Rep. Darrell Issa Requests Public Comments On ACTA 186
langelgjm writes "After repeated dismissals by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Congressman Darrell Issa has taken matters into his own hands by posting a copy of ACTA online and asking for public comments. ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, is a secretly negotiated multilateral trade treaty with the potential for profoundly affecting the Internet. 'ACTA represents as great a threat to an open Internet as [do] SOPA and PIPA and was drafted with even less transparency and input from digital citizens,' Issa said."
Please (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, dear god, read some of it and post an intelligent comment. If you put in a generic rant, you merely become a statistic. However, if ou present a relevant comment, they are required to annotate it.
My comment is thus (Score:5, Interesting)
This agreement was written by the U.S. entertainment industry. It was written by them with one, and only one, purpose in mind: to advance the interests of their own industry at the expense of the freedoms of every other group and citizen in every country that signs it. It was secured in the U.S. by the open bribery of the U.S. Congress and President. It has been foisted on the rest of the world through the hostile use of U.S. economic might, in illegal secret negotiations that violate the laws of almost every country involved. It only serves to harm the international reputation of the U.S. and its citizenry at the expense of the interests of one industry.
It should be soundly rejected by all remaining free counties.
Re:My comment is thus (Score:5, Informative)
This agreement was written by the U.S. entertainment industry.
No it was originally written by the entertainment industries of both the US and Japan and then the Canadian and EU entertainment industries joined in. I know it's popular to blame all such things entirely on the US but there is just as much complicity from other countries in these treaties than these one-dimensional criticisms would lead you to believe.
Re: (Score:3)
The European entertainment industry is owned by American companies. Although you are right about Japan, Sony plays a major part in these legislations.
How about this? (Score:5, Informative)
This single agreement represents the undermining of thousands of years worth of social evolution, and those in public office who support it should be immediately dismissed, criminally charged, and incarcerated for their remaining years on this Earth.
Changelog:
elrous0 - original comment
Idou - revised to blame global entertainment and added some action items
Re: (Score:2)
So... take out the "U.S." and we're good to go.
Re: (Score:2)
So... take out the "U.S." and we're good to go.
terrorist talk!
"its been noted, citizen. its been noted."
(sigh. I wish this was ONLY a movie quote from dr. zhivago and not Real Life(tm) as we know it, today).
Re: (Score:3)
The Canadian entertainment industry is literally a subsidiary of the American entertainment industries.
Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (Score:3)
Okay, this may have me holding my nose and filling in the oval next to Romney or Gingrich in November.... Obama signed ACTA in Janurary 2012 [webpronews.com] Mr. President, how could you?
Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because those two certainly won't uphold corporate interests? If you hold your nose and vote for either of them, it won't be taken as a sign that the American people oppose ACTA. It will be taken as a sign that people want more government intrusion in their bedrooms and more rights for corporations. If you want to give more power to the women-are-sluts-and-corporations-are-heroic-people party, don't come crying when the obvious results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can you be surprised?
At what point during his presidency has Obama shown he is anything other than a corporate stooge?
Re: (Score:2)
He's not in the lame duck second term yet... he could be out of office as early as January 2013 if he keeps this {bleep} up.
Re:Obama SIGNED ACTA... WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I'm not thoroughly disgusted that he supported this thing... but before we make this one partisan, please note that ACTA was being developed under the prior administration as well (and both were keeping the details secret from the public.)
In other words, of course a Democrat will rubber-stamp something for Hollywood, but don't trust a Republican to automatically do the right thing on this issue. A ton of them were supporting SOPA too. Make sure they're on record and loudly opposing this stuff like Rep. Issa thankfully is, and keep on them to make sure they aren't just sinking this to bring in their own "save the children" bill to do the same thing.
Software developers, web designers, and other Internet-connected forces are woefully underrepresented in Congress, whether it's regulations or worker protections, and they don't typically unionize so the Democrats don't seem to have much use for them. A lot go Ron Paul but I'm kind of surprised Republicans don't see this as a group they could reach out to. Especially since it's obsoleting traditional media and Hollywood. I'd rather the Democrats do it, but they seem to think treating Internet users like garbage is the way to go... but then the Republicans will happily screw them over as well by sinking Net Neutrality. No wonder a lot go Ron Paul.
