Would John Kerry Defang the DMCA? 1363
dave981 writes "Over at ZDNet, Declan McCullagh asks, 'Would John Kerry defang the DMCA?' Kerry's response: 'open to examining' whether to change current law 'to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes.' It's not clear, though, how serious Kerry truly is."
Geek Vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and after he got into office what exactly did he do to promote legal marijuana?
A good lesson there for potential Kerry voters...
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the problem. It seems to me he wants to "vigorously enforce intellectual property protections and prosecute the violation".
Does this mean that the authors of Bnetd would go to jail, or people who make replacement toner cartidges, or people who make competing garage door openers all sued under the DMCA?
He mentions the technology is not the problem, but he doesn't mention that we are not the problem either, which is true. The problem is that the world changes, strategies hat once made money will at some point, fail. You don't see Standard Oil selling kerosine do you? You dont' see blacksmiths hauling in large sums of cash or whatever. I'm sure they were against cars back in the day.
The problem is not goint to be solved by some dumb ass task force that arrests people because the problem is not organized piracy. The problem is that laws in the US are bought and sold by big business and the DCMA is simple wrong. I know that and I'm just one guy, not even a task force.
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but somebody is selling [Dr. Evil] One BILLION gallons[/Dr. Evil] [findarticles.com] a year.....
But you're right. What is going to happen is that the laws will get tighter and tighter, but have no effect, just like the drug laws. This will be true no matter who is President, unless some unlikely like Cobb or Peroutka gets elected.
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Great, so disorganized pirates have nothing to fear.
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's get serious here for a minute. From the article, Kerry's position is that he's:
"open to examining" whether to change current law "to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes"
The term "open to examining" means nothing other than Kerry doesn't want to take a position for or against the issue. It's the same thing as saying that he would create a commission to look into it.
There are many differences between Kerry and Bush. This isn't one of them. It might be, but Kerry's half-hearted waffle answer doesn't actually mean anything, and while you can always hope, you shouldn't read much into it.
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, not sure if that was it.. I voted against him just for that, how can you be pro-environment when you waste green like that??
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like the Patriot Act,Kerry also voted for the DMCA [senate.gov].
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait. Are you saying he's for anything that might get him a vote, but he's for getting the votes before he turns against it? Or is he not for it so much as to piss the people off who'd be against it, as long as he voted against it after he voted for it? In Soviet Russia, I hear they vote aga*WHAM WHAM WHAM*
My head hurts. Politics is so confusing these days.
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Funny)
Here's my translation of what he said: "Right now, I'm devoting a great deal of time and study to that problem. And I intend to issue a position paper on that. A position that is at once simple, yet complex; firm, yet flexible; and above all, fair to every American."
Or maybe: "My fellow Americans. As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say, we must move forward, not backward, upward not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom."
Or perhaps: "Abortions for all. [crowd boos] Very well, no abortions for anyone. [crowd boos] Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others. [crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]"
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
Amendment X speaks loud and clear still, Congress can't pull this crap, and it's time we showed them who the hell is boss.
The People.
$
Re:kerry voted for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow this kerry smearing just keeps getting worse!
First it was that he tunes his message for whomever's listening.
Then it's that he wavers and doesn't take firm stances and likes the middle ground.
Then it's that he outright flip-flops and contradicts things he said months earlier.
Then it's that he actually has several different, contradictory positions on everything, simultaneously!
And now it's that he's just running around spouting off whatever someone told him 10 mintues ago and doesn't actually have any ideas of his own!
I mean, come on.
Do you have *any* evidence for your allegation?
Re:kerry voted for it... (Score:4, Interesting)
But W said that that wasn't a vote for war, but a vote for peace. Was W lying?
Re:kerry voted for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
DISCLAIMER: yes, I prefer Bush to Kerry. No, Bush doesn't quite live up to my ideals either. No, I don't live up to my ideals either. Oh, and I'm not American.
This is sorta like some of my wife's "rules". She calls them "changing her mind." All I ask is not that she remains 100% consistant (that would be also known as "inflexible") but that she warns me about those changes.
If she, or Kerry, were to prefix all changes in opinion with, "I have come to a new understanding of this," I think I'd have a lot less problem with it. For example, if Kerry had said, "I have had conversations with Americans from all over our glorious land. I think I can see, now, how certain aspects of <insert "flip-flop" subject here> can be abused. I will take my first opportunity to fix this oversight by a) repealing the law, b) amending the law, c) ???," I think I would have a lot more respect for him than I do now.
Bush is so consistant that he is seen as inflexible by his detractors. I can understand their perspective. Some times, such as announcing to Saddam that he had to allow unfettered nuclear inspector access by a certain date or face military action, you have to follow through, even if you change your mind (which I doubt Bush did), just so people know you mean business. Other times, such as USAPA or DMCA, I would love to see education change his mind.
Re:kerry voted for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, first you'd have to show that said "flip flop subject" was actually a flip flop, the overwhelming majority of which are not.
And for those subjects which *were* flip flops, he's done exactly what you're asking him to do (ie, voting for Scalia or against the first gulf war).
Please, research someone's actual statements before deciding your level of respect for them.
Re:kerry voted for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some times, such as announcing to Saddam that he had to allow unfettered nuclear inspector access by a certain date or face military action, you have to follow through, even if you change your mind (which I doubt Bush did), just so people know you mean business.
