Obama Administration Promises "Thorough Review" of USTR Policies 78
After all of the uproar surrounding some of the Obama administration's recent decisions, trade officials have promised a thorough review of the USTR policies regarding transparency. In an effort to ensure that the review includes all possible angles, the USTR is urging groups to make other proposals as well. "KEI is very impressed with the USTR decision to undertake a review of USTR transparency efforts. They are taking this much further than simply reviewing policies on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or recent controversies over the secrecy surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations. The review offers the possibility of more transformative changes, including pro-active measures to enhance transparency, covering all aspects of USTR operations, including multilateral, plurilateral, regional, bilateral and unilateral trade policies and negotiations. We are also grateful that USTR is offering to have a continuing dialogue on this issues. KEI will offer additional suggestions on transparency to USTR, and we encourage others to do so also."
United States Trade Representative (Score:5, Informative)
From ustr.gov [ustr.gov]:
The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) is an agency of over 200 people, a highly committed group of professionals who have decades of specialized experience in trade issues and regions of the world. They negotiate directly with foreign governments to create trade agreements, resolve disputes and participate in global trade policy organizations. They also meet with governments, business groups, legislators and public interest groups to gather input on trade issues and explain the president's trade policy positions. The agency was founded in 1962 and has offices in Washington, Geneva and Brussels.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if that editor enjoys being pretentious and deluded with the notion that using obscure, unexplained acronyms makes one intelligent and the reader shamefully ignorant.
I think you presume too much about our esteemed editors. I find it unlikely that ScuttleMonkey made a conscious choice to use obscure and unexplained acronyms to shame us - it's far more likely that he just wasn't paying attention, and didn't think about it.
As you can see from my UID, I'm not new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if that editor enjoys being pretentious and deluded with the notion that using obscure, unexplained acronyms makes one intelligent and the reader shamefully ignorant.
Amusingly, they spelled out FOIA, which I bet almost every Slashdotter knows.
So, they actually used the full name for a common acronym, but not for the obscure ones.
For what it's worth, I knew USTR (I guess it isn't that obscure, but it's hardly common), but KEI had me stumped.
Re: (Score:2)
I know both.
KEI = Knowledge Ecology International
Initialisms (Score:5, Informative)
USTR: Office of the United States Trade Representative
Re: (Score:2)
Initialism: a Wikipediaism for "acronym".
Actually, to be precise, an initialism is an acronym which is pronounced by sounding out the letters. And I guess it must be common in some quarters, but I never heard it used until Wikipedia came along. Really not that useful a word. Wikipedians love their obscure terminology.
Re: (Score:2)
And acronym is an Americanism for abbreviation :)
In most other languages, acronym is only used for initialisms that are pronounced as a word like laser or radar.
Re: (Score:2)
We do love our acronyms. Our military has its own special language comprised entirely of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The OED (a British dictionary, I believe) says otherwise.
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/display/50002101?keytype=ref&ijkey=BW.ifJFCYzhE6 [oed.com]
It also says it's an American coinage.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why you've never heard of it before, it's a perfectly cromulent word.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that this is worthy slashdot material. USTR probably spends a lot of time on only-vaguely-peripherally-related-to-slashdot steel and potatoes stuff; but they are also, as with ACTA, one of the likely candidates to be writing the (horribly dystopian) IP-related international agreements that are going to strongly affect a lot of topics of interest to slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your name is quite ironic. Step back a sec and let's take a look at this:
Your question on Bush - well, that might be somewhat subjective, but you can easily judge that for yourself by looking around /., yeah?
I also see a really serious disconnect between the content of TFA and your doom-laden proclaimation of "typical posting ... he's the same old boss." Yes, the dept. blurb is provocative. But it's, you know, not always the most serious part of the posting.
When "the other side," whomever you perceive the
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I read your journal- you're certainly consistent.
