Internet Blacklist Back In Congress 278
Adrian Lopez writes "A bill giving the government the power to shut down Web sites that host materials that infringe copyright is making its way quietly through the lame-duck session of Congress, raising the ire of free-speech groups and prompting a group of academics to lobby against the effort. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced in Congress this fall by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). It would grant the federal government the power to block access to any Web domain that is found to host copyrighted material without permission."
Before I even clicks the links in summary... (Score:2)
... I produce the sound of loud laughter aimed at any blacklisting effort ever made.
Re: (Score:2)
Like adblock?
Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (Score:4, Informative)
You might want to read up. This isn't 'blacklisting' the way you are likely to think about it. This is removing items from the Root DNS server.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Spreading copywritten materials (unless that includes the Bible or some other holy text, i suppose)
> does not fall under the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or the press,
No. But revoking one's voice in public does.
This is like taking away someone's right to vote because they are a felon. Except the felon at least got some due process.
Re: (Score:2)
So then we use an alternate root. Seems simple enough, once again the Internet is flexible enough to route around damage.
Re:Before I even clicks the links in summary... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just wait for them to add an amendment here, or on some other bill...making it illegal for a US citizen to use alternate roots.
While I agree with your sentiment...there is real danger letting them set a precedent of this fashion, and we need to stop this kind of shit right in its current tracks.
I applaud current moves to try to get rid of earmark/pork barrel spending.
Lets also try to convince the congress critters to quit fscking with the internet (something they really don't understand to begin with)...and leave it free.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see them enforce that. I can easily rent a VPS in another nation and tunnel all my DNS queries to that. Good luck breaking ssh.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The three strikes laws in Europe emphasize the fact that action is taken without due process. This is essentially the same concept applied at websites (without 3 strikes) rather than at consumers.
The whole idea of fair use is a defense instead of the default (assumed guilty without trial)--and the inconsistent manner that it's applied--and the idea that you can be accused (as with the DMCA) without evidence, shows that anything of this sort is rife with potential abuse.
And, why was this guy elected again t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"And, why was this guy elected again to office?"
Perhaps because a majority of the population consists both of indoctrinated drones and people who feel that carrying on with their little unimportant activities is more important than defending their freedom and privacy?
"He should have the brains to understand what this legislation (written by the lobbyists) is proposing?"
Of course he does. He just doesn't care because of the money he's getting for doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a scary thought, I know. I don't want to lose my "special" girls that I hang out with daily. The mindset would be simple for them, "Well we took care of those pesky pirates, lets just move forward and t
Re: (Score:2)
Pirates are a nebulous group with no leadership, no lobbyists, and most importantly no money to direct at the people who need to be movitated to "see things our way".
Much like the gambling industry, the p-rn industry will make damned sure that whoever gets whatever they need to stay in business. How many billion a year industry is it again?
Re: (Score:2)
So what happens when Google is found guilty? (Score:2)
Too big to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Here's me, Joe Nobody, I just uploaded all the Harry Potters to my Google Docs and spread it all over.
Re: (Score:2)
Post some of that to the comments section of Fox News and the New York Times and lets see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Too big to fail.
No, they'll just pull the plug on Canada until Canada backs off.
No way this could be misused (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current method of doing that (child porn) was creeping out even the Evil Organization to Neuter the Internet, so they decided to buy a less disgusting alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't bother reading the summary, did we? That's why it says "without permission". Free clue: when you push that "submit" button, you are not just granting permission to /. to carry your material, you are instructing them to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't read the post, did we? gp specifically said finding infringements which means "without permission". So exclude for a moment anything that was posted with permission because that's not the topic. Consider only things that might not be posted with permission.
Not sure what point you're making. Slashdot's footer says
which supports gp's post. That
Re:Freaking Post (Score:2)
Hi there.
Do I have permission to use the text of your post for my own purposes in any way which is not intentionally slanderous? Wait, cancel that - what if we nationally publicized the Creative Commons abbreviations?