Re: (Score:3)
Please just vote third party. It doesn't matter which. As you realize, both major parties are unacceptable. Voting for one over the other is throwing your vote away. The only vote that matters is a vote for change which simply cannot come from either major party.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there anybody running a 3rd party campaign that has managed to get themselves onto enough ballots to potentially capture enough electoral votes to win?
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.lp.org/ballot-access [lp.org]
Re: (Score:2)
third party DOES NOT WORK in the US. stop being ignorant.
what it will accomplish is to send votes to the bad guys.
ALL we have right now is 'vote for the one who sucks the least'.
voting 3rd party does not help and, in fact, can work against you.
very sad. this goes against my ideals but ideals and the Real World(tm) are not always intersecting.
find who is the most evil guy and vote for the guy who is viable (sigh, sorry, but you know what I mean) and then vote his/her way. ie, vote to make sure the most ev
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is actually become involved in the primaries. Forget a third party, do exactly what the tea baggers managed to do, take over an existing party. A third party has been effectively blocked in the US via corrupt anti-democratic US state laws.
By far the majority of Americans routinely ignore the primaries, then act surprised and confused, when it comes to the election and find they have to pick from red corporate candidate or the blue corporate candidate, dumbo or the jackass, the pretend conservati
Re: (Score:3)
Voting for the third party is the only thing that can work. Voting for either major party only ensures that the two party hegemony can continue forever. That is throwing your vote away.
On the other hand, if each major party starts losing elections because of third party voters that gives the major parties motivation to address electoral reform.
find who is the most evil guy and vote for the guy who is viable (sigh, sorry, but you know what I mean) and then vote his/her way. ie, vote to make sure the most
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to hold you nose while voting, you're probably voting for the wrong people. Vote for the pirate party or the libertarian party or anyone else, really. If there's a significant increase in votes for other parties that'll scare both the Democrats and the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Constitutional requirement that the Senate must approve all trade agreements?
Protip: That's not what the Constitution actually says.
reading it will just piss me off but I will do so. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So a republican wishing to jab Obama does the right thing by posting a secret treaty online.
It's no longer secret. It has been officially opened as soon as the first countries started signing it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=581&Itemid=70 [house.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
So a republican wishing to jab Obama does the right thing by posting a secret treaty online. And he's a California republican as well - land of the Entertainment Industry. Does this count as a good thing or a bad thing? I'm thinking it's both but it works out for the citizens so it's a net good despite potential partisan motivations.
To butcher a quotation that I'm unable to find online right now: you don't want to have to depend on having good people in order to get a good outcome, you'd like to set things up so that the system produces good results even when the people operating it aren't necessarily good themselves. Maybe you suspect Issa's motives (personally I don't, but your mileage may vary), but if the outcome heads toward a desirable goal, then I'd say things are working as they should. Bad motives, good result, I'll take it ov
Two faced sludge (Score:3)
Tries to stop government from demanding Open Access to scientific publications sponsored by government.
How much Elsevier is paying you, Darrell?
My comment on ACTA (Score:5, Interesting)
Opening Paragraph - "The Parties to this Agreement"
This chapter establishes the tone of the treaty and from the beginning obfuscates the differences between actual property/trademarks (and their centuries of legal baggage) and the relatively new concept of intellectual property and copyright infringement. it also emphases focus on the digital world and copyright. The treaty itself offers few guidelines in respect to protecting citizens from specifically dangerous counterfeit products, making no differentiations based on physical safety, low quality counterfeits.
Also introduced here is the concept of balance of the the rights and interests of the relevant right holders, service providers, and users. This is a common talking point of the media lobby, and is used often to justify increasing the rights of IP holders at the expense of the rights of internet operators and citizens fundamental rights to free speech, privacy. The language is crafted to imply a sense of fairness and balance, however, civil liberties and human rights are enshrined at the highest levels in law. Weather the ideology of Intellectual Property should hold equal standing should be an issue of vigorous debate and not an issue to be taken at face value.