Journal by Reality Master 201 on 09:59 PM October 6th, 2006: I seldom bother checking the messages that I get on Slashdot, since they're usually nothing particularly interesting. For shits and giggles, though, I did just a couple minutes ago. Apparently, two people have made me their "foe," just today: morie (227571) and Somegeek (624100) don't seem to like me for some reason. So I went looking back through my comments, and I can't find (given an admittedly cursory and quick glance of about 4 seconds) anywhere that I've interacted with them. Maybe they read something I wrote and decided they don't like me. I took a look at the comments they've made, and they're the typical banal crap you find on Slashdot, nothing remarkable. Me, I decided I wanted to be friends, cause I'm just a nice person way deep down. Also, because making you my foe, particularly because you made me your foe, just seems so... high school. I'd say it's tough being the grown up in all this, but it's not.
So glad you could grace us with your presence; Slashdot needs more grownups who are nice people way deep down.
Re: (Score:2)
No, seriously - suicide is too good for you.
I'll take your word for it.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Don't be coy - I'd love to have you prove me wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
[quote]Blah blah. Fill in typical slashdot posting about how he's the same as the old boss, etc.
What the fuck is with this site? Was there this much focus on every single fucking thing the Bush administration did? Or did the coverage then just focus on the really egregious shit?[/quote]
I'm reposting something someone else wrote on this subject to answer you (with his permission):
George W. Bush had something going for him his last term. Those who hated him had written him off. There was no need to pay atte
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
There was a great deal of criticism of Bush...but we never had any expectations that he'd pay any attention. With Obama there's hope that he'll notice. So some of the criticism is louder.
Also some people don't like other people accepting that there might be some chance of change. Such people don't tend to be very nuanced in their thought processes, so their comments tend to be loud and abrasive.
I'll admit to being a bit of a cynic myself, but at least Obama isn't conducting an outright war on the citizen
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you not realize that it was the current administration's own offices that put the bonus payouts IN the bill as it was passed? You didn't catch that the writers were told by the treasury dept that it needed to go in?
Obama: It's easier to beg forgiveness and feign concern than to ask permission or right a wrong.
Post Effective (Score:4, Insightful)
The review needs to come from the people. Time for a change is right... not time for the same old DC claptrap and underhanded back room deals.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'review' will take 'a few months'. Didn't Obama already spell out his policy on FOIA requests? USTR should now have the message and immediately unclassify the documents in question. This is just typical DC defer and delay tactics.
All the uproar? (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't really heard much "uproar" over anything the Obama administration has done (have they actually done anything yet, really?) In fact he still seems to have a pretty high favorability rating. I admit, however, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, so my experiences might be somewhat biased towards reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who tells you that their global or national perspective is "biased towards reality" is overestimating their own ability.
No one can be certain that their global or national perspectives are biased towards reality, because the information one builds those perspectives upon is delivered by people and factions with their own agendas and goals. The best anyone can do is weigh odds, based on a largely arbitrary scale.
If you aren't omniscient and capable of parallel processing on a massive scale, you can't
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, POTUSBO is still very popular — probably more so than when he won the election. Doesn't mean there can't be uproar. Lots of his decisions are unpopular in certain quarters.
Not all of it is from dittoheads. Christian conservatives are shocked to learn that "I'll listen to you" does not mean "You'll always be happy with my decisions." And all the folks who've been defending Gitmo, business-uber-alles policies, etc for 8 years aren't going to just shut up because they're out of power.
And last but no
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I find the republican leadership arguing that he isn't the second coming of Christ more then the spawn of Satan. I guess the opposite of one might be the other if your convinced enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti SCoC: "The Obama administration has clearly dropped the ball by allowing AIG to pay bonuses. However we will support a bill to tax them back."
Pro SoS: "The Obama administration's proposal to tax the AIG bonuses is just a cynical ploy to deflect attention from the question of when they learned about these bonuses."
