Leak Shows US Lead Opponent of ACTA Transparency 164
An anonymous reader writes "Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency, the secret copyright
treaty, many countries have taken public positions that they support
release of the actual text, but that other countries do not.
Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners,
the text simply can't be released until everyone is in agreement.
A new leak
from the Netherlands fingers who the chief opponents of transparency
are: the United States, South Korea, Singapore, and Denmark lead the
way, with Belgium, Germany, and Portugal not far behind as problem
countries."
apt quote (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:apt quote (Score:5, Funny)
"American Idol is on tonight, oh goodie" - Typical American
Re:apt quote (Score:5, Interesting)
I know, I must be new here... Here's an important block of text. Read this [michaelgeist.ca]:
The U.S. Representatives may be against transparency, but they aren't stupid enough to say so.
Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the EU Article 15 TFUE applies which gets citizens access to these documents. So the only legal grounds is protection of interests of nations outside of the European Union.
Re:apt quote (Score:5, Informative)
Here's an important block of text... Moreover, the U.S. has remained silent on the issue.
This is a more telling block of text [michaelgeist.ca] :
IDG covers the latest Dutch leak that reveals the transparency position of many ACTA participants. Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If France and Italy haven't actually stated that they fear U.S. retaliation, then that's just speculation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If France and Italy haven't actually stated that they fear U.S. retaliation, then that's just speculation.
Yeah, just like everything else we know about ACTA - it is ALL speculation and no "official" information. However we don't have to look very far at the "official" evidence [iipa.com] we are permitted to see to find their priorities and aims [ustr.gov] that paint a pretty damning picture [michaelgeist.ca] that US lobby groups (i.e. the IIPA - International Intellectual Property Alliance [google.com]) and their bought and paid for US politicians are the main instigators behind ACTA. Given the official data we do have, It would be very naive indeed to start give
Re: (Score:2)
Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.
France is a nuclear power, for chrissakes. Why would they need to fear U.S. retaliation?
And as far as Italy is concerned, isn't it quite ironic, that of all countries, it's Italy who is standing up against the MAFIAA?
Re: (Score:2)
France is a nuclear power, for chrissakes. Why would they need to fear U.S. retaliation?
Huh? We aren't talking about military retaliation. Why would you bring that up? Christ, nuclear power or not France is an ally! Regardless, what we are talking about is economic and political reprisal, not warheads. In other words, if they go against us on this, we may take sides against them on some other issue. Personally, I hope they do stand up to us, just like Germany did regarding Iraq. "No, this is a bad idea!" That's all they have to do.
And, no Italy isn't standing up against the media companies,
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, one would expect a Berulsconi run government be very pro IP laws since he's the biggest media mogul in the country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
when France says that it is a bad idea, that indeed, then it is indeed a bad idea.
Like getting jealous that the US and UK are so close to each other, demanding that France be allowed to play too while at the same time demanding that in the actual event of war France can negotiate their own peace rather than actually bear the consequences of de Gaulle's political grandstanding? Or perhaps requesting NATO troops for a genocidal occupation of Algeria and then quitting NATO when no one would go along with it?
Re: (Score:2)
...Now, their South Korean and Singaporean cronies on the other hand, are stupid enough, and they are opposed to transparency -- because they lose so much money to counterfeiting!</sarcasm>
I get the sarcasm, but that is an interesting thought. I wonder how much sales tax, withholding type taxes, health care and retirement contributions, permission to exist as a business permits, etc. the organizations that produce retail targeted, unauthorized products (bootleg DVD's, software, etc.), do contribute to their country. In China I would expect it to be large, as there is that whole "violators will be shot" enforcement system. But normal countries that have these operations running must at least c
Corruption and Treason (Score:2)
Lack of transparency here is corruption since a lot of these people make money from entities that stand to profit, and treason since you are acting against the people of the state. Pure and simple. "National security" is a laughable excuse. Finger pointing at corruption in Asian and Middle Eastern countries is just hypocrisy when you're willing to do this kind of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Singapore's stance doesn't surprise me. Their government is totalitarian and extremely repressive in nature, while still being pretty much a full democracy (it works due to their size and the by-and-large homogeneity of their most populous cultures). They don't value freedom so much as order and hence the rule of the law. If something helps enforce the law, regardless of what the law stipulates, then they'd be for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
Home of the (not so) brave (anymore), land of the (less) free (than we used to be.)