I agree with you that Bush didn't want to change his mind on this subject, but this is a dishonest description of what his decision was according to every account I've read by both Republicans and Democrats in the know. He made the decision when he came into office to take Saddam out. I'm not going to give you any of this left wing baloney about invading Iraq for oil - this has always been a pretty silly argument, and just look at the price of oil now. His motivators were probably something like A) Saddam is bad - this point I can agree with him on B) Saddam tried to kill his father C) Saddam is the thorn in the legacy of his father's Presidency, D) his advisors support a strongly neoconservative agenda and told him this was an opportunity to create a "domino effect" and restructure the Middle East in a more democratic fashion (again, this motivator I think is an admirable one, but it's a bit of exitus acta probat, or the ends justify the means).
September 11th provided a convenient way to make this invasion plan actually happen. And the nuclear inspection stuff, well, that was the icing on the cake. But we were effectively mobilizing for war behind the scenes before the whole nuclear inspection access issue was was even there.
Saddam had to know an invasion was coming. I will admit that I am as mystified as the next guy as to why he didn't just let the inspectors back in at that point, so he'd have the rest of the world on his side when it did. I think in part it was radical overconfidence in his military that years of purging anybody who wasn't a yes-man from his upper echelons had given him. But this was never about inspections - how many inspectors are in Iran and North Korea, and how unfettered is their access again? And are we even discussing invasion over that?
I too wish that our candididates would be more straightforward about things they change their minds on. Unfortunately, there is an election going on, and the two leading candidates are playing to win, and thus neither can be fully honest about their mistakes or changes of heart in the past. Sure, the Naders and Badnariks of the campaign can speak their mind till the cows come home, because it doesn't matter, they are running to make a statement, not to win.
The substantive "flip-flop" that people keep bringing up is the Iraq war issue. You can see what Kerry said [independentsforkerry.org] on the Senate floor before the vote on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. He seemed to strongly back the idea of forcing UN inspections back, and if that failed, to use force together with the international community. He emphasized throughout that speech how important it was to act with the support of other countries in the Middle East and throughout the world, because if we went to war, it would be a long and hard process to rebuild Iraq.
This isn't really that different from what he has said recently. The only issue he has changed his mind on was that he thought at the time, based on the intelligence reports he had been given, that the thread of Saddam developing WMDs was much more imminent than it was. But I think everybody, including Bush, admits this mistake now.
I don't think Kerry has "flip-flopped" in the sense of saying that knowing what we knew then, going to war was a fundamentally bad idea, though perhaps he might not make the same vote knowing what he knows now (I'm not sure if he ever answered that hypothetical question explicitly). He has said that we rushed to war by failing to obtain the backing of a real coalition including strong commitments of troops and pledges for reconstruction aid from neighbors in the Middle East and the rest of the world (not a "Don't forget Poland" coalition). I think this is pretty consistent with his position from 2 years ago as expressed in the above speech.
Why are you mystified? (Score:4, Informative)
This has never made any sense to me, it's like people want to be mystified and are unwilling to accept the truth at simple face value.
Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist. The only way he kept power was through the threat of retalitation. That he had used these chemical weapons back in the Iran-Iraq war timeframe is evidence of that.
So if people thought that he didn't have these weapons any more... Saddam wouldn't be in a particularly safe position.
And that included not just Iraqi dissidents, but also the threat of invasion by Iran.
So Saddam tried to play a little game, where he walked to knife edge pretending to comply, but at the same time keeping just a hint of skepticism going, to keep his enemies uncertain about attacking him.
This is not my theory, it comes from David Kay and the others involved in the weapons inspection.
I've not heard Bush admit to any mistake. What he usually does is find someone, usually in the military, which he can blame the failure upon.
Kerry has said he'd make the same vote. Which is consistent, as you note, for he was voting to authorize threat of force to get the UN inspectors back in.
Where he differs from Bush, is he wouldn't have invaded if the inspections were working, as appeared to be the case back in March of 2003.
Kerrry's problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you except (Score:4, Insightful)
You just have to listen to Kerrys speeches over the last 30 years and see that he has had the exact same position on war ever since he returned from Vietnam - that war is sometimes necisarry but we should never again send out troops to battle until we are certain that there is no other option.
This whole flip-flop garbage is nothing more than a FUD campain started by Karl Rove - one in a long line of FUD campains which he is a master of. There are a lot of legitimate reason to dislike Kerry as a candidate and I respect those who cannot vote for him because of fundemental disagreements on the role of government. But I find it deeply distubing how many of my otherwise intellegent friends are basing their entire opinion of Kerry on the Bush campains' FUD.
Then again, it doesn't help that the people running Kerry's campain are incompetant. They won't let him explain his full position, because of his history of getting into long drawn out discussions that bore the public, and create more words that can be twisted and taken out of context, so they try to boil it down to sound bites. Well that might work for someone like Bush whose opinions are mostly ideological in nature, but for someone like Kerry it makes it sound like he is avoiding the question.
And it isn't hard to craft a simple explaination either, for example: "When you the people of the United States vote an official into office you give him the power necisarry to do his job. If he abuses that power, and does not live up to the promises he made, you are rightly angry. It is not a flip-flop to be state the fact that your trust was abused.
I voted to give the President the power to use force in Iraq if all other options were exhausted. I did this because this president, any president, would need that power to effectively negotiate at the UN. But this president abused that power and rushed into war. My opinion on this war has never changed, but my trust in this Comander in Chief has."
In this (DCMA) situation, he is not flip flopping but rather refusing to take a position, which both candidates do when they do not concider the subject to be important, but are afraid of alienating voters.