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out flaws and direct negligence isn't an accusation of more then that. Pointing out that when confronted with those actions, he attempts to hide from them isn't either.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not "pointing out" anything. They're making allegations, devoid of evidence and deliberately vague.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Easy as hell (Score:5, Insightful)
Pick something you support.
If you are a liberal, label all arguments against your cause as biased crap from a conservative media. Make sure to point out their greed and lack of being right. Make sure to point out how from this day forward you will boycott them.
If you are a conservative, label all arguments against your idea as biased crap from a liberal media. Be sure to point out their general illogic and lack of being right. Make sure to point out how from this day forward you will boycott them.
If you are a Ron Paul supporter, you also must point out the media is actually scared of you. Point out that they are a monopoly and if ${GOVERNMENT} busted them up, Ron Paul would win*. Make sure to point out how from this day forward you will boycott them. Also, make sure to flood their phones, blackberries and other electronic devices with profanity laced letters. That will teach them.
In other words, all media that is against ${YOUR CAUSE} is ${BIASED}.
* and do this with out any hint of irony, what with asking for the government to intervene with a private entity...
Re:Easy as hell (Score:5, Interesting)
Media is biased in so many ways, not strictly on "liberal" (a term I use loosely) or "conservative" (another meaningless label). For instance, when is the last time you've seen a reporter say:
"Listen you dumb shits, stop buying things you can't afford, get out of debt. No, you don't need that new flatscreen HDTV. Shop less, consume less, and save more."
Of course you never hear that, even with the profanity edited out. Because sponsors would have a fit and the network would lose revenue. There's no way the producers would allow that. Just like you'll never hear:
"We're headed for another Great Depression. Could be worse than the last one."
For the same reasons.
Well, ok, there's at least one guy [youtube.com] saying these things on the air, but nobody likes him much; they tend to cut him short.
You'll also never hear anything that's anti-government in a bi-partisan way: about how 85% (or more) of the legislation that gets passed these days is inherently unconstitutional; about the insane 4th amendment violations [aclu.org] across the nation; about how the "War on Drugs" is causing more problems than it (supposedly) solves; about what we did to make terrorists hate us in the first place.
And you'll certainly never hear anything about crazy IP laws going into effect or the RIAA cases (unless they win in court), because the media isn't about to serve up anti-media stories.
All commercial media has a pro-establishment, status quo bias, because that's who's in charge. The majority of our politicians, Republican or Democrat (I prefer the term "Republocrat"), are pretty much the same - they're all right-wing fascists when you take into account the full political spectrum that's available. Any "liberal" or "conservative" bias you may attach to it is meaningless compared to the bias that actually exists.
Re: (Score:2)
You left out the primary media bias. The primary bias is: Is this entertaining enough?
That overrules truth, honesty, and even occasionally the preference of sponsors.
P.S.: About those things you say I'll never encounter: I've encountered most of them at least once. They're just very infrequent. Outright censorship is only applied to unimportant things, like a "wardrobe malfunction". For important things they don't use censorship, but rather shaping. They reduce the frequency and move them to unimpor
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
what the fuck is the liberal media and where can I find it?
MSNBC or CBS News is the best place to start.
Want an example, last night on the Rachael Maddow show, what were they going over... AIG, TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) making fun of mentally challenged kids, Tim "TurboTax" Geithner lying about "what he knew and when he knew it", Chris Dodd lying about adding the provision that let AIG give the bonuses.... NO, how deregulation from 8-10 years ago created this mess (read in "8 years of failed Bush policies")*. It is as if nothing else even happened.
*Actually happened before Bush was elected, but they weren't going to let the facts get in the way of this one.
I seem to also remember the Wasington Post coming out and saying that the media during the campiagn was far more favorable to Obama. Here is one example http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081101/COLUMNIST14/811010373/-1/COLUMNIST [toledoblade.com]
Re: (Score:1)
You were reading it right before you posted? Under that chair over there. Elvis is everywhere, and so is the liberal media!