Re:apt quote (Score:4, Funny)
Get slaughtered by the US military for inciting rebellion?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Get slaughtered by the US military for inciting rebellion?
The last major rebellion by the southern half of the US ended with control firmly established and more governmental power in place, so I'll add that to what would happen in any hypothetical rebellion. You know, we gotta keep them turr'rists down.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the big bad armchair soldier who would wet his pants at the first sight of an army batallion heading his way.
Re:apt quote (Score:5, Interesting)
An American Revolution is most definitely possible in modern society for two reasons:
The US Army is not supposed to put down armed uprisings unless it is on a massive scale, you only have to fight the police at first.
By the time it gets big enough they start calling up the Nat'l guard and what have you, you'll have as many soldiers defecting to revolt.
It's even more possible now with a lot of our top end equipment and soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan.
As for the technological gap between the Army and the civilian population, well the Iraqis don't have drone fighters and are still doing a decent job of killing soldiers.
Re: (Score:2)
Except none of these little wimps on Slashdot would ever have the balls to revolt. They posture on the internet all the time in their parent's basement and that's about all that ever comes of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying that there aren't people who would actually have the guts and the ability to start a rebellion. The point is that the people who constantly post that Jefferson quote on Slashdot and the subsequent postings by armchair soldiers about starting a rebellion are a bunch of pansies. There's probably a good reason that they almost always do so as AC.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't own any firearms. What could I do? I would like to own firearms but it is presently too much of a pain in the ass to get them legally. And further, to practice using them is also a pain in the ass. This is, of course, "by design."
By your own design perhaps. I come from a long line of lefties and liberals, and 90% of us own guns, and use them. Buying a gun isn't that difficult, if you don't mind a small amount of paperwork, less if go to a show, and none if you know people (or have guns floating a
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. It's designed to keep nutjobs with short tempers away from firearms, for the good of, well, everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that this is Slashdot, the most likely form of revolution would be a cyber revolution.
So they'll download a syn flooder and an email bomber and think they're 1337 h4x0r5 sticking it to the man?
Re: (Score:2)
By the time it gets big enough they start calling up the Nat'l guard and what have you, you'll have as many soldiers defecting to revolt.
They're going to find it difficult to mobilize the NG with so many of them deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Re:apt quote (Score:4, Insightful)
I had the same argument with a British coworker last year. He was convinced that Bush was going to somehow unleash "battle-hardened" troops on the American public and make himself America's dictator instead of heading home to Texas on Obama's inauguration day. After I finished laughing, I informed him that scenario was about as likely to happen as Prince Charles having his sons and mom murdered so he could be king before he died... then proceeded to explain why both scenarios were completely ridiculous.
Among other things, if one blindly assumes that every person classified by Wikipedia as an active-duty member of the US Armed Forces is a soldier capable of urban warfare, and that every single one is available for instantaneous deployment -- without support services -- across the US, there are *almost* enough to send 25 soldiers to every zipcode. Pit them against a population that values freedom, celebrates gun ownership, and generally practices large-scale civil disobedience even in normal daily life (speed limits, sales tax on out-of-state purchases, drug usage, underage drinking, you name it), and even if you assume the government has somehow managed to secure 100% complete blind obedience from its soldiers, they'd be hopelessly-outgunned and overpowered before they managed to park the Humvee and turn on the megaphone. God *himself* couldn't successfully impose martial law on an uncooperative American public ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not going to happen for one and only one reason: American apathy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:apt quote (Score:5, Interesting)
No one because all you armchair freedom fighters are too much of pussies to actually do anything besides posturing on the internet.
The reason for the widespread compliance within the population is not because they are all wimps. Revolution is like amputation. You only amputate your leg if you really have to. If wounded in the leg, and given the choice to do nothing, or amputate it, most people will adopt a wait and see approach - it's not that bad just yet.
