach for desert -- even though a clear majority favors cookies.

It's an extreme example of course -- small numbers make it more dramatic -- but it's the reality. It's called the Paradox of the Infinitesimal: Each vote is such a small part of the total that its almost negligible... but together, in aggregate, they all count.

Re:Democracy..

[name773]

the thing you're forgetting is this: what does the public want for desert?

strawberries would have won... but there was no representative, because to qualify to become a representative (money, connections, law school) none of the strawberry lovers (who are common people) could have been representatives.

Re:Democracy..

[NoMercy]

Least in the UK we still have parties which are diferent, we have Bad, Worse, and Terrible :)

Re:Democracy..

[SavingPrivateNawak]

Doesn't your elections in USA have two turns/ballots? (I don't-know-the-correct-term)

Many countries does this way so that people can vote for the party they like in the 1st turn/ballot and for the lesser of the two evils that stay in the 2nd turn/ballot...

Isn't this the right way??

Re:Democracy..

[sabinm]

You sound like you might be familiar to a Parliamentary election. United states has an electoral college which was quite practical for its time. That way each state by itself could (through the will of it's people) voice its opinion regarding its favorite canditate. It is a compromise between pure democracy and representative democracy, which traditionally is always the case in the US. In a parliamentary democracy, you have the first round--they might be candidates or parties which win either a simple majority (fifty percent plus one) or a plurality (more votes than any other candidate) go to a second round. The second round is used form coalitions to shore up support from the other factions (therefore, theoretically forming a stronger more moderate and compromising legislature) and supporting a Prime Minister who is favored by the majority. In a parlimentary election, the person or party who wins in the first round of elections is not guaranteed to win the Prime Ministry in the second round. Although some countries have resolved this paradox by granting electoral power to the legislative body, and the party that has the most popular votes gets the most seats in the legislative/electoral body and so can chose the P.M of their choice.

In America, it's different. We've evolved into a two party system, which some theorize is more stable because the coalitions don't break apart over crisis and the leadership and government cannot be dissolved by parliament, but only by the electorate (except in extreme cases like criminal wrong doing) With less factions, there is also less chance of paralysis do to infighting (although a hefty part of our government is set up to paralyze the powers) Elections are handled by a general populace election. In EACH STATE not NATIONALLY the canditate must win a plurality of votes (more than any other candidate). If the candidate wins the popular vote IN THAT STATE then he can send his (or the party's) hand picked delegates (the electoral college) to chose him IN THAT STATE as the president. The person wins the most votes from the electoral college (the number go delegates to the e.c from each state is determined by population) wins the election. Therefore, Al Gore might have won more votes, but did not win more states and so lost the election. Very complicated. most Americans have a hard time explaining it to you.

It is also possible that the electoral college can chose some one other than the person who won the plurality of votes in the state. Eg. If Ross Perot ran for Florida but did not win the state, George Bush Sr. Delegates could theoretically vote for Ross Perot anyway: the delegates are not (theoretically) automatons although traditionally they have consistently voted according to the will of the people).

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

"obvious that this year no one except a Democrat or a Republican"

You're being short sighted.

If Democrats and Republicans get a vast majority of the votes, it'll be obvious either a Democrat or a Republican will win in 2008.

If third candidate party candidates get enough to matter, it won't be obvious in 2008.

Re:Democracy..

[Mycroft_VIII]

Exactly, wish I hadn't blown my mod points already.
The reason 'it's obvious' is because it's assumed so few will vote otherwise. Self fullfilling prophecy, or vicious circle. Take your pick.
The ONLY way to change things is STOP perpetuating them.
If one vote for a third party candidate is a 'wasted' vote, then it's just as 'wasted' on the republicrat, err democans. The value of one vote doesn't change because of who you vote for, it only changes if you cheapen it in your own eyes by voting for someone you don't like just to not vote for someone you despise.
I'd rather vote FOR someone than against someone.
A third party CAN get in, it wouldn't be the first time.

Mycroft

Re:Democracy..

[bonkedproducer]

From his mailing list when I posted a this direct question:

Q: "...Does anyone know where Mr. Badnarik stands in regards to the issues I mentioned (DMCA, P2P/RIAA, ETC?) I think that in my little circle those would probably be some of the most persuading issues in the campaign, and they are being ignored by the big two."

A: I asked him about "Intellectual Property" last night on the conference call. He admitted that it was an issue he had not worked on much yet, and that he had more studying and thinking to do on it, and reserved the right to change his answer... but he said that one thing he believed was that copyright should be limited to the lifetime of the copyright holder.

He didn't really address patents, DMCA, etc. He did say that he fundamentally agrees with the concept of "IP" though, although he also said that it was "very abstract and hard to define."

Even within the Libertarian Party there is considerable debate about those issues, apparently. Hopefully by the time the /. interview happens, Mike will have come up with some solid positions on those issues.

Hope this helps, also Michael Badnarik has been told that he will be interviewed by /. editors in the month of September. He did state in his constitution class that I took that he is a firm supporter of the Government not being allowed to limit technology (he comes from a comp. geek background as weel) like encryption, etc. because they don't deserve to be handed the lock to your "papers" due to the fourth ammendment, I think of all the canditates, he is most in tune with the /. crowd's concerns.

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only an illusion if you *say* it is.

On one level it's that argument about philosophy stemming from Wittgenstien - things are what we call them there are no illusions seperate from "reality" because this *is* what we call reality. So regardless of there being another level of existence, the *name* of this one is "reality" so it cannot be "illusion".

This leads to the question of, if this is democracy it is only such because that is what democracy has come to mean.

And it's only that because people like

Re:Democracy..

[hyphz]

No, he's right.

The problem is that "democracy" means rule by the people - in other words, you'd have to have referenda on everything. Most folks agree that this would be pretty impractical.

But "representative democracy" changes the meaning of the word fundamentally. Now, it's no longer the case that the people have the power. Instead, the people decide who gets the power.

Yet this is a major distinction. Think about a plutocracy. Plutocracy is any form of government where the people who have the most money get the power. But here's the important point: the definition says nothing about *how* they get the power, or how the decision to give the power to them as made. If they happen to get the power through being voted for, that doesn't change the fact that it's still a plutocracy. If people are happening to vote for the people with the most money (and thus the most media coverage), they create a plutocracy.

Likewise, if people always vote for the party that their family has always voted for, they create an oligarchy.

The idea that "the people can rule in a representative democracy by forming parties and getting involved" is also a lie - the current system, whereby the party that has the most votes still gets in even if the majority of votes were for other parties (but not for the same other party), basically ensures that only the established parties ever have a hope of getting power. It makes it impossible to "work your way up" because, if you're not already at the top, you get nowhere.

Re:Democracy..

[techno-vampire]

Like in all great republics, democracy is but an illusion.

Lunchtime doubly so.

Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Alien54]

Strangely enough this article entitled Who Would Jesus Vote for? [conspiracypenpal.com] makes a actual point:

Shortly after George W. Bush first assumed office, I found myself driving down a rural Arkansas road, enroute to a speaking engagement. A small church stood alongside the road and, as I swept past, I noticed that it's readerboard said, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." I nodded to the wisdom of that rural pastor in posting his commentary on things Presidential. I assumed he meant Bush, of course, as representing the lesser evil in the choice that America had just made.