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is false as stated. It may be true of income tax alone, but that is not your claim. You are neglecting FICA. All workers pay the same tax rate on the first $70K of their earnings, and $0 thereafter, so this is a highly regressive tax. Roughly 44% of the federal government's revenue is through FICA. Moreover, if you look, this contribution is roughly constant (in inflation-adjusted dollars) since Reagan took office.
Roughly 10% of the revenue is from corporate taxes and roughly 46% from personal income tax. These numbers fluctuate somewhat based on (1) tax increases/decreases and (2) the state of the economy, for obviously reasons. Given the current tax rates and economy, the worker is bearing a larger burden than anytime in the last 24 years.
It is merely a Republican talking point to claim that most federal tax is paid by the top 50% (or 20%). When you include FICA, you see that the common man, the worker, pays more than his or her fair share. Really, the FICA revenue is the backbone of the federal budget, especially since 1983 when it was first tapped to reduce (but not eliminate!) the huge deficits caused by Reagan's tax cuts. It appears to be the plan of neo-cons to keep these revenues in place while decreasing those collected through corporate and personal income taxes. Guess who this benefits and who this hurts?
Furthermore, remember that FICA contributions are matched by employers. So these taxes -- this fundamental source of revenue for the federal government -- acts as a drag on the hiring of American workers, especially those with middle-class (and lower) salaries. Gues who this benefits and who this hurts?
I found this information in the federal budget itself, which is available at the Executive branch website. I went looking for it after a friendly debate with a conservative stockbroker friend of mine who argued the supply-side logic for cutting taxes on the wealthy. What I found surprised him and surprised me. I'd recommend that anyone who believes tax policy is a philosophical debate just go look at the data and run it through Excel. I know I learned a hell of a lot in just an afternoon.
By the way, I'm open to intelligent critiques of what I wrote because I'm truly trying to cut through the BS and see what the numbers are saying. If I've gotten something wrong, please let me know.
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't really matter - name one candidate that doesn't suck. Sure, you hate Bush, but don't let that blind you from the fact that Kerry sucks. Bush might be the only major party candidate that Kerry could beat. Maybe I just get more cynical over time, but these two make Al Gore and Walter Mondale look good!
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have the option of being punched on November 2nd, or shot on November 2nd. One IS going to happen, no matter how much you don't like it, so choose which you want.
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's so wrong about voting like a nerd? Doesn't "Nerd" stand for "Noteworthy Engineer/Researcher/Developer" ?
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:4, Informative)
If only this were true for Bush's favorite issue to talk about...
Vatican questions "preventive" wars [reuters.co.uk]
Re:Geek Vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
They think presidents make laws
This is a particularly interesting statement. The story is about a law that Kerry would work on if he became president. Yet, as a member of the Senate, now is the time that he can introduce legislation and help fix bad laws. As president, he can only veto stuff he doesn't like.
Oh, the irony....
DCMA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:DCMA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:DCMA (Score:5, Informative)
Weren't paying attention to the news at the time? Like most of the people who voted for it, he said it was flawed, but it was more important to get something in place first, then they could backfix. According to publicly stated positions of the people at the time, the majority of people who voted for the Patriot Act would like to revise it.
Re:DCMA (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong answer, really. (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not accept his rationale on this issue.
Re:DCMA (Score:5, Insightful)
Another link [osdir.com]
Re:DCMA (Score:5, Interesting)
Kerry can't just make a blanket attack on the Patriot act because Bush will cite some obscure non-evil provision and cite a case where it helped, and then he'll bash Kerry as leaving us open to terrorist attack. Sadly presidential debates are a battle of sound bites. There's no way to get into a rational analysis of what parts of the Patriot act are bad and why.
Kerry has stated he sees a problem with the Patriot act. Bush has stated the Patriot act does not go far enough. I'd say that's a huge difference.
I would like to see Kerry seriously dedicated to not only balancing the budget, but paying down the debt as well. Kerry says he wants to balance the budget, but honestly his math may be a bit optomistic. However Bush went from trillions in surplus to the fastest growing deficit in history. I can't imagine Kerry being any worse on the debt than Bush, and maybe Kerry really will fight to balance the budget.
Perhaps most important is that whoever becomes president will likely get to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices, in addition to hundreds of district judges. This will have an indirect but massive impact on the course of our legal system and civil liberties and other constitutional issues. Bush has been appointing wildly off-center radical social conservative judges in the district courts. Bush will appoint wildly off-center radical social conservative judges to the Supremes Court. In the debates Bush dodged a DIRECT question about appointing judges to the Supreme Court with a lie that he has no "litmus test" - it was a direct lie because he then went on a bizzare tangent about the Dred Scott ruling. However it was only bizzare if you aren't aware that Dred Scott is a standard pro-life refference to Roe v Wade. So Bush was lying to the general public majority that he had no "litmus test" for judges on the abortion issue while secretly telling the pro-life minority that he would indeed apply a litmus test and refuse any judge that would uphold Roe v Wade. Well, if you want to overturn Roe v Wade then Bush is your candidate, but Bush is still an ass for being intentionally deceptive about it.
Any judges that Kerry gets to appoint will have to be moderate judges with impeccible credentials because they have to be approved by the Republican controlled senate. So if you want centrist judges then Kerry is your candidate.
-
Re:DCMA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DCMA (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Bush and Kerry dealt with this in the debates. Bush's attitude toward the Patriot Act is discouraging: he takes the "all or nothing" approach that you either like the entire act, or hate the entire act.