Meanwhile, how do we actually prove the original source of anything? Anything created by a corp will be copyrighted by a corp and anything created anywhere else will be stolen by a corp and faux-copyrighted to them with them daring you looking at the fangs of Harding in Legal.
Priorities! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly? Important legislation? Really?
You think there are laws missing in your country?
I'd take the tax burden to double each and every lawmakers salary if they all provided a sworn statement under penalty of death never to pass a new law. I'll triple their salary if they also swear to go through every bit of existing legislation and throw out anything that is unconstitutional or useless.
Damm democrat congresscritters (Score:2)
You gotta help out your Hollywood Friends before you lose the majority.
You're as bad as the Republicans (i.e. shills for megacorps).
Stupid (Score:2)
domain name system (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let them keep it, as long as they stay the hell away from IPs. Many of us already use a manual host file or local DNS to blacklist, just as easy to add the "correct" entries back in.
Re: (Score:2)
Proxy to where? the domain will be removed.
Hardly suprising (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been saying for a long time that the day will come very soon when typing in thepiratebay.org or other torrent site will only get you a "This site has been blocked for illegal material" message. the only question was whether it would happen by government mandate or voluntary ISP decision.
Re:Hardly suprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Once IPv6 is in place, IP addresses will be cheap, illicit DNS server roots will be added to your DNS list, and voila, blocking will be meaningless. Oh sure, the *official* DNS servers will be blocking tpb, and I suppose someone will be trying to block IP addresses, but it will be a game of cat and mouse where the cat is always two steps behind the mouse.
All any of this does is force the pace of innovation in precisely the opposite direction such legislation purports to be attempting to kill.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh sure, we'll always be able to play the "chase the latest IP address of said torrent sight" game. But it will never be as simple as typing in thepiratebay.org again. You'll have to go to a site or alternate DNS server to find the latest IP address (and possibly demonstrate that you're not a cop to get access to it), and that's assuming that your ISP hasn't started blocking all the alternate DNS servers and sites with IP address listings for pirate sites too (which they probably will start doing at some po
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IPv6 will make it easier, but even now, all a site has to do, at the absolute most is change their IP address and then hit the social networking sites to spread it. Hell, I bet someone could hack together a p2p distributed "dns" program in less than a few hours. A bit of pgp to authenticate a site, and they'd be able to push a new IP add
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is, how will they do it? DNS? IP block lists?
In the end people will find ways around it. Expect to see P2P overlay networks like TOR and stuff like Freenet explode with popularity. Freenet in particular could EASILY host a static txt page with magnet URI hash addresses to torrents....and it would probably be pretty quick even on Freenet.
Of course the above may not be what happens, but I can come up with a couple of ideas just off the top of my head...well it will not take long for others t
More lists? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all we need, is more lists for the government to maintain. They do a bang up job already with no-fly.
Not that it matters... (Score:2)
Not that it matters anymore, but I just wrote both of my senators explaining to them how this will be used as a club to quash free speech. Shame they both get so much money from Disney.
If they include "links to", (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope they realize there is no real way to distinguish a google torrent search from a pirate bay torrent search.
On the other hand, actual hosting- might be trickier- just Youtube then.
Pointless (Score:3, Insightful)
As soon as they pass legislation like this, people will just move to using proxy servers. Proxy servers lists change hourly. And I do not expect this to survive a challenge in court -- it is a restriction of trade and commerce, and it will only be a matter of time before they shut down the wrong site, cost them millions, and are forced to pay restitution.
So let's be clear -- this isn't about piracy. It's about killing free speech. Because no sooner will they pass this, than they'll add a rider saying they can shut down sites which host "terrorist" material as well... and then Greenpeace, PETA, and a lot of other political undesireables will find themselves on the list.
GO AMERICA!