Amazing how far we have come. I never would have thought it possible to sit here, over three years later, and actually feel nostalgic about the Bill Clinton era. Ah, for the good old days when I merely was ashamed of America's President and thought governmental growth and spending to be simply grossly out of control.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

So many of us voted Bush into office with the conviction that voting for anybody other than Bush or Gore was wasting our votes. So many of us pulled the lever for Bush, thinking him the lesser of two evils. Ironically, even more of us pulled the lever for Gore, thinking the same thing. Now we face yet another Hobbesian choice: Do we continue with the devil we know, or choose the one we don't? Bush or Kerry?

[...]

What? You're not Jesus? Nobody asked you to climb up on a cross, you know. You don't have to pay with your life to vote your conscience. All you have to do is vote against evil.

Bush or Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

If we all, every single one of us, voted against Bush and Kerry, we could change America overnight. Even with the substantial vote fraud that takes place all across America.

Ok, you might say - I'll play. Who do I vote for? That is where your responsibility as a citizen comes in. Find out who else is running and choose someone - anyone - that you honestly can say is not a lesser evil. You might even find someone you can support in good conscience. It could happen.

Of course, it's a bit longer in the original article. But definitely worth a read.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[kfg]

Now we face yet another Hobbesian choice. . .

No, we do not. A Hobbesian choice is one in which no choice is actually offered. You can have any color Ford you want, so long as it's black.

I've lived through an actual "democratic" election in a third world country. You were told who the candidate was, and you voted for him.

Oddly enough he won with an overwhelming "mandate from the people."

It wasn't pretty. Mostly because there was never so much as a hint of civil unrest during the process. No bloodshed. No arrests. No fear among the populace. Nothing. Complete civil order reigned as they lined up to vote en masse for the same man. Completely democratic autocracy.

Our system may well be flawed, but it isn't anything like that. . .yet. You still have the power to choose, and the responsibility for that choice still resides with you. You can't pass it off to "the party."

Choose.

If you don't like the candidate either of the "two" parties present to you, choose more wisely.

But choose.

Or they really will end up telling you who to choose someday. And you'll do it. And be happy about it.

Because choosing your leader will be somebody else's problem.

KFG

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Espen]

You are think of Hobson's Choice, named after the owner of a livery stable in Cambridge who would let customers choose any horse they wanted as long as it was the one closest to the door. Hobbesian would normally be in reference to the philosopher Thomas Hobbes who is unrelated to this expression.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[wass]

Bush or Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

True enough. But anybody reading please keep in mind that republicans have started going around trolling liberal-leaning blogs (like /.), parading as ultra-liberals. Their point is to give pep-talks such as this to sway the liberal votes away from Kerry, towards Bush.

I'm certainly not accusing you of being such a troll, but I just want other readers to be aware that such right-wing efforts are going on.

Anyway, as for me, I think the stakes of this election are way too high. Think of all the REALLY controversial stuff Bush didn't do because he needed to maintain his swing voters. He'll have no such obligation to them if he's re-elected.

I really don't think Kerry is that evil. At least not much more than most other candidates, including Nader. I voted Nader in 2000 (my state was solidly democratic), so I totally know where you're coming from. But IMHO the stakes are WAY too big this time around.

This time I'm voting Kerry for several reasons. He seems much more centrist, so hopefully he can unite the majorly partisan congress. Remember that the big-time conservatives would hate Nader nearly as much was we hate Bush, and this would cause even more partisan splitting. Gingrich really fucked the country up by effectively making war against the 'other' team, and now the whole politics is way too fractured. I'm hoping Kerry can pull the more moderate republicans to him, bringing some sanity back to the Capitol.

Also, it seems like the election will be close again. This time I want my popular vote to be counted for Kerry. When they said Gore got more popular votes last time than Bush, my vote wasn't counted. If Gore would have lost the popular vote by 1 vote, I would have been sad that I didn't vote for him. So yeah, I want the results to include me for Kerry.

Anyway, I don't see Kerry doing anything particularly damaging, especially anything that Bush wouldn't have done already. And my biggest priority is to make sure Bush doesn't drive this country off a cliff any more than it's already been pushed, so I must do all I can to get Bush out. If that's voting for Kerry, then that's fine with me.

But anyway, I really don't think Kerry is all that bad. I don't know of any candidates that are perfect, and ALSO not too radical that they'd be able to effectively form a coalition with the other Congress members.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[wass]

well, Kerry did he'll repeal the upper-class tax cuts, that he'll try to prevent off-shoring (i don't know specifics here, though), which should help the economy. He also said he will revamp the health-care system (again no specifics). He doesn't want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

I also believe he wouldn't form his cabinet from diehard conservatives, that he would work better with the UN, etc.

Bush also wants to privatize more services, including medicare, which I strongly disagree with. Bush has also blurred lines between state and religion, which I don't think Kerry has any intention of doing. Bush is adamantly pro-life, Kerry is pro-choice.

Those are some key things off the top of my head about differences between Bush and Kerry. I guess Kerry doesn't have much specifics for fixing the economy, fixing Iraq, fixing health care. But some of Bush's moves (major tax cuts, privitization, alienating UN) which failed one could be pretty sure Kerry wouldn't have initiated on his own anyway.

Re:Why is parent modded as troll?

[wass]

Probably because he accused people who favor Bush of trolling to take votes for Kerry when then post pro-bush, and then Posted a long pro-Kerry post. Pot-Kettle. Just a guess.

not quite, just pointing out that there ARE repubs trolling sites masquerading as lefties to encourage people to not vote for kerry. same as there ARE microsoft astroturfers posting pro-microsoft fud on various blogs. Of course not all anti-kerry or pro-microsoft stuff is such astroturfing or trolling, but it does exist, and i want to let people know about it.

no pot/kettle/black since i'm obviously pushing kerry and stating it. i don't see how i could have been a troll. I can see you someone either right or left of me would not like what i'm saying, but that doesn't make me a troll.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[sparrow_hawk]

The problem with this view is that it presumes that politics is all about making the right choices for *you*. In fact, that's not it at all -- the point of politics is about making the right choices for the *country*. Here's an example:

(okay, got my asbestos suit on)
I'm a Kerry supporter, but I tend to think he doesn't go far enough in his views. For instance, he's not in favor of gay marriage, although he is in favor of civil unions. (Bush, for the record, is in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning *both*, so the original submitter of this story has it wrong). I see absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and so I'd really like Kerry a lot more if he fully supported the right of gays to get married.

Why, then, aren't I supporting someone who *would* fully support that right? Because the question isn't who best represents my views, the question is who would be the best for the majority of the people. *My* personal views are never, ever going to be perfectly represented by the person running the country unless *I* run for president. Since that will never happen, I have to choose the person who I think best approximates my views and has the best chance of effecting positive change. I have no problem with that, because the question is not, and never has been, which candidate is best for *me*. The question is which candidate is best for the *country*.

Re:Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[abb3w]

I see absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married, and so I'd really like Kerry a lot more if he fully supported the right of gays to get married.

Would be replies, finish reading before reacting.

I was raised Catholic. My two sisters and I regularly argued theology with the parish priest-- mutually educational and broadening. =)

Under the contemporary view of Catholicism on marriage, marriage is a sacrament [newadvent.org], an external sign of god's grace. Furthermore (and pay attention), Matrimonium facit consensus, i.e. Marriage is contracted through the mutual, expressed consent. Therein is contained implicitly the doctrine that the persons contracting marriage are themselves the agents or ministers of the sacrament. [newadvent.org] In other words, any two people who declare themselves married before the community have ipso facto married. However, it has also held that marriage, like other sacrements, must be performed with the approbation (spiritual approval) of the church.

Even when leaving aside questions of non-Christian faiths, not all faiths recognize the Authority of the Patriarch of Rome to give approbation. Furthermore, under the American precepts of the separation of church and state, the government of the United States lacks jurisdiction to establish whether the Patriarch has that authority or not.