Article 5 part (l)
Right holder is defined in the treaty as including "includes a federation or an association having the legal standing to assert rights in intellectual property". it's worth mention that this agreement is designed primarily to hold these organisations interests ahead of individuals creative rights holders.
Article 8: INJUNCTIONS
"Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to issue an order against a party to desist from an infringement, and inter alia, an order to that party or, where appropriate, to a third party over whom the relevant judicial authority exercises jurisdiction, to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce."
This definition is vague and very much open to interpretation. What goods are we talking about here? physical goods like VCRs, Cassette recorders, DVD burners, or even computers? Software goods that allow the copying of home videos and music production, Real player, Adobe Premier, etc? or even goods in the form of packages by internet service providers, would providing access to a means of a communications channel to the internet, through which copyright infringement might occur count as providing goods that involve copyright infringement?
This kind of uncertainty is often passed down while making local law, and opens individuals and small business to the threat of defending themselves from injunctions, involving expensive legal fees.
Article 9: DAMAGES
This is a tricky section, paragraphs 1 and 2 are presented as mild suggestions of damages, but paragraph 3 states that these suggestions must be implemented as an alternative at the request of the rights holder (defined earlier as media companies). This to me requires participants of ACTA to sign into effective law, the myth that every single illegal download of a copyrighted work represents a lost sale and that the right holder should be compensated as such. In reality this is not the case, and there are several conflicting studies carried out by interest groups and independent researchers around this topic.
This topic is important as you will see later, as an individual downloader of a single song can be classified legally as a mass distributor of the same song and charged for tens of thousands of lost sales as a result. This is what happened in the US thousands of times over since the introduction of the DMCA act, on which ACTA is based.
Article 10: OTHER REMEDIES
This article has huge impact on on physical copyright infringement liability because of it's vagueness, there is no reference to the suitability of the product or regard of if it's fitness for
Issa? (Score:2)
I'm really confused. I thought Issa was a completely evil bad-guy. Is this just pandering on his part, or does he actually have some virtue?
Re: (Score:2)
He's pandering, he sees that Obama's supporters want the deal so he's determined it is bad because of that. He's right this time, but a stopped clock is still right twice a day.
Arrest that pirate! (Score:4, Insightful)
He's posting copyrighted material on the internet!
Re: (Score:2)
And, in enabling the public to annotate the digital rendition of the treaty text, and storing that annotation in a backing server technology, clearly infringing on Amazon's novel, non-obvious, and highly valuable patent [slashdot.org].
The man is clearly an intellectual property scofflaw on the same level as Kim Dotcom. Amazon lawsuit incoming in 5...4...3....
Questionable AMA on Reddit... (Score:2)
I don't know. This guy's resume and accomplishments sound very good, but he just did a pretty questionable AMA (Ask Me Anything) on reddit [reddit.com] yesterday:
A lot of dodging and unanswered questions. At the end of the day, he's yet another typical politician. Just this one is slightly more concerned about technology than the rest of them...
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm confused. Has Obama said he is opposed to ACTA? If so, why are we even having this discussion?
I for one have new hope... (Score:5, Interesting)
...and his name is U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa. Darrell Issa is kicking ass and taking names out there 'in the open' and he deserves your support too.
Re: (Score:3)
He's not a hero, he's just another scumbag politician doing the right thing for the wrong reason here. He's a Republican looking to embarrass the President and Dems because he knows the entertainment industry are Democratic supporters. If this bill were something evil the *oil* industry supported, he would be leading the charge for adoption of it.
*Every* politician is a scumbag. Every. One.
Yes, that means your guy too.
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up.
don't be fooled by random seemingly caring acts by politicians.
ask 'whats in it for them' before you assume they are doing anything for YOUR benefit.