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably about the Obama apointee Timothy Geithner, secretary of US treasury, who "forced" (if you will believe Dodd, another Obama appointee) to amend the law forbidding bailed-out companies to distribute bonuses to top executives. Now, nobody is accusing Obama of anything, directly - eccept Obama himself, when he says "The buck stops with me".
But yeah, Geithner is part of the Obama administration. Now go ahead and shout "la la la I can't hear you". Fact is, this shit did happen, and people are livid.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
If you don't listen to him, then you only know what others want you to think and feel about him... Mainly "feel".
Mmm abbreviations... (Score:2)
Quickly! If you squint, you can make a sailboat out of all those abbreviations. And is this review as thorough as recovery.gov is transparent?
Make sure.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the abbreviation ETLA is preferred over FLA.
Fixed (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"
"For all intents and purposes..."
The ABBR tag! (Score:5, Insightful)
Use it dammit! If you are gonna insist on not spelling out TLA's for us, at least spell them out using the proper HTML!
That said, it is only polite to spell out your damn acronyms. This audience knows WTF "WTF" stands for and I dont have to spell out HTML either, but KEI? Is that like "Key Enterprise Induction", "Keynan Earned Income", or "Krusty's Entertainment Industry"? Who knows!
Re: (Score:2)
Testing, <abbr>testing</abbr>. Nope doesn't work. Slash strips them out.
I know that WTF stand for Whisky Tango Foxtrot, but I don't know what it means.
Whisky Tango Foxtrot (Score:2)
Is itself an acronym. However, I'll take the example set by the Slashdot editors and not spell it out for you. After all, we here at Slashdot know everything already. If we needed to spell it out to you, you really should be working in a field more suitable for you--like picking lint out of driers at a laundromat.
Now obviously you and I both know what Whiskey Tango Foxtrot stands for. Really I'm just belaboring the obvious while I kill time as the store boys order an extra-wide Top Hat. As you know, it
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I know what "Whisky Tango Foxtrot" means. Somebody even wrote a book about it [amazon.com].
I'd flame you for not getting my joke, except I have to admit the joke was pretty lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you know what Wisky Tango Foxtrot means or I wouldn't have brought it up.
"Humor", by the way, is for unprincipled fools who need acronyms spelled out for them--acronyms like "Whisky Tango Foxtrot". Jokes, too, are for the uneducated, unenlightened hordes just outside the gates of Slashdot Central.
Where am I going with this? Obviously, *obviously*, anybody with a clue knows already. Obviously, Slashdot editors should never spell out abbreviations of any kind at any time. We here are so smart we
Re: (Score:1)
"Keep Eating It (KEI) is very impressed with the United States Transvestite Representative (USTR) decision to undertake a review of USTR transparency efforts."
Re: (Score:2)
Great, that's all we need, a transvestite dressed us in drag with clear plastic clothing while we are trying to eat diner.
How about if.. (Score:1, Offtopic)
How about if Obama does a thorough review of all of his OWN policies, to see if they match up with all of the shit he promised he'd do when he was campaigning and the constitution...
Re: (Score:2)
.
That's already being done. [factcheck.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No weight is applied to which promises are truly relevant. Coupled with an overall liberal slant.... again do your own fact check.
Re: (Score:1)
Viewed with a cynical eye, factcheck uses careful spin on mentioning some facts, while no actually disclosing ALL facts for the reader to peruse. I specifically noted excerpts given from enactments during the Bush administration used to deride claims that the national health record system is not new in steering treatment.
Firstly, the 2004 legislation does not provide teeth, as it is written. The current legislative excerpt is notably absent for comparison. The FACT is that the recommendations of a money-
OWN (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry, but you didn't spell out what O.W.N. means. Does that stand for "Obama's Winning Number" or "Omaha Women's Network"?
You are as bad as the editors here. Please define your terms before using them.
(dare I leave off anything suggesting this isn't snark?)
How about this acronym? WTF (Score:1)
Only stopped at this article long enough to post this... can't be bothered with indecipherable shite.