Therefore, any union recognized by the state is ipso facto a civil union. Whether it is also a marriage is not a question for the courts of men, but for the court of God-- and ought be presumed valid by the state given the acceptance of any church.

Therefore, I would hold that the government has no business discriminating between ANY "marriage". Mind you, they might conceivably have some business deciding which civil unions to recognize (which is why arbitrary declarations as above may be valid canonically but not civilly without a marriage licesne), but that would be a fairly straightforward civil rights case... which neither the politicians nor the preachers like the taste of.

In short, I'd say that the problem is that the politicians aren't theologians, and that the theologians want to be theocrats. Technically, the only thing politicians can discuss by definition is whether gays (or straights!) can have civil unions, not whether they can get married! Of course, neither the politicians nor theocrats are that precise in their speaking or thinking.... which is Unhelpful in discussing the issues.

Irony

[cortez]

First 4 times I clicked on the link (before I tried de-fuglifying it) all that loaded was:


Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

There is one major thing that sets them apart

[Anonymous Coward]

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

FreeCulture.org is working to improve copyright

[chatooya]

If you're on a college campus and want to work to make copyright law more sane, join FreeCulture.org [freeculture.org].

Colleges and universities have a huge amount of power to influence this debate and reasonable copyright law is perfectly inline with the mission of a public education and research institution. So go get linux in the campus computer labs and work up from there!

Yeah, right...

[Aardpig]

Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry [vietnamvet...nkerry.com] (the website pointed to by the 'Kerry' link) is the organization running attack ads on US television, attempting to besmirch Kerry's war record. The adverts include the catchphrase 'I served with Kerry', which is stretching the truth a bit -- not a single vet in the adverts actually served alongside Kerry, they were merely in Vietnam at the same time.

This brought to you by the Republican party, the political group led by an imbecile cokehead who didn't even have the balls to turn up to his cushy National Guard posting. I have little sympathy for their copyright complaint...

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

What's weird is their claim.

They don't dispute John Kerry served in vietnam. They don't dispute John Kerry saved a man's life. The only dispute they have is that people were not firing at John Kerry as he was saving some guys life. Oh and they don't dispute his other purple hearts either.

If I was john kerry I too would keep comparing my record during the war to GW too. They both came from privledged families and yet one volunteered to go fight for his country the other pulled strings to get into the guard

Re:Yeah, right...

[Aardpig]

Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long? Over a year, yeah. Okay, I understand now.

Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.

How long were you there, my friend?

Re:Yeah, right...

[veg_all]

when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal

Show me that.

He claimed he had been told of atrocities. Do you deny that any such were committed by US troops? Hello? Mai Lai?

He claimed that that war was debasing the character of the country and costing the lives of its sons. Do you disagree?

So if he didn't say that, he didn't slander you. So what's your beef?

Snoped.

[Space Coyote]

Two wounds were self inflicted in non combat situations, the third was a superficial cut on his thumb. I suggest you actually read up on this man and stop buying into the fluff your friends tell you about him. Like the naked teenage boy who was fleeing that he shot dead.

From the good folks at snopes: link [snopes.com].

Claim: John Kerry's Vietnam War service medals (a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts) were earned under "fishy" circumstances.

Status: False.

I trust you won't be repeating such bullshit lines again.

Re:Yeah, right...

[killjoe]

"Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long?"

I don't know about most people but George Bush was there for zero months. Too bad the air national guard was not handing out purple hearts for falling down drunk or visiting the dentist.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Uebergeek]

Ok, time to cut through the lies.

The best link is here [factcheck.org]. That site, FactCheck.org, is a fair, non-partisan research group solely devoted to debunking false claims in politics and the media.

In short: One purple heart was for a contusion to the arm and shrapnel taken during the explosion of a nearby swiftboat. He *also* recieved shrapnel shortly before this in the buttock from a too-close toss of a handgrenade at a stockpile of rice to deny the VC foodstuffs. One of the silver stars being falsely questioned was for charging his swiftboat into an ambush and routing an entrenched VC force. Regardless, go read the analysis by factcheck, and you'll better understand exactly how fraudulent these slanders of John Kerry are.

Re:Yeah, right...

[Kierthos]

Ah, so you watched that episode of "The Daily Show" as well?

Yeah, none of the veterans served on the same boat as Kerry. The doctor they have talking about his first Purple Heart apparently didn't treat him at all for the wound, so that doctor commenting on whether it was a minor wound or not is irrelevant.

Where are the "I went to Harvard with GWB ads", I ask you?

Kierthos

So let me get this straight...

[sheldon]

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.

Uh huh.

You got something to say, then say it. You don't need these stage props to make your point.

Fucking whiner.

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Wavicle]

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

IANAL, but isn't there a particular length of a clip that is considered fair use? A lawyer can write all they want, but that doesn't mean what they write is necessarily what the law says.

And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.

Still, IANAL, but don't the courts generally give fairly wide lattitude to political speech? Using many images from George Butler's collection might be questionable, but a poignant image to their political message might be appropriate use.

Anybody who is AL know what the courts have generally done in these circumstances?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[CrowScape]

The article states (at least the one concerning the MTP footage) that it's expensive to fight off a copyright lawsuit, and there are no real hard rules that you'll be alright if you follow for when you do not have permission to use copyrighted footage. So, even though they may be perfectly within their rights, it's just not worth the risk finacially. Still, the grand parent was complaining about how everything was being construed to mean that Bush and Kerry were the ones surpressing the respective media.

Fact checking...

[SeaFox]

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

BZZT! Sorry, but that is incorrect. It is not Micheal Moore, but another Iraqi War documentary maker: Robert Greenwald, who is trying to use the clip.

Source: This editorial from Wired about, not-ironically, big media and copyrights suppressing democracy.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html ?pg=5?tw=wn_tophead_6 [wired.com]

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[1u3hr]

Yes, but you fail to explain how it's GWB who is using Copyright law to censor when NBC is denying the footage. I honestly don't think the submiter got past the first couple sentences of the article before he rushed off to do the write up.

I RTFA. The point was that Bush does very few interviews, and so media are so concerned about losing that privilege that they will self-censor and not allow reuse of interviews that put him in a bad light. Bush doesn't have to say anything, but by only offering interviews with companies that toe the line, he is endorsing their attempts to intimidate using copyright. This would be fair enough if he was a movie star concerned about controlling his image, but as a paragon of American values, including free speech, he should hold to a higher standard, and should explicitly allow free use of his public statements.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something

[Jerf]

The point was that Bush does very few interviews, and so media are so concerned about losing that privilege that they will self-censor and not allow reuse of interviews that put him in a bad light. Bush doesn't have to say anything, but by only offering interviews with companies that toe the line, he is endorsing their attempts to intimidate using copyright.

Ultimately, you really have to conclude he is as free to only give interviews to those he choses as we all are. I submit it is less about "endorsing" and more about "toeing".

Part of free speech is having the right not to speak, and President or not, Bush still has that right.

You are free to draw whatever conclusions you choose based on his choices.

I'm beginning to be swayed...

[localman]

For a long time I've believed that a third party vote is a waste because of our lousy voting system. But I'm beginning to change my mind. If the dems lose enough elections because of spoilers like Nader, maybe they'll eventually back voting reform and we can get a decent system like instant runoff.

I think I may vote my concience this time. I'm begining to think that voting reform is a more worthy long term goal then replacing Bush the tool with Kerry the tool.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Minna Kirai]

If the dems lose enough elections because of spoilers like Nader, maybe they'll eventually back voting reform and we can get a decent system like instant runoff.