R and D, alike.
don't talk to cops and don't trust politicians. neither have your interests in mind. both are good at making you believe otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey AC, I googled a citation for what you're talking about, because I honestly had no clue. This is very interesting also.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/rep-darrell- [go.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are two things about that story that are quite interesting. The first is that the "story" Fluke wanted to tell was a personal anecdote (hardly fit material for a discussion, unless you are attempting an emotional appeal... which again, is not exactly what we want our laws to be based one). Second, they put the fact that she was a minority in the headline (as if that was the issue) when clearly at least one of the witnesses was already black (so, not the actual issue). And finally, since when was a stu
Re:I for one have new hope... (Score:4, Informative)
And finally, since when was a student at a university considered an expert witness on anything like this? Seriously.
Seriously? A female student at university is exactly the kind of person who is going to be most affected by government policies on birth control. That's exactly the kind of person you want lots of input from.
Let's not forget that she was the oppositions ONLY witness at that hearing. Darrell Issa was only interested in shutting down debate. Shame on him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the issue at question here is whether it is right and legal to force religious organizations to act against their conscience, i.e. to provide health insurance that must includes contraceptives. This isn't government policy on contraceptives: it is government policy setting organizational policy on birth control. As the good Rabbi says in the linked article,
“We are not here because we seek to hurt preventative care of anybody. We are here today because the administration is showing insensitivity to the liberty of conscience.”
You wouldn't be in favor of the government forcing vegan restaurant to server meat, would you? This is very similar, except even more so: this is mo
Re:I for one have new hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel like you might be missing the larger issue here. If we're going to require employers to provide health insurance to their employees, it probably isn't a good idea to allow them to refuse to cover some treatment to which they have a "religious objection", because the end result of that is "an employee doesn't get any medical care that the employer does not like". Contraception is the easiest one for the Republicans to attack so it came up first, but it's by far not the only one. Jehovah's Witnesses are morally opposed to blood transfusion, ultra-Orthodox Jews are opposed to organ transplants, and Christian Scientists are opposed to just about every medical procedure. Should I be denied a blood transfusion (or required to pay the disastrously high out of pocket cost, which is almost as bad) just because my boss doesn't like them? This is a bad precedent to set.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> ultra-Orthodox Jews are opposed to organ transplants
No, we are opposed to those specific organ transplants where the current medical definition of death is not consistent with our traditional definition of death AND the organ must be harvested quickly after death. (That is, we consider the situation to be murdering the donor.) We are not opposed to kidney transplants (as the donor is still alive) or cornea transplants (as the death-to-harvest duration is not critical).
Re: (Score:2)
Our government is based on the principle of the separation of church and state. Therefore our laws must insist that all policies under employment law follow this principle. This means that no employer may subject their employees to policies based on the "church" of the employer. If the employer is against abortion he may not want his health insurance to pay for it, but if this decision is based on a religious conflict it is subjecting the employee to the "church" of the employer and this violates the pr
Re:I for one have new hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the issue at question here is whether it is right and legal to force religious organizations to act against their conscience, i.e. to provide health insurance that must includes contraceptives
Of course it is. I have to pay for all sorts of things that violate my conscience. As a matter of fact, the great majority of my tax dollars are spent on things that are absolutely repugnant to my conscience.
Also, remember what the first amendment says. It doesn't say "religious liberty shall be unrestricted". It says "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion". Laws that give, e.g., the Catholic church special treatment are laws that respect an establishment of religion.
Besides, if you really care about religious liberty, what of that of the employees? It's not the personal religious liberty of the Catholics that's at stake, but their ability to force their religion on their employees. As an athiest employed by a Jesuit research institution, I find this every bit as repugnant to my conscience as they must find contraception.
You wouldn't be in favor of the government forcing vegan restaurant to server meat, would you?
If serving meat had as great of an effect on public health as providing universal birth control, then absolutely.
But I suppose it's OK to force people to act against their conscience, because it's for the common good. Right?
That's the problem! It's for the public good. Why is it that conservatives only object to coercion when the coercion is for the public good? They have no problem forcing people to violate their conscience and pay for harmful wars, or the persecution of Cannabis smokers, etc. But when it comes to a policy that is universally recognized as good for public health, only then do they whine about conscience.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, if you really care about religious liberty, what of that of the employees? It's not the personal religious liberty of the Catholics that's at stake, but their ability to force their religion on their employees. As an athiest employed by a Jesuit research institution, I find this every bit as repugnant to my conscience as they must find contraception.
