Wikileaks Says Public Forced Canadian DMCA Delay 177
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports
that a new WikiLeaks
cable confirms
that the Canadian Conservative government delayed introducing a
Canadian DMCA in early 2008 due to public opposition. The US
cable notes confirmation came directly from then-Industry Minister Jim
Prentice, who told US Ambassador David Wilkins that cabinet
colleagues and Conservative MPs were worried about the electoral
implications of copyright reform."
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
At least they listened for once.
Of course, if our politicians actually, you know, GAVE A FUCK, then they wouldn't have re-introduced the same tired shit. But hey, once at least the court of public opinion stopped a politician from being, well, a lying scumbag asshole politician
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, this actually is somewhat promising news. It means that, if the Tories gauged it right, this is enough of an issue for the voting public to keep it from becoming law. Either they're worried about voters getting pissed off at new copyright restrictions, or they realize that bowing to international pressure from the US makes them look weak, which their rivals won't hesitate to exploit.
Either way, as long as a minority government remains in place, it means there's less chance of a pseudo-DMCA ever becoming law.
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Generally, the letters to major politicians around the world (in democratic countries) are read by a small time member(s) their staff. When same issue starts coming up in sufficient amount of letters, they take it to their boss, usually chief of staff.
And if the chief of staff the amount to be sufficient to matter, he takes it to the politician. As a result, only few such issues raised by electorate is ever given any attention by the actual politician - however this also works in other direction, meaning th
Re: (Score:3)
Generally, the letters to major politicians around the world (in democratic countries) are read by a small time member(s) their staff. When same issue starts coming up in sufficient amount of letters, they take it to their boss, usually chief of staff.
I can't speak for other nations like the USA, but as for here in Canada, you're greatly overstating the number of people staffing a Canadian Member of Parliament. You'll typically have a staffer or two at their constituency office "back home" and a staffer
Re: (Score:3)
And if your MP/MLA/MPP is not just a lump of shit. I've been helped with an issue I had with the government when I lived in the Winnipeg/Saint Boniface riding. Ron Duhamel (may he rest in peace) helped me when the government was jerking me around financially for about four or five months leaving me short on cash. I saw him in his local riding office (he was in town). He literally asked me if I was bullshitting about anything because he was going to rattle some cages. The problem was fixed in no kidding, two
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
It depends a lot on the MP. I called the office of the MP where I live (Scott Reid, Conservative), for help with an immigration issue. They asked me to fax in the relevant papers. I called two weeks later and they didn't know who I was. I reminded them that my two children had no mother because she was being jerked around waiting for her landed immigrant status. No action over the next two months.
So I called the office of the MP where I work (Peter Milliken, Liberal). Within two days they had faxed the immigration office in Manila and got them to return my wife's passport (the office demanded a new medical exam, which required the passport, but the office had had her passport for three months and would not respond to my requests to return it). Granted it was couriered COD, for $150, but at least we were able to get the paperwork done.
I have written several physical letters to Scott Reid's office and not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
^^
I would normally just moderate the above, but I need to share my own experiences which were disturbingly similar...
I have needed the help of my MP 3 times in the last few years... twice for a passport issue (needing to get a passport issued in a rush for X reason), and once concerning an issue with the office of the registrar general. I contacted my MP (Gordon O'Connor, Conservative), and was told in no uncertain terms that he was "too busy" to occupy himself with my troubles, or that he wasn't interested
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the anti-circumvention clause issue I spoke in person with Jack Layton and my MP (NDP critic for First Nations) at an event and both were well aware of the issue. Jack asked me to send him an email to his non-Parliamentary email address, which I did. I also sent emails to the Parliamentary email addresses of my MP, the NDP and Liberal heritage critics, and several members of the heritage committee. Stuff like this is why it's GOOD to have a minority government... In a minority, committees have much more
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
MPs are toothless. If the party leader in Canada tells them to vote a certain way, or talk a certain way, they have to. Otherwise they get kicked out of the party. It has happened before; look at John Nunziata (Liberal fired by Prime Minister Chretien for voting with integrity), and Garth Turner (Conservative fired by Prime Minister Harper for daring to think on his own). Then next election no one will pay for their election campaign and they're for sure out of a cushy job. It doesn't matter much that they aren't given any opportunity to speak in the house during question period if they are independent (only MPs in parties get anything more than around (literally) two or three minutes talking time each year during question period).