Kerry is a flip-flopper (i.e., he is intelligent), so he likes some parts of the act and questions others. Given the size of the Partiot Act, this is not really hard to grasp - in fact I'd be wary of anyone who had one opinion on an entire act like this one, for or against. Personally I don't mind if the FBI can use the same wire-tap warrant for two phones belonging to the same person (the involvement of the courts is the same either way, but the pointless red tape is eliminated), but I do mind that my library activity can be monitored by Big Brother. It's a big act, with a few good bits here and there, so I like that Kerry wants to keep it but excise the bad bits.
The Prez is in the executive branch... (Score:5, Informative)
The president cannot directly write make a law at all. Only members of the House and Senate can nominate bills for consideration. (When the "President's Budget" comes every year, some member of the House must support the bill enough to put it into "the hopper" or it doesn't get off the ground.) The president's only role in the legislative process is to approve bills that have passed both houses of Congress, and that can even be bypassed
Therefore, even if Kerry wins the presidential race, he still will have no direct impact on laws. He'll only be able to sign a DMCA repeal or softening amendment if Congress sends him one to consider.
As always happens in the even-numbered years, all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for re-election. Right now, it's a "Republican steamroller" because Republicans control both houses and and the White house. However, the Republicans hold on to a very thin margin to make their majority in both cases, so this could completely flip or end up in a mixed state after the elections. The Congress has much more say over the laws than the President gets.
Re:The Prez is in the executive branch... (Score:5, Informative)
The President cannot directly write any law. But he can direct Congress in any way he sees fit. No, they don't have to listen to them, but he can be very influential. His power in this area comes from making recommendations on what Congress should be spending its time on. You can be sure that if the President wants to fix the DMCA, it will get a lot of attention from Congress.
This is very important to recognize (Score:4, Informative)
That and the whole commander in chief thing, appointing judges and other government officials, running foreign relations, etc makes it such that the President has the capability of really shaping and molding the federal government from top to bottom. Of course there is this whole bureaucratic thing that they have to get around.
Wikipedia does a good job covering these and other subtleties of the President's power [wikipedia.org]. A must read for every American voter and/or the curious or concerned foreign citizen
Re:The Prez is in the executive branch... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think there's far too many people out there living in a Pollyanna world who think Kerry will magically change if he becomes President. But guess what? He's going to be the exact same person as President as he was as Senator. Surprise! Some of you Democrats are like girlfriends, thinking they can change their boyfriend if they got married. "Oh, I know he leaves the toilet seat up now, but after Kerry and I get married I can change him! And I'll also get him to stop scratching his nuts in public and stop supporting the DMCA!"
Re:The Prez is in the executive branch... (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, Kerry doesn't have to make a phone call, he's a Senator - that means he can start a bill any time he wants, and has he started or supported any bills that are important to you?
If he has, and you think that he will continue to do so, then by all means - vote for him. If, however, you review his history and find that he has instead done nothing or voted against issues important to you - vote for someone else.
Re:The Prez is in the executive branch... (Score:4, Informative)
Thank you. This is an important topic for me. As a Senator, your job is to pass bills and vote on bills that are important to the people. Take a look at the record, does he support your ideas? Let's take a look at the bills John Kerry has created and passed shall we...
S.791 1999: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses.
S.1206 1994: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor.
S.1636 1994: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming "to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations."
S.1563 1991: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects "to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America's coastal resources."
S.423 1987: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan.
S.300 2003: Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition.
S.856 2001: Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program.
S.J.Res.158 1989: To make the week of Oct. 22 - Oct. 28, 1989 "World Population Awareness Week."
S.J.Res.160 1991: To renew "World Population Awareness Week" for 1991.
S.J.Res.318 1992: To make Nov. 13, 1992 "Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day."
S.J.Res.337 1992: To make Sept. 18, 1992 "National POW/MIA Recognition Day."
In 20 years of senate, what has John Kerry done to help improve America?
"Open to examining..." (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not too bad, though. It means neither side has gotten to him yet. We have an opportunity to make a case.
In short: No (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't blame me (Score:5, Funny)
Not "would" but "could"... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dan East
Would it really matter. (Score:3, Informative)
Why do we as americans put so much into the presidential elections, when infact our congress critters have the power to draft and approve new laws, while the president is in the position to say yes or no to them?
I'll tell you the difference... (Score:5, Informative)
That's because neither of the candidates support it. Bush doesn't support it and wants a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Kerry doesn't support it but is against any such legislation.
Strangely enough, both candidates are nearly mirroring their stances on the issue of IP theft:
Said Bush: "I strongly support efforts to protect intellectual property and will continue to work with Congress to ensure all intellectual property is properly protected...We must vigorously enforce intellectual-property protections and prosecute the violators, not the technology." He noted that his administration launched an initiative to enforce such laws and has worked closely with China to support penalties associated with violating American intellectual-property rights.
Kerry, meanwhile, has a slightly different stance. "I do not condone the illegal sharing of copyrighted material," Kerry said, though he is "open to examining whether legislative action is necessary to ensure that a person who lawfully receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes."
Poor Jim Lehrer of PBS, who moderated the first presidential debate, was left scratching his head about what actually differentiated the two men who would be president.
I just pointed out a major difference... Bush is against X and legislates against X (including denying rights to Americans because he wants to bring religious morality back into the country). Kerry is against X as well but doesn't have any plans to do anything about it.
Re:I'll tell you the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is against X and legislates against X (including denying rights to Americans because he wants to bring religious morality back into the country). Kerry is against X as well but doesn't have any plans to do anything about it.