Impossible. Even if losing makes them support voting reform, so what? They're LOSERS, and have no power to change anything.

If you have the power to make changes, then the current system is working for you and you won't change it. Or if the system is against you, then you'll want to change it but be unable.

(Notice how Congressional districts have been carefully laid to uphold the status quo)

Nader

[Colonel Panic]

I really want to vote for Nader. I just wish there were a 3rd party (4th party?) candidate on the right siphoning votes from Bush as well. Then there would be less complaining about Ralph being a spoiler. (what is a spoiler anyway? Couldn't Kerry be a spoiler for Nader?)

I went to the local Nader nominating convention here in Portland. It was a 3 ring circus. There were Rupublicans there who wanted Nader on the ballot. There were Democrats there filling the seats and refusing to sign the petition because they wanted to keep him off of the ballot (they were unfortunately successful). And then there were those of us who thought that it would be nice to have Nader on he ballot so we could have a real choice if we decide in November that we can't go with Kerry.

Amazingly, at the end, Nader took questions from the audience. Unfiltered questions. Some of the questions were form angry Democrats. One question was from a guy that was not mentally all there (and Nader was quite gracious with him, I thought). I was so impressed by this Q&A session. Not that the questions were all that great, but that Nader opened himself up to questions like that and handled then well. It would have been unimaginable at a Bush or Kerry rally.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Veridium]

I say vote your conscience man. Do it, do it, do it. Don't listen to the naysayers.

As for voting reform, I think we need a system like the Aussies. Preferential voting. Here's a page that has info about one implementation if you're interested:
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/ElectoralInfo/WP_Prefere ntialVoting.htm

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed...

[Concerned Onlooker]

I say vote your conscience man. Do it, do it, do it. Don't listen to the naysayers.

Basically, I'm with you on the idealism, but the problem is that the Republicans would be happy for you to vote your idealism because that way they will always win. When was the last time you saw a conservative question his party or candidate? You don't hear about it that much. They are united. They do not question the party line. And it works to the party benefit.

The Democrats seem constantly divided up between many camps. Kerry may be the lesser of two evils but I just will not stand by and watch conservatives turn this country into an intellectual, spiritual and (for most of us) economic wasteland. Yes, that sounds a bit harsh, doesn't it? Well, it's time liberals started playing by the same linguistic rules as the conservatives. It's time to make 'conservative' a dirty word.

Gay marriage

[kyhwana]

Both Bush and Kerry are against Gay Marriage, but there are really only two parties.
So who do the gays vote for, huh?
Go Democracy!

Re:Gay marriage

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

So who do the gays vote for, huh?

How about, for the one that didn't try to carve its position into the actual living flesh of the Republic, the Consitution?

I am getting so sick of people saying that there is no difference between the two parties. Guess what? We heard "It doesn't matter which one wins" in 2000. Then we ran the experiment. If you honestly believe this nation would be where it is is now, had Gore been sworn in, then you are either ill-informed or insane.

Re:Gay marriage

[k8to]

Speaking as a gay, this is pretty much a no-brainer.

Bush: actively opposes gay marriage. Engages in mindless hate-speech against gays and nonsense rhretoric in an attack on my position in society. Attempts to pervert the Constitution of the nation in order to enshrine his personal bigotry in it.

Kerry: Will not actively work to create national marriage parity, but instead will allow states to decide as they have already begun to do. Will make at least some effort to avoid supporting obvious anti-gay bigotry as in Bush's above-mentioned constitutional amendment.

Wow, this is a really tough choice!

Sure I'd love to vote for someone who believes fervently in equality, but for a given office there is often no likely candidate who closely aligns with one's views. You make the best choice you can.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Too bad Kucinich isn't still running.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php [kucinich.us]

I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice.

So there you go. Kucinich is the only politician that I know of that doesn't classify humans into "people with rights" and "people without rights".

Re:Gay marriage

[Coryoth]

You're trying the "slippery slope" argument, but we can discuss all of cannibalism, necrophilia, incest, paedophilia, beastiality as seperate issues:

Let's start with incest, paedophila, and beastiality, because they all come down to the same principal: informed consent. In our society it is generally believed that sex should be consensual (rape is illegal) as otherwise we would be infringing on anothers rights. The problem is, to be able to consent, the other party has to understand what it is they are consenting to. That's more than just understanding the physical process involved, but (in our society anyway) understanding the emotional issues attached to such things. This is why paedophila is considered criminal - it is harmful to the children, because the children (even if they do "consent") don't really understand the full implications of what they would be consenting to. My understanding is that beastiality falls into the same category. It is interesting that we extend this protection to animals where otherwise we would not, but that's how it is. The other issue with beastiality is a "cleanliness" issue. Mostly this the same sort of "cleanliness" that directs the finer points of a kosher diet, but there are some remaining issues (transferring diseases across species, which has been known to happen through beastiality and related pursuits can definitely be problematic). Still going with holdover taboos we come to incest - a large part of our reaction to incest is based on an old taboo which centers around the issues of inbreeding. All very reasonable and sensible. The issues with incest do extend beyond this though - we're essentially back to the informed consent: most incestuous relationships involve exploiting the familial relationship into something more, and at least one party is usually not in a position to give informed consent.

I believe that leaves us with cannibalism and necrophilia. With these certainly no obvious harm is being done (presuming it is post-mortem cannabilism, and the person isn't being killed to e eaten) to the immediate parties, however, our society generally holds that a person (and their immediate kin) has rights over their remains - refer to organ donation, leaving your body to science, what have you: there are plenty of laws that consider damage done post death to still be harm to the individual. Based on that, necrophilia is out, as a dead person cannot give consent. Likewise cannibalism. That, of course, leaves the possibility that a person could will their remains to be used for such purposes. Why they would choose to do that I do not know, but that is their choice. In that case, personally, I don't think I would stand in the way of such thigns. Cannibalism, on some level, makes sense (read Stranger in a Strange Land).

And then homosexuality - well, that's sexual intercourse between two consenting adults who have full knowledge and understanding of what they are entering into. No harm to either party, so I don't see the problem there.

Jedidiah.

Lock it down tight and it will be alright.

[bigskank]

It is becoming more and more clear that the focus on tightening up intellectual property law to make it more like a form of "real" property is not just affecting geeks and pirates anymore. As the entertainment industry and members of congress continue to pound it into our heads that "taking any expression from anybody from any reason is bad" we are going to realize extraordinarily negative consequences to our democracy. Will we be able to show the "State of the Union" address after the original airing? I most certainly can't get into Congress to tape it, so it seems that the networks can lock down political information very tightly. Sure, there are transcripts, but political messages aren't just about what's said, it's about how it's said and who the message is said to, and what the reaction to that message is. The use of copyright as a tool to stifle opposing viewpoints or criticism in politics is a very powerful - and extremely dangerous - political weapon, and it is one that could kill democracy as we know it. If we aren't even free to draw up words and images of the leaders who we elect, who we pay out of our tax dollars, and who we let govern us, then the ideals which this country was founded on are dead (if they aren't already). Just because NBC or ABC or CNN shot the film of a leader doesn't mean the public shouldn't have certain rights to choose who can or can't use it or how it can be used. These networks use public airwaves, receive public services wherever they shoot (i.e. the extra police protection around the press corps at the Democratic Convention in Boston) and take the time of our elected leaders. Surely the public deserves a little fair use.

Is There Some Story or Even Some Facts Here?