Lame Duck Congress (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lame Duck Congress (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd only think that if you assumed that legislators were good and kind-hearted people who were merely corrupted by the toxic Washington political/lobbying environment. If you assume they're bastards through and through, it makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, you'd think they'd take this opportunity as lame ducks to pass the legislation that's actually *good for the people* despite being unpopular with the powerful lobbies, because there wouldn't be many repercussions.
Of course, being a congressman who will be out of a job when the session ends, it's also an excellent opportunity to make or help some "friends" (i.e. lobbyists) on your way out who then might be in a position to "reward" you with a nice cushy job at one of their client's corporations; nobody likes to be unemployed after all, especially in today's economy.
"Rule of Law" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what what would happen. The Attorney General would decide a website is infringing, a judge would rubberstamp the AG's request, and finally the website's domain would be shut down and locked (or, for international websites, blocked by US ISPs).
COICA (Score:2)
COICA? What, no backronym? This really is a Lame Duck Congress...
Re: (Score:2)
You know what they say: Everybody is equal. But some are more equal...
Re: (Score:2)
Or, the Golden Rule:
He who has the MOST gold....makes the rules!!
Re: (Score:2)
no amount of 'equality' legislation in the political arena, can offset this economic power; the one with the gold makes the rule.
As an interesting side note - Canada has some wacky ways regarding that. In order to work on government contracts the government may specify that you meet certain criteria to call you an "equal opportunity employer". Basically meaning, do you have enough female managers, have you employed enough visible minorities, do you have anyone disabled in the company - that kinda stuff.
However, none of these are requirements that any actual arm of the government has to abide by. Just a company working with the govern
Re: (Score:2)
However, none of these are requirements that any actual arm of the government has to abide by. Just a company working with the government. Doesn't that seem strange?
Strange? Well, in an absolute sense maybe. But when has any arm of any government ever felt explicitly compelled to write regulations that apply equally well to said arm?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>ayn randists who would still attempt selling free market/capitalist bullshit to us
I'm a libertarian (small, weak government), not an anarchist (no government), but just stop and think: If there was no government and no congress, then there would be no COICA. And no COICA would mean no way for the Corporations from stealing our stuff. We could pirate books, songs, shows without limit.
So what you should be railing against is a powerful government, which is being used to suppress the citizenry.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You may wish to explore the Metagovernment project [metagovernment.org].
It resembles libertarianism in some ways, in that it is completely opposed to coercive government. But it differs in that it has no opposition to the idea of governance. That is, as long as there is a consensus behind the governance.
The funny thing is, when people hear about the idea of consensus government, the most common criticism is, "but how could we pass laws if we had to find a consensus on each one?" And I suspect you know the libertarian answer: wh
bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a libertarian (small, weak government), not an anarchist (no government), but just stop and think: If there was no government and no congress, then there would be no COICA. And no COICA would mean no way for the Corporations from stealing our stuff. We could pirate books, songs, shows without limit.
instead, your rulers would be the corporations. with their private 'security' divisions.
what you speak of, is basically feudalism. that very environment gave rise to feudalism in early middle ages.
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
He said limited government, not no government. I have never heard of a libertarian who did not support a criminal justice system and police force designed to protect civilians.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The incarceration of convicts is now a private matter. There are plenty of private security forces. At what point is the public police force and criminal justice system merely a cog in a private system? At what point has the balance of power shifted enough to the private sector that it has a significant influence on the public sector in these areas?
It's all a matter of detail. And the devil sits right there.
Re: (Score:2)
I've run into anarchist libertarians online. They actually give me a feeling that they'd be great to do business with, as they seem to have blind spots in their thinking that would make them instinctively honest.
Re: (Score:2)
A limited government doesn't have the power to keep a competitor off your turf. Any corporation that becomes so large and evil as to oppress the people will find itself with a competitor that will exploit the peoples disdain for it. With the government exploiting the commerce clause so thoroughly lately, they're as much to blame for monopolies as the corporations themselves.