Or, to put it another way, Kerry doesn't personally believe in some things, but he doesn't necessarily think that his beliefs should be made the basis of the law of the land because other people should be allowed to believe differently from him. Bush wants his personal belief system to become the law of the land.
Re:I'll tell you the difference... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you stand for family values, you should encourage couples to make a stand and say that they're going to be together, as a familiy, for the long term.
As for polygamy, I don't think it's going happen. There's no push for it. It would probably poll at around
My marriage is great. I don't fear any redefinition of marriage by the state somehow harming or trivializing it. My marriage is a relationship between God my wife, and me. Anything the state does just affects my taxes.
It stuns me how religious people can get so riled up by the actions of a secular government permitting things. When the government tries to close your church, that's when to get pissed.
Vote records are less reliable than they seem (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, there never was a true vote "on the war". Congress has not ever even voted on an official decloration of war during recent years. What was actually voted on was permission to use the armed forces if things couldn't be resolved any other way. Kerry claims that Bush forgot about that if-clause and went to war too quickly.
This is a problem anybody who tries to advance from the legislative branch into the executive branch always faces. Legislators are always asked to vote on hundreds of things on the record, while the President and governors only have to consider the final versions that have cleared their legislature. It may seem like a flip-flop to vote yes "on" version A, but "no" on version B of the same bill, but versions A and B by definition cannot be the same thing. What such a voting record indicates is not that the person was opposed to the main concept of the whole bill and then changed their mind. It instead indcates that there was some flaw in version A that was fixed by the time version B came around so they could now support the bill.
Re:Vote records are less reliable than they seem (Score:4, Informative)
That stat has been caused by the Republicans who control the Senate. They saw to it that most floor votes would happen while the Democratic presidential-wannabe senators would be out of town, and would suspend floor activity any time they were in town. In short, they made it intentionally hard to campaign and get in on the recorded votes, not knowing which Dem Senator would win, but making sure to muck all of their records.
In CONGRESS now (Score:5, Insightful)
For that matter... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:For that matter... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:For that matter... (Score:4, Informative)
If you're trying to say it's not his fault because everyone else did too, then that's not a very good endorsement. You're arguing that he's pathologically susceptible to peer pressure.
Re:For that matter... (Score:4, Informative)
How could he? (Score:3, Insightful)
Better Question (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazing the right wing bull that gets injected into this... and yet we forget that CONGRESS PASSES THE LAWS.
Hello. Talk to your congressman. Preznits blow up countries. They don't pass laws.
Don't understand this dynamic (Score:5, Insightful)
But having said that, I don't understand why the parties stand where they do on this stuff. Hollywood people are huge Kerry supporters, so you'd expect him to be falling all over himself to do whtaever he could to help them out.
Bush, on the other hand, gets creamed by Hollywood types all the time. They donate tons of money to his opponents, do benefits, make statements on talk shows, etc. But Ashcroft is behaving pretty much like the industry's dream AG.
The only explanation for this that I can think of is that the candidates really believe what they say. The Republicans probably really do believe in the private property argument -- I imagine they find piracy deeply offensive.
I don't know -- it's always been a small thing that's puzzled me.
Reading between the lines (Score:5, Insightful)
1) "Open to examining whether to change" does not imply "will advocate change".
2) "Changing" the DMCA doesn't necessarily mean "changing it in the way that geeks would like".
3) "Examining whether to change" can lead to the conclusion "no, it needs no changing" just as easily as its opposite.
4) "to ensure that a person who lawfully obtains or receives a transmission of a digital work may back up a copy of it for archival purposes" could be the first paragraph of the INDUCE act. After all, the INDUCE act was spun as going after P2Pers, not those who were "lawfully making backups for archival purposes".
5) Finally, "lawfully obtains or [lawfully] receives transmission" -- leaves a lot of wiggle room. What if "Lawfully" means "in accordance with every term of the EULA under which it was sold?"
Conclusion: Kerry's got no intention of asking Congress to weaken the DMCA; he's pandering for every vote he can get in the home stretch of a tightly-contested Presidential race.
That's not a partisan slur -- both parties are bought and paid for by Hollywood, and you can bet your eighth bit that no matter who wins in November, any "changes" to the DMCA in the next four years will be to Hollywood's benefit, not yours.
A little focus, please. (Score:5, Interesting)
I for one, feel that Kerry indicating that the DCMA may be opened for examination is a positive point. This discussion may raise the issue to the fore such that it becomes a issue for debate (or relentless repition of partisan talking points as the American media is wont to do). Lets hope that the tech folks out there continue to voice their concern over the stupid DCMA and that Senators and possibly presidents are open to understanding just how sweeping that law is. The may lead to change and rewriting of the law.
Let's hope so at least.
Actions, not words (Score:4, Interesting)
Since he's not likely to win any votes that way (I mean, how many of you really care?), the choice suggests a real personal preference for freedom over security. Perhaps that preference will carry through to the DMCA, though that may depend more on the cabinet than the president.
Kerry? Bush? No, the courts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress' intent when creating the DMCA was two-fold:
They envisioned making it easier for legitimate, white-hat-wearing businesses to stop the violation of their copyrights. What they actually provided, of course, was "takedown", a sledgehammer a lawyer can use to swat a fly.
The "copyright managment information" Congress was most concerned about were things like holograms on jewel cases, but the wording of the law also include the text of copyright notices in programs, EULA wrappers, and so on.