OK, you lost me on this one. Georgetown University doesn't BAN contraception, it just doesn't include it in its insurance plans. If you want contraceptives, you have to pay for them yourself. (Cost: $12 per month without insurance. Cheaper if you get it from a charity or have insurance.) What are they forcing Fluke to do?
Re: (Score:2)
If serving meat had as great of an effect on public health as providing universal birth control, then absolutely.
This is the key point. There is an enormous amount of evidence that birth control improves public health. From a scientific point of view, it is a no-brainer.
About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Regular use of contraception prevents unintended pregnancy and reduces the need for abortion. Contraception also allows women to determine the timing and spacing of pregnancies, protecting their health and improving the well-being of their children. Contraceptive use saves money by avoiding the costs of unintended pregnancy and by making pregnancies healthier, saving millions in health care expenses. Several contraceptives also have non-contraceptive health benefits, such as decreasing the risk of certain cancers and treating debilitating menstrual problems. Making contraception more affordable is a significant step forward for the health of women and their families.
This quote comes from http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/11/03/testimony-of-douglas-laube-md [rhrealitycheck.org], which also includes citations for the above points. I would also include reduction of teenage pregnancy as an additional plus.
Re: (Score:2)
What are they forcing Fluke to do?
Pay for contraception out of pocket.
Look, if your point is that this is not as devastating as some other health insurance related problems then you're right - the ability for insurance companies to refuse clients is catastrophic for many people, as an example. Paying for contraception is not an insurmountable barrier but when the insurance company says "We'll cover contraception for your students for free" and the university (or Catholic employer) says "No, we won't allow that," that's intruding on someth
Re: (Score:3)
For that matter, what is the government forcing Georgetown to do? Absolutely nothing. It's only prohibiting them from forbidding their insurance carriers to offer contraceptive coverage. The only thing the law requires from Georgetown is inaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The hypocricy amongst these religious organizations is massive. Surely the religious people that are employed by those organizations won't make use of the availability of the contraceptives will they? Noooo. That would never happen. And, as for non-religious employees of those organzations, why should the religio
Re: (Score:3)
You wouldn't be in favor of the government forcing vegan restaurant to server meat, would you? This is very similar, except even more so: this is more like the government forcing the vegans to slaughter the animals on-site, then serve the meat.
Actually this is exactly like allowing a vegan restaurant to refuse to pay for health insurance that covers heart surgery because they decided their employees shouldn't be eating meat (and thus shouldn't have cholesterol issues).
The problem with allowing an organization to choose an official religion and use that to determine acceptable health coverage is that you'll find some of the less enlightened businesses are suddenly Christian Science businesses and offer no actual health coverage. It's not right fo
Re: (Score:2)
No, the issue at question here is whether it is right and legal to force religious organizations to act against their conscience
No, actually, the issue at question here is ACTA.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the freedom of conscience for religious organizations, e.g. to not provide health insurance that includes contraception, is established and not in doubt here. This is about non-religious organizations, such as hospitals, that are more or less affiliated with a religious organization, but that regularly hire
Re:I for one have new hope... (Score:5, Informative)
Let's not forget that she was the oppositions ONLY witness at that hearing. Darrell Issa was only interested in shutting down debate. Shame on him.
The Democrats had originally asked for Rev. Barry Lynn (head of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) to be invited, and the Republicans invited him. The Democrats changed their minds and told Lynn not to show up, because they'd rather make an issue out of Fluke being denied. Shame on you.
A female student at university is exactly the kind of person who is going to be most affected by government policies on birth control. That's exactly the kind of person you want lots of input from.
Fluke is a 30 year old woman. She lives in a $500,000 house, which she can afford because she has a career as a liberal agitator. She went to Georgetown specifically because she wanted to hassle the Catholic institution over the teachings of the Church on birth control. She's EXACTLY the kind of woman who should be paying for her own birth control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If people want to counter the substance of Fluke's argument, then they should do so. Simply claiming she's a grown woman and acting like that renders her incapable of also being a student is a red herring and and very stupid one at that.