Whereas real healing lies in the utilisation of other, finer instruments - the scalpel, the antibiotic, the anaesthetic. In the context of government it is by wielding the fine instrument that you overpower the powerful in their entrenched power bases. These fine instruments are things like:
These are a hard slog. And lot's of people like to complain, but are too lazy to do their duty, to step up to the table and fix what is wrong. So the solution is to call for revolution. Blowing the dog whistle of revolution justifies doing nothing - after all, they did their civic duty by blowing the whistle, who would ask more of them? The revolutionary whistle is like a relief valve - there's a problem, hearts and minds are stirred - pressure builds up - someone calls for revolution - no we can't do that, it's not justified - the relief valve opens and the pressure is gone. People go home to bed, and in the morning, pay their due to their masters.
Ironically, the US love of guns and the kneejerk tendency to suggest violence as the solution to issues of governance means that of all the democracies in the world, the US population is amongst the most compliant of all populations toward their government.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the most insightful statements I've seen in a long time.
Just who did we elect to do this? (Score:2, Insightful)
As the Republicans are saying on health care that the people are against it, but the Democrats were elected by the people with full knowledge they'd try to do this... they seem out of place.
Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.
Re:Just who did we elect to do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.
Uh, the **AA people own the Senate. They have also infiltrated the Department of Justice. And now that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to limit corporate campaign funding (via advertisements) expect corporate ownership of all branches of government to increase.
Re: (Score:2)
And now that the Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to limit corporate campaign funding (via advertisements) expect corporate ownership of all branches of government to increase.
Wait, you mean that that ownership ever decreased at some point? You know, I never believed in any deity before, but proof of that might make me reconsider.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just who did we elect to do this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less. When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.
That's BS. Corporations are non-entities. They are faux-persons. They don't have or deserve inalienable rights because they're not created by a Creator, but by people. I know this levels the playing field by allowing corporations to play on the same level as special interest groups and trade unions, but I think this is leveling the playing field the wrong way. It is a step backwards, not a step forwards. We should be restricting the abilities of the collective while encouraging individualism, not the other
Re: (Score:2)
good luck getting this past The Senate.
Although I was quite young, I remember hearing about NAFTA, and thinking, who are all of these crazy people who are against it? It's going to help give everyone jobs and promote trade!
The sad truth is that if the business community is behind ACTA, it will be pushed 24/7 as a good thing in the press until it is passed, even with a few conciliatory addenda that will be properly loopholed into oblivion. Just like the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
NAFTA had even pro-trade people against it, because what sort of free trade bill needs to be so long and have so many negotiations? How about this:
All businesses and individuals in nations that are signatories may sell any good in the nations that are party to this treaty so long as the products obey the standards and regulations in that nation, and they will, for tax and trade purposes, be treated as if they were a local product. All tariffs are to be removed, and all quotas likewise.
That is all that is n
Re:Just who did we elect to do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people, then good luck getting this past The Senate.
The DMCA made it past the Senate, as did the PATRIOT act, the war on (some) drugs, Prohibition, and I believe the Corwin Amendment. I feel your faith in the Senate is misplaced. You see, to have real influence in the Senate, you must either be someone with enough cash to make a difference in an election, such as a CEO, or you must be someone who represents a collection of people that have that power, such as union bosses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
ACTA is being negotiated by the executive branch, the US Trade Rep, so don't blame Congress. This side-steps the constitutional separation of powers by claiming it is an agreement under existing laws, not creating new laws. At any rate, write to Obama about his promise of greater openness.
I have a feeling he won't give a shit.
Best chance is to write to the republicans in congress and try to get them to come up with a way to aim their obstructionist game-plan to include this treaty - like pass a ride on a bill that would make implementing it as a presidential directive harder in some way. Maybe get Glenn Beck riled up about the presidential monarch making treaties with other countries and side-stepping congress.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet. Ultimately, Congress will still have to vote on the treaty, but I don't see them putting up too much of a fight. Congressmen/senators have a proven history of passing legislation that they don't even bother to read.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the same senate that has bought and paid for a significant portion of these congresspeople?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Who's representing the US in the ACTA negotiations. If it's just the usual **AA people
Once again, the USTR [wikipedia.org] is, ostensibly, the US representative for negotiating ACTA. Currently this position is held by Ron Kirk [wikipedia.org]. The official positions of this office can be found at their website here. [ustr.gov] Contacting the office via official channels can be done by reading through this contact page. [ustr.gov] The official USTR position and stance regarding ACTA can be found here. [ustr.gov] Finally, if you search for, "US Trade Representative ACTA," on google then you can find a link on the page titled, "US Trade Rep wants your input
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah but the risk of ignoring Republican input would have resulted in law that the republicans would undo first chance they got into power.