Courts are becoming increasing sophisticated in how they interpret the DMCA in cases where it's invoked. I think as more and more people, including judges, get their information online instead of from the mainscam media, attitudes will change about what is "fair use" allowed by the DMCA and what falls under (what you'd think is the capital crime of) "piracy".
There is real tension that cuts across the lines between the Left and Right. On the left you have Hollywood wanting protection ("for the artists"), while civil libertarians want anarchy. On the right there is the limited government crowd, but also the capitalists. Probably it would be overstating it to say the tension within the two sides is greater than that between them, but I can't decide.
At any rate, I don't think either Bush or Kerry would do anything about it, but the courts probably will settle on good rules to curb the abuses of the takedown mess.
Its a joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Vanilla or French Vanilla (Score:4, Insightful)
I am an American. As such I've been told many times, many ways, that I live in the greatest and most free country in the world. I'm not really buying it any more than I buy the belief that Ford is indeed superior to Chevrolet. But when I see the choices, I mean the bona fide choices, that we are given to vote for for President, I don't buy the arguments. Are these two really the best people in the country to hold the office?
The whole process is not much more than a sales pitch for white bread. When it comes down to the taste test, what is better Wonder or Tastee? I can't tell much of a difference. But it is what it is and we are stuck with it.
We are rich and powerfull nation. We can exert out influenence on almost anyone anywhere. Face it, if we don't like someone our president can sic our military on them and we are all but assured of victory. Isn't that really what happened in Iraq?
In the past four years, we have seen our freedoms eroded with things like the DCMA and the Patriot Act. If Bush is elected we are in for more of the same. If Kerry is elected, do we really expect to see much change? I don't, not really. Perhaps, but just perhaps, he is the lesser of two evils.
Is that any way to vote? To pick the lesser of two evils? Is this what makes America great? I sure as hell don't think so. There has to be a better way. The system we have may have made a hell of a lot of sense two hundred years ago when representation meant an arduous journey of hundreds of miles. But today, with the technology we have, every person who cares could actually be self-representing.
Change comes slowly to established machines like American politics. I recognise and understand that. Hell, I'd even say that is a good thing - that it changes slowly. But there comes a time where a catalyist exists and changes can be sudden. Like the end of communisim in the USSR and the taking down of the Berlin wall. Then change can come suddenly.
An idea occured to me that maybe we just don't see this kind of event coming. Maybe the electronic voting machines are the key to the ignition of change? I'm really just rambling now, but what I am saying is that we need REAL CHANGE not just a slight step from center but a full on change of course! We have the means - but do we have the courage or do we need some sort of catayist to kick us out of idle and into gear?
I'm not preaching revolution here. Really, I'm not. I'm just trying to say that our form of government is out dated and in need of serious change and that to me, the time seems right for something to happen.
Will we be the generation to do it? Frankly, I hope so. But we have to come up with better choices than we have on the ballot this year.
Re:No differnces? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd rather have individual people survive than the Republic any day. Besides, the Republic has basically been dead since the Corporations were allowed to enter politics in 1885.
Re:No differnces? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between a man and a woman."
Kerry on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between an man and a woman."
Bush on the price of oil: "We need to talk to our friends and allies in OPEC."
Kerry on the price of oil: "We need to talk to our friends and allies in OPEC."
Really, the list goes on, including some of what they say about Iraq. The differences between the two are
Re:No differnces? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Kerry on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between an man and a woman."
Except everyone who actually follows politics knows there is a big difference. Democrats use the courts to pass policies they know they could never be elected by supporting. So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats. Just like with abortion. To this day there is zero chance Congress would vote to legalize abortion but Democrats depend on unelected Judges to do their dirty work for them. Bush on the other hand came out in support of taking the issue away from the courts and sends up strict constructionists who don't legislate from the bench.
As for oil, what else CAN we do. Kick their ass and take their gas? I know that is the popular myth among the Deanics for both Gulf Wars but it just ain't so. The Free Flow of Oil at Market Prices is what the Republicans fought for, and that is what we have. The uncertainty in the Middle East, political instability in Migeria and China's newfound appitite for oil has put a premium on oil prices.
> mostly of the Purple vs. Green variety
Excellent B5 episode, but the analogy doesn't fit.
Re:No differnces? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Bush is re-elected and the time comes to put new Justices on the Supreme Court what is he going to do? He's going to put judges on their that are sympathetic to his (not his party's) own personal goal of bringing religious morality back into this country.
I'm sorry but they are both worthless assholes. Bush has a political+relgious agenda while Kerry doesn't have much of anything.
Personally I believe that seperation of church and state is important. He calls them morals and I call it religion. Symantics... DO NOT SHOVE YOUR RELGIOUS VALUES DOWN MY FUCKING THROAT.
Re:No differnces? (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, they want to see the practice reduced and limited not abolished.
Of course probably 50% of the public is a die hard on either side.
rammed it down our throats (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't particularly like gay marriage or abortion either. But I think that there are far worse things in the world, and in these particulars, I'm not going to force my beliefs on others, and I ask them not to force theirs on me. Gay marriage is, in particular, a victimless 'crime,' and perhaps it is more a statement of property rights. In that light, perhaps Vermont's Civil Unions were a good idea, because marriage *is* a religious institution, and the state shouldn't be messing there. (Current ammendment proposals tend to outlaw Civil Union rights, too.) As for abortion, it leaves me queasy, the later the queasier, but there are *worse* things. If the "religious" forces expressed half the love for babies that they do for foetuses, maybe I'd feel differently about this.