I have no idea why we have to pay to have MPs elected in ridings. It would save a lot of money if we just elected the leaders and gave them each a weighted vote commensurate with what percent of the popular vote they got. If we get a majority government in Canada it amounts to a limited term dictatorship. If it is a minority government like we just had, it is a limited term oligarchy [tfd.com]. We need reform so that we can have true representative democracy, where the MPs can really vote the way the people who elected them want them to. Then we wouldn't have the BS where everyone in the house yells to get the attention of the party leaders so they can be good dogs and maybe get a bone, and keep their jobs. The party leaders should have no say in how members vote and represent their ridings, nor in who the riding associations (Conservatives, Liberals, etc.) pick to run in elections. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way right now. Our democracy is broken.
Vote NDP! (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, voting in the NDP to fix the election system takes foresight to see that you can vote in the next election for whoever you want with a better system. Most voters don't want/can't see beyond one election so it's a difficult proposition to push.
Re:Vote NDP! (Score:5, Insightful)
You missed my point. What I am concerned about is NOT proportional representation. That is the least of our worries. I want representational democracy. I want my MP to be able to vote his/her own mind, not be told by the party leader how to vote . Once our representatives can actually represent us, and not their party leader back at us, then we can worry about improving how we get them there.
If Layton said he would introduce a constitutional amendment that all votes in Parliament (house and senate) were to be truly free votes, then I would vote for him. Proportional representation is not the same as representative democracy. They may be related, but they are not the same. Don't get me wrong, the Instant Run Off Voting [wikipedia.org] is OK, and I would agree to it. IROV is the version of Single Transferable Vote [wikipedia.org] system that we would use in Canadian elections; since we only have one winner for each riding election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I think you want is "Preferential Balloting", which is the generalized term that includes Instant Run Off Voting and other methods like Condorcet Voting [wikipedia.org]. Condorcet is more complicated but seems to have fewer failings than IRV does.
And I'm for preferential balloting as well, plus I'd also like to see a binding "None-of-the-above" option. If none of the above wins, then a by-election should be at the earliest opportunity and all of the losers from the previous election should be barred from running in
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously thought I was the only guy in Canada that wants a binding "None of the Above" option :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure about every issue, but I do know that NDP members voted freely on laws such as the long-gun registry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I know I may be missing something bigger picture here, and I certainly don't have a political science degree, but with today's levels of technology how is it not feasible to simply poll all of Canada electronically in a secure way?
If you set a system like that up (I am sure the costs would be fairly substantial for security, ensuring one vote each only, etc.) could you not then have a true democracy? You could just have billboards up across each city showing what issues were being voted on that day, an
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good system if you don't value long-term planning, subject-matter expertise, or doing anything that involves any degree of effort or sacrifice.
California has a system pretty close to what you describe with their proposition system. Their finances are a mess because the voters love propositions which increase spending, but reject the necessary tax-increases to pay for it all. The problem is compounded by the fact that it is usually the most radical fringes who bother to vote on each proposition, s
Re: (Score:3)
Tho, it should be mentioned that Jack Layton has been criticized by ALL the other parties for actually allowing his MP's a free vote on the Long Gun Registry. The NDP were the only party that didn't whip its members to all vote the same way.
When questioned immediately afterwords why Jack basically admitted that the position within his party is very different from MP to MP (likely because it is one of the few parties that not only is not very regional dependent, but also a mix of rural and urban ridings).
Any
Re: (Score:2)
That won't get rid of Party Whips though. I'm from Ireland, and though the country has PR voting, it also has one of the most iron fisted whips systems in the world (The whip system was actually invented in Ireland).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know, this actually is somewhat promising news. It means that, if the Tories gauged it right, this is enough of an issue for the voting public to keep it from becoming law. Either they're worried about voters getting pissed off at new copyright restrictions, or they realize that bowing to international pressure from the US makes them look weak, which their rivals won't hesitate to exploit.
They will just wait until after elections to vote on things like these. TFS even says "delay". They WILL vote on this! Anyone who even peripherally follows politics knows how divisive issues wax and wane during election cycles to attract moderates. In this case, younger voters. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are after swing voters, it's not that your opinion is particularly popular.
For the love of God folks, read real fucking news!