Re:Just who did we elect to do this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just who did we elect to do this? (Score:5, Informative)
The Democrat-controlled Senate just reapproved key provisions of the Patriot Act that would otherwise have expired. If you wanted any indicator that they're worse than useless, that was it.
Re:Poorly written summary (Score:5, Informative)
IDG covers the latest Dutch leak that reveals the transparency position of many ACTA participants. Particularly telling is the view that both France and Italy favour greater transparency, but fear U.S. retaliation.
WTF? (Score:2)
As an American, I feel it's quite certain that USA politicians are against transparency; a lot of their funding comes from the people that want it passed. How
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the article says that, but what does that mean?
I have a document in my hand. I have 1 million people writing me letters asking me to release it. I refuse. How is that being silent on the issue? They are actively refusing to release it.
I must say (Score:5, Funny)
I am shocked. Just shocked.
Glad I live in the land of the free. (Score:3, Funny)
I'm glad I live in the land of the free,
where the ones in charge aren't accountable to me.
They say they do it all for my own good,
so I ought to keep my head down like they say I should.
Meh.
How do we folllow the law? (Score:2)
How are we suppose to follow a law if we do not know what it is?
Or am I missing something here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's still under negotiation. It's less a question of not telling you the law, and more a question about whether they want the general populace to know the terms of the agreement _while_ they're working on it.
(i.e. whether they tell you before or after it's too late to complain about the laws they'll have to pass to support the treaties).
Re:How do we folllow the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a secret law so that it can be passed without opposition. Once it is to late to do anything about it, it will be made public. If the people don't know about it, they can not protest, they can not petition their government. The powers that be can get away with governing without requiring that little flaw of democratic representation. The safest and easiest way to subvert democracy is to keep the people ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't "the law".
Once it's all worked out it will be published, has to pass the senate after all, so you'll have no excuse to not obey it.
Re:How do we folllow the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a law, it's a treaty. Treaties are much better than laws on their own because while laws can easily be opposed by the public before being passed, treaties can be passed in secret and then used as a basis for forcing laws through on the grounds that they are a requirement of the treaty.
We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2! (Score:2)
There's no way you can get the US onto a treaty without getting that through The Senate, and right now the score there is 59-41 giving the Republicans only the power to filibuster and not pass anything without the help of at least nine Democrats. This will be debated. The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing. What are we worried about?
Copyright expansionism is bipartisan (Score:5, Informative)
right now the score there is 59-41 giving the Republicans only the power to filibuster and not pass anything without the help of at least nine Democrats.
President Clinton, a Democrat, signed the Bono Act and the DMCA in October 1998. He didn't send it back to both houses for a roll-call vote (which requires 67% assent); instead, he let the voice votes in both houses (which require 81% assent) stand.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you mean 51%?
Re: (Score:2)
And that's really a 4:1 ratio of apparent db to the chair position... no accountability in a voice vote unless somebody makes a request that the roll be called.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit, that shouldn't be legal [senate.gov]!
We allow bills to pass into law without even recording who voted for them? I could plant some high quality speakers & dictate the law!
It takes 20% to force a roll call (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info; I wasn't aware of that.
I thought your comparison was pointing out that Clinton didn't do his part to counter the **AA by vetoing the bill, which would require a 2/3 majority to pass it. The initial passing of the bill should only have required a simple majority.
It seems that you are presuming that a voice vote would be called down (and a roll call required) if 20% disagreed with the vote. I suspect there are "gentlemen's agreements" to not require a roll call on any vote unless it is
Re: (Score:2)
I thought your comparison was pointing out that Clinton didn't do his part to counter the **AA by vetoing the bill, which would require a 2/3 majority to pass it.
It's both of their fault. The Congress was too chicken to go on record, and Clinton was complicit in letting them be chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll be perfectly honest that I have not followed the ACTA issue closely at all. Are you just assuming that the Democrats will be against and Republicans are for it, or are you going on actual statements? Let's not forget that Senator Disney was himself a democrat, and that the lines of party/ideological purity often seem fairly blurred in cases involving IP, international trade and treaties, etc.
Re:We will have discussions about this on CSPAN2! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
IT IS NOT A TREATY (Score:4, Insightful)
This will be debated.