[ortcutt]

I was hoping that the person who posted this would deign to provide us with some solid information or maybe just a link. As it is, the post just makes this unsupported claim that Bush and Kerry are using copyright to censor and then asserts without proof that they are no different than each other. Could someone please explain to me how something this thin got posted here.

Don't blame me...

[Sean Clifford]

I voted for Kodos.

Seriously, though. Demopublicans, Republicrats, same same. Both parties are feeding at the corporate trough. I'm hopeful that under Kerry we'll have Evil Lite rather than Double Evil with Cheese and Curly Fries.

I like Nader and his take on things - I've been a fan for a long time. But I don't think he has a shot - he's not going to be on the ballot in many states, some of them key states like California.

It would be nice if one day we can have a third party candidate who (a) had a hope in hell, (b) wasn't a nutball, and (c) had the stones to be a progressive rather than a "me too" corporate slave.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

Re:Don't blame me...

[Richard M. Nixon]

Also consider that both parties are becoming more and more evil.

Do you think that I was as evil as George W Bush?
Heck, do you think I was as evil as John Kerry?

It is time for a real change. Vote Nixon 2004!
I'm much less evil that the politicians of the 21st Century.

Mistake

[neurojab]

>Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."

That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring. He went as far as naming CEOs who do extensive offshoring "benedict arnold" CEOs.

Well Duh

[rsilvergun]

They're our ruling class. They take positions that benefit them, and only them. It bugs me to hear starry eyed morons going on about gov't for/by the people, and never stop to consider that America's got rulers just like any Dictatorship you care to name. The fact that you can sometimes join the ruling class doesn't change that. If the people ever really do wise up and start trying to change things, you can bet your @$$ our facade of democracy's gonna colapse real quick.

Wrong

[rsilvergun]

Because when people join the ruling class, they don't become happy go lucky champions of freedom, they become greedy little bastards like Bush, Cheney, and hell Kerry too.

That upward mobility is largly an illusion. It took a while, but the rulers have finnally figured out how to keep people down (and preserve their God like standards of living). The trick is to have a small middle class, and the occasional new entry in the ruling class. The poor of the world end up spending all their energy trying to move up, and the middle class are wasted just trying to stay middle class.

The large amount of upward moblity seen in America/Europe around 1950 was largely due to the population crash following WWII. Now that the baby boomers have fucked thier way back to a surplus of laborers (and the cold war's ended) Globalism can kick in full steam with all it's truely nasty implicatons. Capital flows to where ever labor's cheapest, and just the mere threat of closing factories will keep unions from ever exisiting. That's the real scary thing actually. When unions form, the bosses just leave. No workers protests, no beatings, no sensational stories about worker abuse. Just a bunch of starving people nobody cares about.

I guess the point I'm driving at (albeit poorly) is Capitalism is perfecting itself. It's approaching a perpetual system of hard working fools and the Capitalist Kings they work for. The only thing I see stopping the trend is another population crash. Which is all well and good, unless you happen to be a member of the crashing populace.

What better reason for DRM?

[teamhasnoi]

Why, when DRM gets here, we won't have any of these Fair Use or copyright infringement discussions because there won't be fair use, and there won't be infringement. If something slips past the Analog Hole, unjust and misused laws like the DMCA and anything Senawhore Hollings has a filthy hand in will carry the day.

When corporations can absolutely control what you can archive, reuse, or replay - that will be the day that free speech is reduced to what an individual can mimeograph and hand distribute. And there are already laws that chill that speech, such as vandalism, loitering, disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly, and thousands more. Don't worry, one applies to you. Right now.

So violate copyright every chance you get. Copyright has been abused to the point where it is useless, unjust, and no longer represents the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Civil Disobedience, kids - 1 in 6 Americans can't be wrong [slashdot.org]...or can they?

Misleading

[peachpuff]

This article makes it sound like both candidates are engaging in a campaign of suppression. If you actually follow the links, you find out that there is (as far as i can tell) only one lawsuit per candidate, and that the suits were not filed by the candidates.

I think copyright holders are wrong in both cases, but the candidates aren't necessarily behind it.

If you want to know where a politician stands on an issue, you should ask them and check their record. It's not enough to find one example where they've benefitted from someone else's lawsuit.

Come to think of it, how come these suits are only evidence in one direction? The candidates aren't party to the lawsuits. You could just as easily say that both candidates are against copyright suits because a movie that helps Kerry is being suppressed and so is an ad that helps Bush.

DoS voting

[Doc Ruby]

That's why I'm voting for Kerry. His party is much less effective at passing legislation restricting citizens rights than is the Republican Party. And with the Republican control of Congress, the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive branches will defang them more than ever. Moreover, the more precarious position of the Democratic Party makes it more responsive to activism from the people. Through individual donations to the DNC and anti-Bush "527" corporations, especially over the Internet, the people are much more important to the DNC than they are to the RNC, which protects their corporate "donors" more effectively, at the expense of the people.

The President

[dnb415]

Let me start this with I work for lobbyists out here in Colorado. I've been working in politics for a while now and it's safe to say the President doesn't hold nearly as much power as everyone seems to think. The biggest movers and shakers reside within the federal senate, congress, and your state legislative representatives (if the senate holds a contrary majority to the President nothing will get done, etc.). Remember he can't do much unless the congress and senate approve it (you voted them into place too). So, in your effort to vote out bush, or keep him there, remember there are other elections on your ballot that you all should be watching!!

Your Vote

[PsiPsiStar]

Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood).

Vote Libertarian?

Copyright isn't the biggest enemy...

[scoobrs]

It's the mass media that hides stories so blatantly.

Even Slashdot is incapable of demolishing the most creative inventions of the mass media. Watch "Outfoxed" (outfoxed.org) if you don't believe me. Imagine all those FOX News viewers hearing these deliberate falsities repeated everywhere and having their world picture altered to include all of it. Or to include SCO's latest fabrications? What room does this leave blogs and the alternative media to reveal to the mainstream that Kerry really isn't that French and that the Bush administration really wanted invade Iraq long before 9/11?

I wrote a decent essay on this topic four years ago. [afn.org]

"If voting changed..."

[JaJ_D]

If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it [saidwhat.co.uk]

Ken Livinstone [wordiq.com], the current Major of London, can be a bit of a prat sometimes, but other times he has a point. When did voting (by all the people in the country), alone, last change something?

In the UK the 'opinions', and I use the term in the looses sense of the meaning, between the two main parties are almost identical. It's becoming like the US (or how the US is portried in the UK), of "(s)he with the most money" or "(s)he who is most photogenic" will be elected

It could be worse, much worse, but the present system of politics dominated by large corporations, almost buying their way (or their cronies way) into power cannot be good, in the long run, for the average Joe on the street

Jaj

Why GW does few interviews.

[theolein]

I can see the reason why GW does not often do interviews:Bushisms. The man is so obviously unable to articulate himself in his own language, and very probably think in it (His latest one on Tribal sovreignty was really painful) that I'm am pretty sure his campaign advisors such as Karl "Goebbels" Rove almost crap themselves every time GW has to answer impromptu questions in public. A good deal of the USA might be unable to use their own language properly and appreciate the fact that their president is as dumb as they are, but I think the majority are probably more than a little worried now that GW "The Chimp" Bush is really an utter idiot acting as puppet for a group of far right fanatics.

100% of society

[maximilln]

There are 100 people in society

There are 2 brilliant people
There are 20 greedy people
There are 20 gullible people
There are 10 who are opposed
There are 48 apathetic people

5 greedy people ambush 2 brilliant people
5 greedy people convince 20 gullible people
20 gullible people make lots of noise
38 apathetic people restrain 8 who are opposed to restore calm
5 greedy people, 20 gullible people, 10 apathetic people, and 2 who are opposed vote
5 greedy people sit back, enjoy the show, and profit.