I was originally replying to Hatta, who claimed that Fluke is the kind of person who would be affected by this, and so she should be allowed to testify. I never said she wasn't a student. I just said that she's NOT the kind of person who would be affected by this. If this was really a problem, they would have been able to find someone who was actually affected by this, as opposed to a Democrat plant who went to Georgetown and not Yale SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE Georgetown insurance doesn't include contraceptives,
Re: (Score:2)
She was not presenting evidence only about herself and her own needs but was advocating for other women as well.
And not all birth control that is prescribed by a doctor for medical reasons is inexpensive. Sometimes it can be costly and it is used for reasons other than contraception. But if the medicine has a contraceptive use then some religious organizations do not want their insurance providers to allow it even if the medicine is used for other purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it can be costly and it is used for reasons other than contraception. But if the medicine has a contraceptive use then some religious organizations do not want their insurance providers to allow it even if the medicine is used for other purposes.
That's not quite the case. My fiancée actually has one of the conditions you are alluding to, and she takes oral contraceptives for that reason. It's my understanding that most conditions that off-label use of oral contraceptives will help respond just as well to the generic as they do to the brand name.
Also, there's quite a few insurance plans offered by Catholic institutions that cover "off-label" (i.e. anything other than contraceptive) use of oral contraceptives to treat this kind of condition, b
Re:I for one have new hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not, you are paying for the sex lives of others. The poor have sex, and they go to hospitals to give birth. When they can't pay, who do you think pays? You do.
The only question is, are you going to pay for a very expensive birth, and the social problems that come from people with few resourses having large families? Or are you going to pay for the birth control that will save you a lot of money in the long run?
Re: (Score:3)
The only question is, are you going to pay for a very expensive birth, and the social problems that come from people with few resourses having large families? Or are you going to pay for the birth control that will save you a lot of money in the long run?
No, you only pay in the first case, not the second. Contraception is entirely covered by the insurance company (at no cost to you), and it doesn't even raise your premiums because, as you say, it saves the insurance company money in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if there were more jobs to go around and less poverty they could pay it themselves?
Excellent. The president should just say that there should be more jobs, then. We'll worry later about what they'll be doing, who will be buying whatever it is they spend their time producing, and who will cover the costs. Or are you suggesting more debt and busy-work jobs?
Or are you arguing for government policies that do less in the way of preventing the business growth that actually causes more jobs to be available?
Re: (Score:2)
If we are concerned with the poor's access to contraception, then address that specifically... but please don't tell me that we need to do this to help the poor, because it doesn't help them at all.
What? Are you arguing that requiring insurance to cover contraception does not help the poor because the poor don't have insurance? If that's the case, then you need to know that this whole discussion is about the insurance requirements made by the Affordable Care Act, which mandates health insurance coverage for all Americans, rich and poor. So they may not have insurance right now, but they will once all of this goes into effect.
In fact, the poor are the ones most heavily impacted by this debate - the r
Re: (Score:3)
Pluralism (Score:2)
Having people who are clearly biased and acting on their own self-interest are not the type of people that should be used to inform decisions regarding the law.
Actually, this is how pluralism works. People bring evidence and arguments and support to positions that are in their self-interest for financial, politicial, or moral reasons and try to convince their elected officials why they are right.
If people not biased and acting in their own self-interest are the ones determining policy or giving input into it, you wind up with a very paternalist state that has no input from the people whose freedoms are affected by government policies before those policies are mad
Standing (Score:2)
Discussion of the law *must* include those whom it affects. When people file lawsuits, one of the concepts is that the person filing must have standing. Wikipedia: "In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law."
That's Article III standing. It applies to courts, not Congress.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Issa wants the government to not be involved in the bedroom: i.e. not to have the government fund their contraceptives, or, rather, to force religious organizations to provide them (which contradicts religious principles).
Well, this is a health issue -- according to health /experts/, like doctors. As for "forcing" religious organisations -- nobody is forcing them to do anything. The government /does/ give them wheelbarrows of cash. Talk about a sense of entitlement.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a health issue in, what, 5 percent of cases (being extremely generous)? For the most part, it's just women wanting to have sex without the inevitable consequences, to wit, pregnancy ("horniness" is not a health issue, IMO). BTW, that extends to the men too: they want their girlfriends on birth control too (lest you think I am being sexist here).