No, it won't.
The treaty will be rejected if it's as bad as we're fearing.
No, it won't.
What are we worried about?
We're worried about the fact that ACTA is not a treaty but rather an executive agreement, inter alia. This means that no Senate approval or Congressional oversight of any kind is required. The only limits are that the agreement has to be within the bounds of current U.S. law. Of course, coloring within the lines of judge-made case-law is hard to do, it closes off policy options for the future, and the primary concern many people have is the extent to which ACTA will be forcing US IP policy onto other countries (all the while leaving out the good parts of our law, like fair use).
Re: (Score:2)
Germany (Score:4, Informative)
As a resident of one of the mentioned problem countries, I think it might be helpful to point towards an organization to rally behind to oppose the secrecy:
ACTA workgroup [ffii.org] of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V. [ffii.org]
Summary is wrong (Score:2, Redundant)
Somehow the submitter has morphed this into the U.S. being the lead opponent to public disclo
Re: (Score:2)
With the RIAA's and the MPAA's shenanigans, the general vanguard role of the US with regards to software patents et al., and the historical acceptance of "secrecy for the sake of greater good", do you even doubt for a second the ACTA was born in the States and the major financial, thus political, backing originates there?
In other words you have no actual information what the real story is and are drawing conclusions based on paranoia.
One thing to be aware of is that ACTA is not just about copying entertainm
Contact Your Senators NOW! (Score:2)
Whaddaya mean "countries"? (Score:2)
Governments? Bribed government officials?
Population? The uninformed mass of the population?
Because a whole country having a single p.o.v. on anything is something that only happens in the fairy tales of delusional “idealists”. (And it’s not even an ideal at all.)
Since when does transparency... (Score:5, Insightful)
... , to the very people who elected them, require consensus? Shouldn't it be opacity that requires unanimous consensus?
Seriously, people, how much more clue do you need that "reform" isn't going to cut it? Only another "R" word is going to put an end to this. If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.
you mean "retard"? (Score:5, Insightful)
because if you don't understand how much worse an actual revolution is compared to the issues here, that's what you are
when peoples bellies are empty, then you get revolution. if they can't download cartoon network for free, not so much
and i say this as someone who has said in many comments on this site that intellectual property is morally and philosophically bankrupt. but i still know the entire debate over intellectual property nowhere rises to the level of revolution, not even remotely. if you think it does, you are extremely, extremely out of touch with what is really important in this world
Re: (Score:2)
Intellectual property per se is NOT what demands a revolt/revolution. What demands that is the consistently anti-democratic and unethical behavior of nearly all of the people we're electing, as well as those we're promoting to power in corporations. After we're done kicking them all out of the temple, THEN we need to sit down and collectively have a serious conversation about how screwed-up our criteria for choosing leaders has been. We need new criteria to make sure we don't repeat the same litany of mi
hello naive unexperienced idealist (Score:4, Insightful)
solving this problem is not a matter of throwing a revolution and then everything is golden forever more
its more like a policing duty, a constant lowgrade effort at taking out the trash
in your home, do you declare a revolution on garbage and then forever more there's no more garbage?
no, no matter what you do, you need to take out the garbage every thursday. likewise in a democracy, there will be a constant crop of assholes who get power and don't deserve it. how do you get rid of them? YOU VOTE THEM OUT
this is what makes a democracy so much better than other governments: you don't NEED a revolution to get a new regime
so stop advocating for revolution, which is FAR FAR worse on ANY scale of abuse and damage than ANY problem you can describe facing us today
if you don't understand that, then you are 11 years old, and your lack of life experience is excused, or you're an adult idiot
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't read - or understand - a single damned thing I said; what sort of reply do you expect? Oh, I know: you expect me to resort to using words like retard and idiot to marginalize you and then dismiss your words, huh?