Using copyright to quell political speech is a tactic of the greedy people perpetuated by the apathetic people who simply want things to quiet down so we can go back to trying to pay bills and keep up with rising taxes.

Yes it is

[foreverdisillusioned]

In a system without runoff voting, yes it most certainly is. How do you expect people to rally around a worthy third candidate (out of the hundreds out there) when there is such a compelling motivation to vote "NOTKerry" or "NOTBush"? Maybe when they truly are identical someone else can challenege them, but right now there are just too many people willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Re:Yes it is

[Coryoth]

but right now there are just too many people willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Why choose the lesser evil? Vote Cthulhu!

Jedidiah.

Re:Yes it is

[Paul Jakma]

What you want is a Proportional Representation [wikipedia.org] voting system. Then you could could give your first preference vote to $3rd_party preference and give $mainstream-lesser-evil your second preference vote.

Re:Yes it is

[Minna Kirai]

and his administration wasn't instrumental in creating the largest federal budget deficit ever seen.

Neither was Bush. He's still only achieved 85% of Reagan's deficit.

Both bad

[Doc Ruby]

It doesn't really matter - they're both unacceptably bad [google.com]. Although Reagan's deficit was larger as percentage of GDP (GNP, then), eg. 6% in 1983, vs. Bush's 5% of 2004 GDP, -$500B in 2004 brings us to something like $8.5T of debt. And remember that Reagan's debt was also Bush Sr's debt - especially as Bush Sr ran the "deregulation" of the banking system that enabled the $1.5T S&L heist. That was the 1980s, when a trillion dollars was still worth something :).

Re:Deficit spending vs. Tax the ()*&$% out of

[WindBourne]

I think I'd rather see some deficit spending, rather than the lefties method of tax the SHIT out of everyone, then dance by the fire of burning money as they waste it away on foolish, poorly run government programs.

hummmm.

1. Carter inherited 25B/year defict and ran it up to 50B.
2. Reagan inherited 50B/Year deficit and ran it up to 250B/year.
3. Poppa Bush ran it up to 325, then back down to 250B, in an effort to start balancing it.
4. Clinton, did balance it . No deficit spending and loads of waste.
5. W. ran it up and has wasted more than any other admin in history.

I will take Clinton or Poppa Bush (he turned it) any time.

What the problem is, when a president and congress are ruled by the same party. What is needed to solve this is

1. Line item veto
2. Balanced Budget except during times of formal war (as opposed to more of this vietnam shit).

I do not care if kerry ever voted for a tax cut. I want to know if he pushed in waste. Did he push in haliburton? Did he spend his time lieing to us and blaming everybody in his administration. So far, W. has blamed everybody in his admin and not taken one bit of blame. Not "the buck stops here". It is always, "fire that bastard there, he caused it".

Re:Yes it is

[Veridium]

There will always appear to be too much at stake. That's the trap. Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?

I'm not trying to trash kerry either. If I had to vote for one or the other, it would be Kerry over Bush. But I don't have to, so I'm not going to.

Re:Yes it is

[Veridium]

do you think kerry has an unrevealed plan pre-election to invade another country and will do so at the drop of a hat? (ala neo-con hawks)

Yes I do actually. Ala, clinton hawks(think yugoslavia).

Do you think that kerry is going to gut welfare and give tax cuts to the rich?

I have more important things to worry about than taxes and welfare. My and everyone elses freedom and rights are on the line. If you're concerned about welfare, you ought to study what happened to it under Clinton.

And I can see that the democrats understand the policy process better than revolving door bullshit lobbyists.

What are you talking about? You don't think democrats have lobbiests or that they succumb to lobbiests? Do you know who was president when the DMCA passed? To name but one of the more well known examples. Do you think that was done as pure good policy, with no influence by lobbiests?

You would be better off not casting your vote if you vote for Nader or the like

Please explain your logic here. If I don't vote at all, kerry doesn't get my vote. If I vote for my candidate(not nader), kerry doesn't get my vote. How is one any different than the other?

You don't understand what Bush has done to america in the eyes of the world.

I do understand. I just don't think you understand that the democrats and republicans have been in on moving us in this direction for years. Google for the pentagon papers for an interesting read on relatively recent American history. Two different parties, two different goals presented to the American people in public, but behind the scenes the same goals being worked towards. Nothing has changed, except the names and dates.

He has already damaged the UN to the point where nothing is being done in Darfur.

Why do WE have to do something about it? Where is the rest of the world? Why is darfur Americas fault? What do you want us to do there, invade? How do you know there's genocide going on there? We were told there was genocide going on in Yugoslavia, 100,000 dead we were told. The largest mass grave they found was a few hundred people. We shot that country up with depleted uranium, destroyed civilian infrastructure, and killed thousands, over a few hundred people. I don't want be the world police anymore. Why can't the UN and it's member parties that aren't the US grow some balls and take care of things? Sorry if that sounds selfish, but I think enough American lives have been lost in other countries, only to have us hated and ridiculed by other countries. Forget it. World police is a thankless job and I don't think my country should have to do it anymore.

Don't worry, China is going to be the next world power, very shortly. Few see it coming, but it's coming.

Re:Where was the outcry?

[sparrow_hawk]

Okay, bub, I don't care what Bush knew or didn't know about the torture of the Iraqi prisoners. When a president asks his people to find some legal loophole to justify using torture on the prisoners he's already declared "enemy combatants" and stripped of rights held dear by Americans, I don't think it matters.

Re:That's why...

[killjoe]

"Republicans, Democrats... All the same."

Bullshit. Similar maybe but not the same. Do you really think there is no difference between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration?

Kerry and Bush have similar positions but only the dumbest of the dumb would claim that "letting the states decide if gay people should get married" == "let's amend amend our most sacred document to make sure gay people never get married".

The editor is a dumbass for thinking those two positions are identical.

Re:That's why...

[killjoe]

" In your example, you clearly miss the point that these judges are going against the will of people they don't even represent."

That's what judges are for. The judicial system is a counter to the legislative branch. It exists to assure liberty for people who are in the minority. America is a republic and not a democracy. Do you know what the difference is? A democracy is five wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner. In a democracy the sheep dies, in a republic the sheep lives.

Of course the 95% of the people who are straight don't want the 5% of the people who are gay to have the same rights as they do. Just like the 95% of the people who are white at one time didn't want the 5% of the blacks to have the same rights. In that case judges ruled that the majority was wrong and that the rights of the minority were guaranteed by the constitution. If the judges rule the same way for homosexuals then it's incumbent on the states to let them marry.

The judicial system exists solely to balance the the other two branches of govt. Our forefathers accurately predicted that the majority would seek to opress the minority and set in place not only a constitution and a bill of rights but an entire branch of govt to make sure those documents held up and were the law of the land.

Re:That's why...

[matthewn]

NO. That is NOT how it works. Throughout America's history, states have refused to recognize certain marriages allowed in other states. Some states allow cousins to marry; others don't recognize such marriages. Some states allow you to get married at a younger age than other states; if your state doesn't want to recognize the marriage of a 14-year-old, it does not have to. This is how the courts have ruled in the past, so anyone who says the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution necessarily applies to gay marriage is simply ignoring decades of jurisprudence. At the very least, it is an open legal question, not a fait accompli.

Re:That's why...