Also, don't know what your talking about giving religious organizations wheelbarrows of cash. Do you mean they aren't taxed at the same rate? Because not takin
Re: (Score:2)
It's a health issue in, what, 5 percent of cases (being extremely generous)?
Guess you should read the NIH material and examine the empirically based cost benefit analysis. Much better then back of the envelope calculations.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, don't know what your talking about giving religious organizations wheelbarrows of cash
Not talking about tax breaks. I'm talking about 67% of catholic charity comes directly from government sources [catholiccharitiesusa.org].
Re: (Score:2)
In many cases these religious organizations are involved in ventures which really aren't all that religious in nature. For instance non charitable universities or hospitals. Employees don't have to follow any creeds of their employers, and in some cases may not even know that the people at the top of the organization chart are a religious institution. In this sense it makes sense for the rules that apply to a local Catholic church building not necessarily be the same as the rules that apply to a major Ca
Re:I for one have new hope... (Score:4, Informative)
Don't take this wrong, but you're a fool.
"Minority", in this case, refers to the fact that she was a witness for the Democratics, the minority part. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity. Try reading the actual article next time. Feel free to ask if the big words confuse you. If all else fails, try looking at a picture of Sandra Fluke and telling us all how you came to the amazing conclusion that she's black. Really, I'd like to know.
Re: expert witness. Do you consider a random group of *male* religious figures more expert in the area of health care than someone who actually has experience using contraception? I'm curious as to why you're not opposed to their presence at the hearing. Also, I'm pretty sure that anyone affected by a proposed law does (or should) have standing to testify as to how it would affect them.
Finally, those religious organizations don't seem to have a problem with paying for Viagra prescriptions, which they've been doing for a number of years. I have no proof, but I very strongly suspect that few if any of the recipients of that particular drug only use it when they are having a sexual experience strictly for procreative purposes.
Despite their efforts at re-framing this as a matter of religious persecution, it's health care. We don't allow people to have juveniles handle rattlesnakes (even if their parent's religion says it's important), and it's okay (or mandatory) to provide medical care to badly injured kids despite Mom & Dad's belief that a little prayer will fix that arterial bleeding right up, so religious belief does not trump the law. The legislation *never* said that a religious organization had to provide it to their members, but had to make it available to their employees. Or do you believe that every employee of the Catholic health services (650+ hospitals) is a member in good standing of the Catholic church?
Re: (Score:2)
I still don't get this. The employer offered health plan is basically an incentive to work somewhere. Not liking your work health plan is like not liking your salary. If you want a better healthplan work somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me start out by saying I think employee healthcare is a scam to being with. There a couple of things more scammy than that, one of them is religion. As far as I am concerned, calling your opinion "faith" is just an excuse for it seem more important than it is.
This is equivalent to payin
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so is it okay to say "We pay less for blacks, Jews and other undesirables"? Answer the question.
And if health care for employees is a scam, what else fits in your definition? Food safety laws? Child labor laws? Any regulation at all? Or is it just that smart/rich/connected people "deserve" health care, and poor/uneducated/unlucky people should suffer and die if they "choose" to get sick? How is it a scam?
I don't know you, but your posts seem to indicate that you like or approve of the idea that
Re: (Score:2)
Please stop trying to pigeon hole me. No, it is not ok to discriminate against "undesirables", it is also dumb. Employee offered healthcare is a scam because:
1) It is a tax avoidance scheme
2) I am not sure how common this is... but for my job if I opt out of the employee health plan I receive no extra money. If the value of my work is equal to salary + insurance, why do I not have the choice to take a raise instead?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I think religious organizations should receive no special treatment at all. The less special treatment they receive the better.
I suppose I have issue with making the condition in the first place. However, once the condition is in place, exceptions should not be made, especially not on the basis of money or political clout.
The problem I see is that It seems like these exceptions are always made. Someone always gets special treatment.