Re:No differnces? (Score:5, Insightful)
Drop the "activist judges" and "legislate from the bench" buzzwords. Bush represents the "starve the beast" neocons who are discrediting (literally and figuratively) the US government, so corporations will resume the feudal predation on the people formerly pursued by hereditary dynasties (like the Bush family). Why you apologize for them is your own business, but don't expect the rest of us committed to freedom to buy it.
Re:No differnces? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No differnces? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a matter of opinion. People with a Pro-Life position aren't necessarily concerned with what women do with their bodies. They are concerned about what they do to the body of the person they are carrying.
It's an easy issue to spin to fit your own beliefs.
Re:No differnces? (Score:4)
I'm so glad there are people out there that are willing to protect you by killing the life you were too ignorant to keep from creating and now to irresponsible to bear.
After all, it's more of a matter of convenience to you than killing innocent people.
Re:No differnces? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you ever get the feeling that our country has been through this kind of thing before? [nationalcenter.org]
Civil rights was rammed down America's throat, too. It wasn't the executive or legislative branch paving the way--it was the judicial branch. Without those "activist judges" going against the mainstream American values of the day, there's a very real chance that you'd see a "whites only" sign hanging in the window of your local Starbucks. Which was right--the judgement of the activist courts, or the will of the American mainstream?
This kind of thing is exactly why we have a judicial branch. Fundamental human rights aren't open to debate on the grounds of "what the majority is comfortable with". The founders were keenly aware of the "tyrrany of the majority", and they went to great lengths to keep the majority from trampling the rights of the minority. One of these safeguards is the judicial branch of the federal government.
Over the years, the American mainstream has maintained that blacks are worth 3/5 of a human being, that women are property, that the Irish are a race of sub-humans, that it is perfectly appropriate to sell and purchase human beings, that marrying an individual of the wrong race was a capital offense, and that Indians either needed to move out of our way or be killed. Today, the American mainstream believes that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry those they love--or even enter into civil unions, for that matter. Occasionally, the Legislature or the Executive will take it upon themselves to right these wrongs. In most cases, though, it's the Judicial branch that steps in and upholds the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Be thankful that our highest court is not subject to the whim and fancy of American mainstream thought.
Re:No differnces? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to know where they stand, go their websites, don't assume the parent is correct.
Re:No differnces? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't be silly, Kerry may not like Texas, but it should be able to survive even if he wins.
Re:No differnces? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Like start a war with a nation that doesn't have radical Islamics running the nation, so it can be replaced by a group of radical Islamics?
Re:This is insightful? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny to say, Hussein was oppressing the country's religious right: The type of Islamic Fundamentalists that are more interested in killing Americans.
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Insightful)
And you're assuming Iraq ever does stabilise, of course.
Re:No differnces? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is precisely this "them and us" mentality that causes problems. There is no battle for world supremacy going on. What is going on is that there are some radical Islamics out there (but not as many as most people would have us believe) who hate the West, and particularly the USA. In recent times the USA has not endeared itself to the Muslim parts of the world, but this will only be solved by diplomacy and constructive actions, not war and war-like "them and us" sentiments.
Re:No differnces? (Score:4, Insightful)
In recent times the USA has not endeared itself to the Muslim parts of the world, but this will only be solved by diplomacy and constructive actions, not war and war-like "them and us" sentiments.
I see this a lot, and I can only guess that you've never actually spent some time reading what bin Laden and the rest of them have to say.
Let's go down the short list of things that bin Laden doesn't care about:
bin Laden has made it perfectly clear that he hates America because it is overtly "godless" and evil. He's saying this from a Muslim point of view. Imagine if you knew America only through the movies and other trash that we export, you might feel differently, too.
On top of that, he has a gripe that the soldiers of this "godless" nation are hanging out in his holy land, Saudi Arabia, along with a bunch of other foreigners working in the oil industry. He doesn't think that non-Muslims should be there.
There is no amount of "dialog" that will change that. On the other hand, capturing and killing their commanders has had a positive influence.
On a side note: I honestly can't believe people are still dumb enough to advance these arguments about how we need diplomacy. Seriously. Ask the Spanish. They capitulated after the 3/11 attacks, and yet last week they arrested a terrorist cell that was planning on blowing up their supreme court. You're not dealing with rational people.
I agree that the US has done some really dumb stuff, and it would help our position immensely on the "Arab street" if we were to deal fairly in the Israel/Palestine situation. I also have a problem with the fact that democracy is only to be forced on the victims of our enemies, but doesn't seem to be a priority for the people of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.
Regardless, this isn't pushing al Qaeda.
Re:No differnces? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mother of all flip-flops! How is this possible? On the one hand, they capitulated, and on the other hand, they busted up a terror cell. If that can happen, I can almost believe that as President, Kerry would actually go after terrorists too!
Kerry has never said we should attempt to negotiate or reach a diplomatic accord with Al-Qaeda. What he has said is that we should negotiate and use diplomacy with the rest of the civilized world to coordinate the most effective response to Al-Qaeda.
You might call it the the difference between going it alone and rounding up a posse. I don't know about you, but given any fight, I'd rather have backup.
And for the record, Spain did not "capitulate" after the 3/11 attacks. They still held their democratic elections. And the ruling nationalist party lost. One of the reasons was their crappy handling of the Madrid bombing, which they (with no evidence) first tried to blame on ETA, and then tried to suppress information that it was indeed foreign terrorists.