Can you imagine all the lobbyists being sent back out of government offices with this very simple statement: "Sorry, we have no powe
Re: (Score:2)
financial power, the control over resources and services that make up life, IS the power. government's power would always pale compared to that, because financial power would always be able to effect its way into the government system eventually, and 'corrupt' your government. it is a foregone conclusion.
even in a place where corruption would be totally prevented, the financial power would be able to make its own candidate get heard and seen more to the extent of rendering other cand
Re:bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I tried to find a well phrased way to head off this kind of crappy reply. I didn't find one. So here goes the tl;dr version:
Without a corporate charter, such 'bands' would be much smaller and fewer than current corporations. Why? Ownership and trust issues. There would be no corporation to own any of the assets, just a bunch of people. Each member of the company would have a big interest in making sure one of the others doesn't just walk off with all the stuff. Or sell it and disappear with the cash. These trust issues would be a huge limit to the size and number of companies. Just think of how much smaller corporations would be if they couldn't do IPOs or issue more stock. And without corporate charters and corporate law, this would be impossible.
With no stockholders to screw, or stock valuations to inflate, many of the abuses that CEOs currently do would be pointless. Pumping up the stock for short-term gains and long-term pain would be stupid if the company was run by the owners of the company instead of some CEO looking for a big bonus and golden parachute. It wouldn't happen. Cutting corners in product safety to make a fast buck looks a lot less inviting when you go to jail for manslaughter when things go bad, instead of losing some of your bonus.
Corporate charters are very relevant to our current situation. They are the current, but not the key problem.
"its not a contemporary issue. it is an issue of social dynamics -> if groups are allowed to acquire more power than others, they dominate others. this was so in 5000 Bc, this is as such now."
You are correct. This is the key problem. Shall we explore how this happens? There are two basic methods that have been used throughout history, and they both amount to the same thing in the end. Bad government.
Method 1: The wealthy/ambitious get the current government to pass laws giving them special status of some sort that allows them to dominate. Examples are special laws for 'nobles', inheritance laws, like primogeniture to keep the wealth in one piece, and regulations that keep out smaller competitors. (EPA, OSHA, and licenses of most kinds fit here). Corporate law - including the charter are a modern version of this.
Method 2: Hire thugs/soldiers and take over by direct force. The result of this is to become the de facto if not de jur government. Feudal europe is a good example of this method.
Notice in both cases this is a problem of government. A proper 'limited' government would prevent both methods from happening. In fact the emphasis should be on 'proper' and not 'limited' - a fact that most limited government advocates don't seem to get either. They seem to think that free market competition would prevent this. They don't seem to get that each and every business is trying to prevent competition, and only government power can sustain a free market. I don't claim to know exactly what form of government it would take to achieve this. I am hopeful, but not certain that it is even possible. Mainstream Libertarian ideas usually don't understand these points. They would be sadly disappointed in the results of the kind of government they advocate, and largely because what you have stated would indeed happen. What libertarians do get is that a big government with lots of regulations is inefficient, expensive and ripe for it's own brand of tyranny. And it still doesn't prevent the strong/rich from dominating the weak/poor.
T
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Libertarianism doesn't take into account the Golden Rule the parent post brought up or power vacuums. In Libertarian Fantasy Land, Strong Contracts Are All We'll Ever Need. So, of course, what will happen is everyone in an economic position of power will hang a contract on everything. And I mean EVERYTHING. The door to Krogers will have a EULA you that you agree to by walking past it. And that is just the direct approach that will be taken if Libertarian philosophy is taken and implemented at face valu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And what would the voters do ? (Score:3, Insightful)
EVERYthing in a capitalist society, hinges on money. that includes the potential of getting elected. you need to have enough financial power to be able to even get your voice heard, if you are a candidate. going from town to town with train, doesnt cut it anymore. you need to buy ads, appear in mass media, get your name and opinions heard, to be even considered a candidate. you cant just be a candidate by registering as a candidate in the elections.
and, even financial power doesnt cut it
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I find your stance hilariously funny.