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

'matthewn' is flat out wrong on the "full faith and credit" clause. States *always* recognize marriages granted by other states. Even if the relationship exclusions are different; even if the age requirements are different; even if the waiting periods or medical exams are different. That's why the meme about "going to [other state] to get married" is so prevalent, after all!

It *is* true that there is some precedent for non-compliance with the Constitutions mandate of full faith and credit: anti-miscegenation laws. Back before Loving vs. Virginia, some states indeed excluded marriages valid in other states. What a surprise that many of the very same people who are today's homophobes grew up as yesteryears' racists.... well, they were homophobes then too, and mostly they're still racists now. But it's a matter of priorities. :-(

Re:That's why...

[demachina]

"It's not that hard"

Well actually it is. The two major parties have created countless hurdles in most states that are designed to prevent a third party or independent from ever gaining traction. Iowa officially disbanded the Green Party because they couldn't muster 2 percent of the vote in the 2002 governor's race at which point the party ceased to exist, it was disallowed a primary this year and candidates have to petition to get on the ballot. Of course since its disbanded its even harder to garner the 2% this year to regain party status.

It takes enormous effort just to get on the ballots in most states if you aren't in the two major parties, and of course a 3rd party presidential candidate has a very slim chance of participating in televised debates.

If there was ever a cause for an addition to the Bill of Rights it should be an amendment to allow unfettered formation of political parties and to forbid the parties in power from suppressing formation of opposition parties. It is something you expect from a totalitarian state, not the worlds "Greatest Democracy".

Another problem is both the Reform and Green parties have deteriorated in to a complete shambles on their own, they simply lack a coherent organization and appear to have fallen in to chaos which is killing them without all the barriers the Dems and Republicans are throwing in front of them.

And finally most people who would opt for Nader or other third parties are so keen to see George W. go down they will vote for Kerry, even though he is a truly pathetic candidate. Fact is in the current system voting 3rd party really is throwing away your vote and the two major parties don't really care if you do it. They'd like your vote but as long as you don't for the other major candidate its the same as if you don't vote at all.

The two copyright issues cited here really aren't the most serious things in the world. Like it or not Meet the Press is copyrighted and NBC can do with it what they will. It is a little lame holding back something unflattering to the President but there is a wealth of other video and transcripts available that will do that.

There are other things about both candidates that I'm amazed the press doesn't cover though.

President Bush's cocaine use and the fact that he apparently refused his national guard flight physical when they instituted drug testing, and that he was apparently convicted in Texas for something, probably Cocaine possession, should disqualify him as President but the press almost never touches this, possibly because the Bush family did such a great job of disposing of all the proof. Its a near certainty Bush political operatives were given unsupervised access to George W.'s Guard records and amazingly the Army recently admitted some of his records, probably the embarrassing ones have in fact been destroyed.

Kerry has his skeletons too that the press never touches. His Vietnam record and the ease with which he racked up medals cetainly does deserve scrutiny. For some reason the press lets everyone think Kerry is a Kennedyesque Irish Catholic when his paternal grand parents were actually Austro/Hungarian and Jewish. His name would be John Kohn if they hadn't changed their name to Kerry when the immigrated to the U.S. in 1902. When you are electing a President these little things are good to know, since they may color his decision making on Isreal in particular, but for some reason today's Press only fillets candidates like Dean they want to drive out of contention because they aren't pro establishment enough. Dean was toast the day he had the audacity to suggest the U.S. treat Israel and the Palastinians equally. You want to get elected in the U.S. you always side with Israel all the way or you are going down.

Re:That's why majority should rule

[demachina]

"Oh, and the reason we have to go with Israel is because they don't strap bombs on kids and have them walk into pizza parlors full of other kids and blow themselves up."

Not sure I follow your point. They don't need to strap bombs on kids, instead they can just drop them from an F-16 or shoot a missile from an Apache. Remember the 500 pound Israel dropped on a crowded apartment building in Gaza, as a ham handed way to assassinate one guy. It ended up killing, inevitably, all the innocent women and children in the building. A number of loyal Israel pilots sacrificed their careers, and lives, to protest that incident, along with targeting of cars with missiles on crowded streets because it shows Israel is no better or different in the indiscriminate killing department.

The world needs to realize that both sides in that conflict have issues. As long as the world divides up in two camps and chooses to pretend one side is always a saint and the other is the devil, and vice versa, its going to insure perpetual blood shed and a breeding ground for extremism on all sides.

This is a key reason why the U.S. can't win the "War on Terror" on its current path, because it can't fathom it has to fix the root causes of the animosity of the Arab world towards the U.S. and Isreal. Doing that would deprive the extremists of much of the support they are now getting from more moderate Arabs.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[demachina]

I guess I'm not following your point. I guess you are saying all of Israel's killing is justified, they only kill terrorists, never civilians, and its just the Palestinian's who are the indiscriminate killers? Anyone who says Isreal kills civilians is a Palastinian propagandist?

You are saying bombing an apartment building was justified because someone you don't like was in it. I don't remember exactly who the target was in the incident I'm thinking of. If it was such a noble act I doubt the U.S. would have condemned it as much as they did or not would 20 or so Israeli Air Force pilots would have forfeited their careers over it. There are so many civilians killed by both sides I lose track.

To make of for my bad memory here [haaretzdaily.com]. is an article on another bombing that just happened, 17 dead, 15 civilians, 11 children. Is Haaretz Palastinian propaganda? Perhaps the children were body gaurds or relatives of some terrorist so maybe its OK they were killed too.

You see I don't think you should, with good conscience, try to pretend one side is always the right one in this particular situation. Its reached the point both sides are very wrong and they should both be very ashamed.

Re:Bodyguards of terrorists arent' "civilians"

[PsiPsiStar]

My point was specific to your assertions. I didn't say 'there have never been any civilian deaths on either side.' Of course there have been. I was saying that it was incorrect to describe bodyguards as 'civilians.' Because I didn't know event you were refering to, I had to guess.

If a wife aids and abets her husband in committing a crime, she can be found guilty of that crime in an American court as an 'accessory.' I'm not saying "bombing an apartment is justified because someone I don't like was in it." I'm saying that if someone's wife participates in millitary activities, then she is millitary and not a civilian.

If you're going to protest the accidental deaths of children from bombing (which you should) you should also protest the deliberate Palestinian use of children as young as 13 and sometimes younger in various attacks.

To put it simply, if a group of people chooses to involve 'civilians' in offensive warfare, then it is dishonest to continue to describe those people as civilians. They are either millitants, or militia.

While I agree that 'mistakes have been made on both sides,' the notion by itself doesn't solve the problem. Any effective plan will have to involve specific detailed proscriptions.

Re:That's why...

[Three Headed Man]

You say changed to accomodate third parties. I think you mean "changed back to how it was, which accomodated third parties."

Re:Mirror

[Space Coyote]

"pro hanoi" is quite a charge. Do you honestly think questioning the US's actions in Vietnam automatically means "pro hanoi"? If so, there are very very few voting Americans who would agree with you.

Re: Mirror

[Jeremi]

VVAW wanted the U.S. to pull out of Vietnam and hand it over to the communists in Hanoi. Kerry was one of the higher-up leaders and organizers for VVAW. How much more pro-Hanoi, pro-communist does he need to be?

By your reasoning, anyone who is against a US invasion of Cuba must be pro-Castro. Honestly, this whole "if you're not with us, you're against us" logic is just idiotic -- the real world is much more complicated than that. There were plenty of valid reasons to pull out of Vietnam that had nothing to do with "supporting Hanoi".