Of course the Nationalists were very unpopular for getting Spain involved in Iraq in the first place, something like 90% of Spain was opposed to going to war. So they may well have been on their way out regardless of what happened on 3/11.
So here's the deal: bin Laden is not someone you can negotiate with. Granted. But the House of Saud, Musharraf, Mubaraq, and even Khatami, those are people you can, to a greater or lesser degree, negotiate with.
And even if you can't use diplomacy in the Middle East, it will surely work in Europe, Asia, parts of South America, you know the whole goddam world except for a few crazy dogmatic motherfuckers. And that's why diplomacy is important. It's how people (who aren't ruled by dogma) iron out their differences and come up with a mutually agreeable plan.
Re:No differnces? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. So, when are you going to North Korea? Hm? Perhaps some Christmas cleaning in Cuba? How about the dictatorship in Saudi Arab...
Re:No differnces? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where were you when those graves were being dug up? Where was bush? Where was runsfeld, perle, cheney and the rest of the war mongers? When amnesty international was publishing it's list of atrocities in Iraq did you join them, did you give them money? Or did you mock them for being liberal faggots.
I am touched by your newfound love of the iraqi people, I really am. If only with people like you cared about the iraqis before 9/11. Like maybe in the 1980s when Saddam was gassing the kurds or when saddam was putting doen the Shia. Maybe even when the UN sanctions were starving hundreds of thousands of people. Too bad back then you didn't give a fuck about the iraqis back then. Back then they were just another set of ragheads.
Now that you love the iraqis so much maybe you can learn to love other people was well. People in Uganda, sudan, haiti, iran, north korea, china, russia, chechnia, and palestine all need your love. Please love these people as much as you love the iraqis. They too need help from brutal dictators, widespread disease, famine, starvation and genocide.
I suppose one could argue that these people probably deserved freedom before the iraqis even but I am not going to nitpick. I don't want to diminish your newfound love of the opressed peoples of the world. I want to celepbrate it with you.
You are right, these kinds of things are just not something the 21st century should put up with. Only if we had a president that was comitted to ending opression everywhere in the world.
Re:No differnces? (Score:4, Insightful)
Did Bush say we are going to invade Iraq due to human rights violations? We invaded for the wrong reasons and then started looking around for excuses. Why did we not act when the pictures of Kurdish mothers with children in their arms laying dead in the streets were first ciculated?
Toward the end of Gulf War 1 Bush senior came out and vocally encouraged an Iraqi uprising stating that the US would support them - which they did and we did not. This event is one of the reasons for some of those mass graves we are now investigating.
Dude, thanks for nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)
That goes double for the lefties amongst you who are going to vote for Nader. Kerry isn't going to turn your country into the leftie paradise you dream of, sure. But at least the bloke isn't a messianic, militaristic moron who sends thousands of soldiers off to die to settle a family vendetta...
Re:NO. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:NO. (Score:4, Insightful)
What a warped world we live in where people feel Kerry's job is to campaign, while it is a waste of time for him to do what he gets paid to do: be a Senator.
Re:DMCA Backups (Score:4, Insightful)
Contributions by Industry from TV/Movies/Music:
Republicans: $2,782,125 [opensecrets.org]
Democrats: $3,431,236 [opensecrets.org]
Re:Caught on? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like he's going to send troops into Russia without Putin's permission. Russia needs help securing it's nuclear weapons, and it's in the best interests of both Russia and the United States to cooperate in this regard. Remember, the Russians are quite frightened about terrorism too, given the recent events with Chechnya. It's a cooperative venture that's long overdue, and very important.
He talks about how we don't have our allies for the war, when in reality, we do have allies, althoguh we are missing some nations
He's right. We don't have *our* allies. We have some allies, but they're not *our* allies. Our allies are the NATO countries, not semi-dictatorships like Pakistan. Our "alliance" is stupid from a military standpoint alone. Why spend billions of dollars to ally yourselves with countries that cannot field the manpower of a single US state? At *best*, it's a strategic mistake, and at worst it's a misleading PR stunt.
I know I wouldnt be all to happy to help Kerry if I was a US ally and he kept saying I did not exist.
You probably wouldn't be happy to be an ally, like the Prime Minister of Poland, who now thinks Bush mislead us into the war.
Kerry talks about creating laws as president, although in reality this is his job as a senator
Kerry nevers talks about creating laws. I don't know where you got that idea. He *does* talk about pushing through legislation, which is perfectly within his powers as president. The President has a lot of influence to encourage (or discourage) certain legislation in Congress. He also talks a lot about allocation of government spending, which is also in his power, given that the OMB (part of the Whitehouse) drafts the budget.
and he STICKS with the decision that he makes.
Sticking with bad decisions is a sign of weakness, not a sign of strength. The information about Iraq has changed drastically since we went in. Bush thought Iraq had WMD, they didn't. Bush thought they were cooperating with terrorists, they weren't. Iraq, as far as two-bit dictatorships go, was less of an immediate danger to us than any of a number of countries. The only excuse Bush has left is that "we freed the people of Iraq." Well, guess what? That's not our job! The only reason Bush still says he wouldn't have done anything different is because he isn't man enough to admit he was wrong.
"While you may not agree with Bush's decision, but you must agree that he has the ability to make a decision"
Yes, I agree that Bush has the ability to make decisions. Of course, so does everyone else. That's nothing special. It takes a real man to know when to change his mind. To quote Santayana: "a fanatic is one who, having lost sight of his aim, redoubles his effort". The world is complicated --- you get no credit for trying hard!