You should give me half of your income each year so that we don't allow you to gain more money then others. That's ok, I won't be making more then you because I will quit my job just to make your scenario fair. This way no one get too much power and we don't have to worry about the market economic scams like you being able to earn a living with the toils of your own effort or you being able to invest in anything you find worthwhile. This way we won't have to worry about
Re: (Score:2)
So if you don't allow any individual to gain more money than any other individual, then what do you get?
What do you do to those pesky folks trying to make more money than others?
Who determines who "has enough" and who doesn't.
There is a REASON that Communism attracts the kind of despotic, tyrannical leaders it does. Because it REQUIRES control of EVERYONE.
I'm sorry, I'd much rather have the amount of money I have, and allow others to have more (perhaps much more) than bow to someone else's view of what I (
and (Score:2)
hahaha (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But we (the US) ARE a capitalist country. We've always been one...it has been what has propelled us to be a superpower.
And right now, the Dem's are throwing socialistic (to us) ideals, programs and agendas at us over here, and people are merely wan
Re: (Score:2)
But we (the US) ARE a capitalist country. We've always been one...it has been what has propelled us to be a superpower.
rich land resources, huge immigration in early days, and in the 20th century, europe getting destroyed in the world war and u.s. making all the countries except eastern bloc into a dominion of its own to use as a colonial market propelled you to being a superpower.
and, that didnt even happen with normal mechanics of 'free' market and capitalism either. in 3rd world countries, approx 12+ puppet dictators were installed, all of whom which are now wanted under crimes against humanity, due to the genocides t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You left out one big fact, Germany one of the most socialist of them all is bailing them out.
Re: (Score:2)
And your point is what? Just because socialism has raped European countries doesn't mean that the Americans should allow it here too. There is a separation for a reason- it's because we are not them and they are not us. I don't care if you don't like it, get over it. When talking about American politics, keep it in an American perspective.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What, exactly, are these socialist ideas? Who espouses them, exactly? And, if true, why are these socialist ideals bad? The semantic content of your post boils down to "Booga! booga! booga! socialists! Booga booga! Are you scared yet? Should I say the word socialist some more until you are?"
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm fairly far to the right but I think you make a very good point. Socialism as an idea isn't bad at all. I just don't think it ought to be government enforced or even implemented. In a prosperous society, I think it can be quite an advantage to pool resources together in order to take care of a group... I'd even likely subscribe to some independent systems like that. I just have a problem with enforcing that on people who aren't interested in adding their resources to the pool.
Heck, in a re
Re:In the land of the free (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with America, it's government and how its constitution before asking such obviously answered questions. How about the socialized health care for one, Obama and the leadership of the democrat party espouses them, and yes they are bad because A: the US federal government does not have the constitutional authority to impose systems like that in the constitution's present state, B: there is a way to amend the US constitution in order to give the federal government the authority but for some insane reason, ignoring the US constitution seems to be the route chosen. C: this equals little more then an attempt to destroy the fabric of the US constitution which like it or not, will result in things like the Bill of rights being completely decimated in the process.
It's not necessarily that they are bad ideas, It's that the constitution doesn't allow it and if you think things like the freedom of speech, or the freedom of religion- or even the non-existent constitutional separation of church and state, the right to a fair trial and so on are somehow able to survive, you would be wrong. This is because of they can ignore the constitution based around political ideology, then they can ignore the entire constitution based around political ideology. In other words, if they skip the necessary processes required to give the government the power and authority, then they can skip the necessary requirements for the government to take rights away.