Sandra Fluke (Score:3)
The first is that the "story" Fluke wanted to tell was a personal anecdote (hardly fit material for a discussion, unless you are attempting an emotional appeal... which again, is not exactly what we want our laws to be based one).
Of course personal anecdotes are fit material for discussion when you are trying to determine the effect of a policy. A policy-maker should consider the worst part of a policy. Here, a girl had a cyst the size of a tennis ball form on her ovary because of the former policy, needed surgery and lost the ovary, and went into early menopause--all because an insurance policy *that was supposed to cover* birth conrol for non-contraceptive purposes regularly makes it almost impossible for people to get that birt
Re: (Score:3)
It's kind of unfortunate that the whole Rush Limbaugh stupidity (almost a tautology there) has skewed the coverage so much. Very few people outside of progressive policy wonks or the backwaters of the right-leaning blogosphere know who Sandra Fluke really is.
Ezra Klein (Mr. Progressive Policy Wonk for the Post) had a brief write up [washingtonpost.com] on Sandra Fluke prior to the controversy. It turns out that she knew about Georgetown's contraceptive policy before she even enrolled (over 3 years ago, long before any contracep
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things she did testify on was that not all uses of drugs denied by insurance are used for contraception.
Re:I for one have new hope... (Score:5, Informative)
Issa would have let her testify if the Democrats had given the committee time to prepare questions to ask her, like they were supposed to.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Obama administration supports ACTA.
Re: (Score:2)
Obama hasn't taken a public stand on copyright law in a while now, mostly because both SOPA and PIPA never made it to his desk. Anger the part of Hollywood who will never vote for him anyway, reassure the other part of Hollywood that he's still the guy they supported in 2008....
MOD THIS ONE DOWN TOO (Score:5, Informative)
Where was I January 29.... that's the day Obama signed ACTA and now we've only got the Senate remaining for a chance to keep the ball out of the end zone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The guy is facing an election. He'll say anything that earns him more votes than he'll lose.
publicity hog (Score:2)
its election season.
Re:Can't get a law, try a treaty... (Score:5, Informative)
Both sides are bought and paid for by Big IP and Wall Street. This is why you saw virtually 0 votes against the DMCA (unanimous consent in the Senate and virtually no opposition in the House) and why many of the sponsors and co-sponsors of these Pro-IP bills are Republicans (lest you forget the originator of the DMCA in the House was Republican Howard Cobel, SOPA was introduced to the House by Republican Lamar Smith, etc). And also the RIAA CEO and Chairman from 2003 to 2011 was a long time staffer to various Republicans for 26 years before taking the RIAA CEO position.
Re: (Score:2)
but much more evil than the other party.
Is that you Santorum?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe it's been signed by a rogue diplomat but it's never made it to the Senate floor. Maybe the Congressional Dictionary should read:
ACTA: See SOPA in the House and PIPA in the Senate for rejection details/
MOD PARENT DOWN... yeah, it's me again (Score:5, Informative)
As I discovered looking for Obama's stand on the issue, the "rogue diplomat" who signed ACTA is the PotUS himself. This makes no sense...
Re: (Score:2)
Obama administration has been pretty consistent in supporting strong copyright laws. The only real change was when it appeared to express concerns about SOPA and PIPA, and even that statement wasn't definitive.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... yeah, it's me again (Score:4, Interesting)
If you RTFA, one of the concerns was that the President approved it, bypassing congress by an executive decision. Both Republicans and Democrats have been doing this a lot since Reagan's term in office. If you can't beat congress, Executive Order around it.
So far I haven't seen as many major of issues as I saw reading PIPA, but there are some vague areas. Only at page 2, though :P
Re: (Score:2)
".Any provision... must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing"
His continued support of ACTA is hypocritical because, clearly, ACTA is designed to do exactly that.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... yeah, it's me again (Score:5, Informative)
May just have something to do with the fact that the entertainment industry is one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors (or, as anyone else would call them, "bribers").
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN... yeah, it's me again (Score:4, Informative)
Democrats. -- entertainment industry
Republicans military industrial complex
Wall street both
The other 95% of Americans well someone has to pay all the above people.
Re: (Score:3)