It's the system that's broken. No "constant low-grade effort" is going to fix that. Maybe if your system at home was more refined, you'd have automated the trash disposal problem; there'd still be trash but you wouldn't have to constantly fight with it. A perfect example of that autom
i accept every criticism of our government (Score:4, Insightful)
you offer, and agree with all of them
now i am asking you to understand why a real world REVOLUTION is far, far worse
in terms of devastation to personal lives on a massive scale, in terms of massive amounts of injustice, and most importantly in terms of the complete unpredictability of a final outcome in terms of who actually winds up on power: usually exactly the kind of asshole you complain about in our current government, times 1000 times worse
if you take your head out of your fanboy ass and your romantic fiction, you will realize that a real world revolution is just about the worst state a country can ever be in, and people ONLY turn to revolution if they can't feed themselves
and i am not debating your points, i am telling you what should be, for anyone intelligent, an obviously truthful historical fact about what a revolution really is
i am openly insulting you with the words "retard" and "idiot" because that is exactly what you are if you romanticize revolution
revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable
that you openly call for it, when your complaints about our government don't even begin to approach by many orders of magnitude a valid call for revolution, means you are, genuinely, a complete moron
Re: (Score:2)
revolution is evil, ugly, brutal, murderous and completely undesirable
Its only undesirable if you value weakness over strength, timidity over boldness.
"What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome." -- Nietzsche
lol (Score:2)
did you just warp in from 1930s germany or 1930s italy?
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that people, including yourself, would rather live lives of miserable ease than actually *live*.
what you champion (Score:2)
boldness and strength, are also the qualities of a rabid dog. i don't hold the life of a rabid dog to be that of a life of something truly alive in any better sense. free, yes. but free in the way most short lived destructive forces are: big, fast, dumb, and quickly petered out completely
strength without prudence is arrogant and cruel
boldness without wisdom is stupid and crude
throw in the nietzsche quote and you sound like just another garden variety strutting cocksure protofascist asshole
too bad you weren'
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... Ghandi had a revolution. While you're looking him up on Wikipedia, check out an online dictionary for definitions of "revolution". Your definition seems to be pedantically narrow.
For dessert, you might want to Google "literalism", since your mind's expression of it is now clearly the cause of most of the dischord and your vitriol here. Being able to read between the lines and comprehend metaphor, simile, parable, and even hyp
Re: (Score:2)
this is what makes a democracy so much better than other governments: you don't NEED a revolution to get a new regime
If you believe that a democratic process can lead to regime change (within that same democratic nation), well thats just totally naive.
Democracies, as we know them today, are driven by media corporations and the advertising industry. They in NO way represent the people who vote. People vote based on advertising, not on rational considerations.
Human beings are not rational agents. I know that it may be hard for individuals who consider themselves to be intelligent, rational people to believe this, but its tr
if gore was president in 2000 (Score:4, Insightful)
we would not have invaded iraq
meaning the parties genuinely are different and that obama coming after bush represents genuine regime change
if you say the parties are same, or advertising controls all of our thinking, you are replacing intelligence with empty cynicism
furthermore, the people actually voted for gore in 2000, and it was a structural fault that led to the weaker candidate taking the white house
meaning those irrational people made the wiser decision all along, and the system, which we have to fix, can result in a cleaner expression of democracy, never perfect, but better than anything else in this world you can possibly hope for
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that one president or another could change the way that the USA behaves in its foreign policy then you are doubly naive.
The president is just the 'fall guy'.
i already know you're a protofascist (Score:2)
from your other thread
and now i know you are a paranoid schizoprenic: top secret cabals run the world!
who is it? the j00s? the bank3rs? senator palpatine? agent smith?
so how big is your weapons stash?
go for it timothy mcveigh! do your worst dylan klebold! YOU CAN DO IT RETARD!
lol
fucking loser
i see this thread (Score:2)
has degraded into the usual paranoid schizoprenic drivel
perhaps your worst intellectual insult is that you're boring. you can't even provide me with a more entertaining narrative at least (an intelligent one is of course beyond possibility). just the typical b-grade hollywood movie plot about top secret cabals in control, the tired idiotic noam chomsky "manufactured consent" meme, and you even throw in the bankrupt chestnut "1984", the go to fantasy of every low iq paranoid like yourself. typical, boring, p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not firing up the furnace and making ready to beat your plowshares into swords, you're not doing enough.
Swords? What good are swords. I'm beating my plowshares into cruise missiles. When they come for me, I'm taking them all out!
Transparency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny you should say that since today was the big whitehouse meeting between Obama and the republicans that was initially mooted back in december as being hidden from the cameras but ended up 100% on cspan.
You mean the political theater where nothing was expected or planned to get done, and that the Democrats half-hoped the Republicans would boycott so they could get more political ammunition?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)