Re: Mirror

[macdaddy]

Agreed. Mod the parent up some more. Cryptnotic's comments reak of Bushisms. You don't have to be pro-communist to be in favor of the US pulling out of Vietnam. That's one place we never should have gotten involved in to begin with. To say that anyone in favor of pulling out of Vietnam and letting it be is in favor of Communism is absurd. That's like Bush saying that anyone not supporting him invading Iraq is unpatriotic and in support of terrorism. Kerry may not be perfect but he's not a fan of communism. Bush sure as hell isn't perfect and he may very well be in favor of communism if his little family is at the top of the food chain. Unfortunately we'll probably never know Bush's true thoughts on that topic because quite frankly Junior can't possibly form logical sentences that spins^H^H^H^Hums up his family's^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpersonal thoughts on the matter.

Re: Mirror

[ScooterBill]

Hey, that's how you control the people. Seed fear and uncertainty and make sure to divide the people into good and evil groups.

This is a time tested strategy. Honestly, if everyone would read a little bit of history they'd see the pattern. Some leaders are altruistic yet succumb to the whispers(and $$) of the lobbyists. Others, like our fearless leader Bush, have an agenda and will do what ever is necessary to make it happen. Then there are a small minority of leaders with integrity. Sadly, they don't stand much chance usually.

Actually, although I don't like Kerry that much more than Bush, I think he is the lesser of two evils. A government which has trouble passing bills because there's no clear majority is also less likely to infringe on the constitution. Bush has too much power and is willing to wield it to further his administration's own goals. He believe's he's more a benevolent king than a public servant.

Herman Goering Once Said

[Soporific]

"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." ~Herman Goering speaking at the Nuremberg trails after WWII

~S

Re: Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worth noting that if Rossevelt hadn't died, we might have seen a peaceful end to French colonialism. The US war in Vietnam wasn't about our freedom or anyone's freedom in particular, it was about preserving the status quo. Rather than seeking to learn from the mistakes of the Korean conflict, the leadership at the time made the unbelievable and calculated move to attempt to repeat its mistakes.

The tragedy for the US, particularly those who served over there, was tremendous. They paid dearly in blood for the hubris of callous cowards like Bush and Cheney. What men like Max Cleland, John McCain suffered is bound inexorably to adjectives like "unspeakable" "horrific" "unimaginable," but they would likely count themselves amoung the lucky. And the price that the Vietnamese paid for their ignorance of American politics was nothing short of awesome (the bad kind).

That John Kerry saw his youthful idealism for what it was, and used an obscure by the book regulation to try and correct what he saw as the problem at its source (poor leadership an ocean away) is a mark of what might well be the early onset of his wisdom. It's a far cry from how Cheney avoided his draft board, of how Bush Jr. used his father's influence to insure another man took his place.

I suppose we shouldn't be so supprised that it's the cowards in positions of power who stand between the dead and the country that dearly wished to make amends with the inequities of past and present by honoring them. Or maybe they're terrified that people will remember honor, duty, sacrifice, and dignity when they see it, and find them lacking.

That depends.

[raehl]

the real world is much more complicated than that

Not if you're George W. Bush.

Re:Only in America

[Shihar]

That is the stupidest title I have ever read. If you think this is 'only in America', you need to open your eyes and take a look around. When it comes to free speech, the US is pretty damned liberal. I can still fly a confederate flag and wear a white hood if that tickles my fancy, but in free thinking places like Germany you can be arrested for doing a stiff armed salute or displaying a Nazi symbol - and it isn't like Germany is the most toltalitarian of places in the world.

Catchy phrase, but pure bullshit karma whoring.

Re:Only in America

[WindBourne]

Rather than picking something that is more than 100 years old and settled, try for something now. Go in front of the white house and wave a picket in favor of Al Qaeda. Put on the picket things like

• "America is killing babies in Iraq, and the world"
• "America is sending christian missionaries into Middle East"
• "America is raping our women and killing our children"
• "GWB screwed Iraq for Oil, now he is screwing you"
• Why is the group that spread anthrax running free?
• Why does this white house tolerate a traitor in the white house?
• Patriot act is fasicts
• What did Reagan and King George I really do?
  etc. etc.etc.
  Get a tv crew to come down, and then watch what happens.
  
  Also, ask any national news person how free things really are these days. Other than fox news, you might be surprised what these journalists would say.

Freedom is not the ability to bitch about a long ago war. Freedom is the ability to critize the current and even recent government. Think about Bush allowing Reagan and Poppa Bush to hide all sorts of things. The Freedom of Information act was put in place for a reason. Now Bush preverts it and allows them (and himself) to hide past actions. BTW, I do note that Kerry has not said that he would remove that presidential order. I find that sad.

Problems with Libertarian Party platform

[0x0d0a]

I have a couple of pretty severe issues with the the Libertarian platform [lp.org], which I finally got around to reading last night.

First, they oppose "victimless crimes". This means some changes that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Plutonium is a controlled substance in the United States, and an elimination of consentual crimes would make it uncontrolled. I want possession of plutonium to be controlled, frankly.

Second, the libertarian approach toward justice is somewhat different than that I approach. I view justice as a dissuasive mechanism, something that can be used to stabilize situations. Libertarians view it as a restitutive mechanism, a method of restoring the state before the crime was committed. I believe that this approach leaves crime profitable unless law enforcement operates perfectly and 100% of damaging crimes are caught.

Third, I very, very strongly disagree with their proposed changes to jury trials. They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law. This effectively reduces the value of a written code of law, means that laws may basically be retroactively changed after a crime was committed, and means that extremists may use jury trials as a political platform, which I do not think is an appropriate place for rational and open discourse. I can understand how frusterated they are with being a minority party and wanting minority parties to have more political power, but I do not think that this is a good mechanism. I am particularly surprised that vote reform, one of the most valuable changes that would allow minority parties to gain political influence, is not a fundamental part of their platform -- I guess that if they ever get into power, they are unlikely to want to give up power to minority parties. Sigh.

Fourth, their platform on American Indian Rights -- the return of Indian lands to Indians -- is simply ridiculous. It might sound nice, and there might have historically been some nasty games play ed to obtain land ownership, but you can hardly kick people off of land where they now live.

Fifth, I utterly disagree with their "zero regulation" model of business. Their claims that all monpolies arise from government intervention is, frankly, wrong. I can't see how they intend to deal with natural monpolies, unless they expect to simply ignore them. They do not deal with artificial mopolies, which I can't believe the government directly causes in all cases...unless they want to also repeal all forms of IP, which will be, well, overly extreme in my book and almost everyone's.

Sixth, their "no taxes" model makes no sense. It's just ridiculous. We've tried not having *federal* taxes, and that just didn't work. The mind boggles at the thought of local and state taxes being eliminated. How do they expect to have a functioning government? Even they must allow for the operation of certain skeletal structures, like a judicial system, or their own rules will not be enforced.

Seventh, their proposed method for dealing with pollution simply ignores the game-theoretic models that have convinced people that pollution is a public-good problem that requires intervention. Who cares if the children 100 years down the road get screwed over? The person causing the damage will be gone!

Eighth, they propose deregulating the postal service. This would probably mean an end to mail that can reach anywhere in the United States, even if it reduced costs to the other people.

Ninth, I think that their policy on secession is stupid. Sounds very idealistic, but why doesn't, say, GM Seattle secede from the United States, and avoid paying business taxes? Their workers can still *live* in the United States and enjoy the no income taxes that the Libertarian party promotes. I just don't see it working.

Tenth, their policy on annexation is like the Guano Act plus a million. It would produce an unmanagable United States if a