And yes, even FDR knew his programs were unconstitutional. In fact, there was a supreme court battle over most of them that ended up ending with FDR ignoring the court and the court invented the expansion of the interstate commerce clause to avoid a constitutional meltdown at the time. The US federal government is not equivalent to parliament or any other country's central government. It is by design only intended to be a state face for foreign diplomacy, an arbitrator for disputes between the states, and an overseer of trade between the states. This is why the country is called the United States of America. -It's a collection of State bound by a common defense. Not some over ridding power structure that controls the people. It retains it's authenticity through the consent of the governed and that consent was given though the US constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
...and the funny thing is that the "champions of keeping the government out of your business" will cheerfully go along with this.
This will likely be one of the few things that the Republicans don't throw down their usual obstructionism over.
Re:Obama will not veto this. (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am Canadian, so I didn't vote for Obama (although I would have).
The Obama administration has turned out far worse than GWB's eight years with respect to the digital age. For all the command they had of social media and running under the 'change' they were bringing with them, they sure seem to want to bow to their old masters.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, I told you so. I still remember the Slashdot Obama love during the election - got modded down pretty heavily for some comments that, today, would be voted up. The public is fickle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obama will not veto this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody bothered to actually ask what kind of "change" he was talking about. D'oh!
I get so tired of hearing this sentiment. I know exactly what kind of "change" he was talking about. He specifically stated he intended to change the way Washington politics worked. He promised to get rid of the partisan bickering, gridlock and blatant disregard for the populace that define Washington politics.
Unfortunately, he got into office and concentrated on his progressive agenda instead. The conservatives stopped trying to actually get anything done, and instead focused on a 24/7 dirty PR campaign. In an inept attempt at fighting the smear attacks, Mr. Obama sank into the same partisan bickering that he had previously railed against.
I liked him and voted for him. Even now, I like him better than anyone likely to run against him. But, he has not lived up to his promises. He's become just another politician, doing what politicians do. That's why the left lost their energy, and the right was able to make some gains in the recent election.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia people had a use for sacks of potatoes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, I wouldn't count on that. I don't know about the other new Republican senators, but this certainly goes against Rand Paul's ideals. He's going to be a huge and welcome thorn in the side of both parties.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, how does he feel about the filibuster? That's been the typical GOP response:
Dem: We need a comprehensive, effective, holistic, and economic means to initiate the process of x
Rep: I don't know what you just said, but I'm gonna filibuster it!
Dem: Aww, nuts!
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. My Blue state congress-critters are republicans and they are all for pandering to Hollywood despite the distance between here and there.
Re: (Score:2)
What's worse, is that "is found to" is something the republicans gladly will leave in the hands of the capital instead of the capitol.
I.e., what protects our esteemed elected congressmen from eventually placing all the powers in the hand of their Lear Jet buddies, allowing *IAA and Murdoch to send takedown notices directly to the root nameservers?
And what will prevent this from being abused? I can fully see the next election campaign where candidates web sites get delisted over claims of copyrights, follow
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess....you think a Democrat would have been better?
Re: (Score:2)
The guy he was running against? No, Jack Conway is a corporate tool.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a rock would have been better. At least it doesn't say "No" just to be contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Show me where Paul denies it. Go on. Ought to be easy to find, right?
Give me a break. He flat out admitted it was all true.
Re:If you don't like him, then don't sing his prai (Score:4, Insightful)
"I am with the Government and I want to control everything and I don't give a shit if it hurts someone."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have always found it depressing that of all the possible issues the Democrats and Republicans could unify over, that this issue was one of the few. Both major parties are for strong copyright and strong punishments for noncommercial infringement.
Speaking as someone who strongly supports the Democrats on all other issues, my party is dead wrong on the copyright issue. It seems as though the only political party that understands the internet is the Libertarian party.
As such, I believe copyright law needs a
Re: (Score:2)
It seems as though the only political party that understands the internet is the Libertarian party.
I suspect that they have the wrong idea on net neutrality. Aren't libertarians mostly opposed?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, I know, but I mentioned Obama because nobody here has faith in the Republicans anyway, so there's no need to bring up that bit of obviousness. Of course I got modded down troll for telling the truth. The Obama fans still have HOPE...