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of the poster to whom you replied is that, as long as there is a minority government in place, they will hopefully be held back from introducing some version of a DMCA by public opinion and a fear that it would cost the governing party at election time. Because in a minority government situation, there isn't really a significant amount of time "between" elections. You might be back in an election just six months after the previous one, so it's not a situation where you can pass unpopular legislation right after an election and then expect that it will be largely forgotten by the electorate at the next election in four years.
Re: (Score:2)
not if they get a majority government. In a majority government, they can pass the law, everyone would get upset, but nothing would change, and by the time the 4 year mandate ends, the population will have forgotten.
but in a minority government, the dynamics are very different...
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah. That's because the government was a minority government [wikipedia.org]. It makes government much more responsive to the public than they would be in a majority situation. The politicians worry about what the public thinks because an election could happen at any time. It's like having them on a short leash. I love it.
Thank goodness we've had successive minority governments or they would have rammed DMCA-style legislation through at some point regardless of public opposition. And I have to give the previous governments that have introduced these copyright bills to parliament a tiny bit of credit -- slowly the bills are getting less bad with each iteration. Maybe the next one will finally be a proper balance.
I'm also glad that politicians worry about on-line and other public activities regarding these issues. Good. They should worry. They're supposed to be listening to all of us, not only commercial interests.
[raises glass] Here's hoping for another minority government, regardless of who wins the election on Monday.
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
If that was Stephen Harper being responsive to the public during a minority, let God have mercy on our souls if he ever gets a majority.
Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Pardon my losing my point in my rantiness: He's NOT responsive to the public, he just manipulates them to try get the public to vote him in.
Saying Harper is responsive to the public is like saying a chess player is responsive to his pawns.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words: He's a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
He's the single most dangerous prime minister this country has ever known.
Re: (Score:2)
What most people don't seem to understand is that Canadian elections are *cheap* compared to the boondoggles that get passed in majority governments (e.g. the gun registry). It irks me to no end end politicians try to get votes by claiming Canadians hate voting and that elections are expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed - elections are not expensive to Canada as a whole. As far as I am aware, not a single penny gets spent outside the Canadian borders, and so it's a good stimulus to the economy. It also aids unemployed Canadians who are available and eager to work for Elections Canada during the polls.
Re: (Score:3)
He may care about getting re-elected but he only cares about the around 40% that he needs to get a majority. He doesn't really care much if a majority of Canadians disagree with him, as long as the 40% he needs to get elected are with him on the issue. So he's only responsive to a specific section of the public.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"If that was Stephen Harper being responsive to the public during a minority, let God have mercy on our souls if he ever gets a majority."
Yes, while I agree with you, I honestly don't think *any* of our current main parties deserve a majority, least of all the Conservatives. When I think what any of the 3 main parties would do with majority power, I think minority government -- ANY minority government -- is the best place to be.
I don't care if we have minority governments for the next decade, even if that
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Harper is one of the worst "We're doing it MY FUCKING WAY!" politicians we've had in YEARS, and that's WITH a minority.
I was amused by a recent Conservative attack ad that accused Jack Layton of being "desperate for power" and "blindly ambitious". They've certainly been taking lessons from the US NeoCons - look at your own guy's biggest flaws and then accuse your opponents of it.
Really wasn't responsive, still intro'd it twice (Score:4, Insightful)
C-32 was still introduced in 2008:
C-61 was another attempt in 2010:
Both of these died with the Minority government.
You can bet we will quickly get a new one from the new government next week.
If it is a Majority Government, I expect we go whole hog US style copyright, so the lawsuits will start destroying the lives of Canadians for file sharing...
If it is a Minority Government, the bill will need to have significant concessions for Canadian citizens to get passed by the Opposition parties.
Fingers crossed for a Minority.
Re: (Score:2)
We are doing everything right so you should sit down, shut up and do as your told.
- S. Harper
One of the funnier sides of elections is listening to politicians be so logically inconsistent and not even being aware of it. For example our local Conservative MP droned on about how well Canada is doing and about how much was due to his governments good management over the last 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
What? ~13 years of a liberal majority weren't enough for you? Or did you just turn 18 and this is your first election?
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry for trying to drill the point home but it's really that serious - the most recent bill proposal absolutely threw out any pretense of consumers having any rights, what-so-ever. They disguised how bad the bill was by describing all the rights that consumers had so it felt good but, in every instance, they immediately took those rights away if DRM was present (it wouldn't have had to be strong DRM - _ANY_ DRM would have stripped away all the consumer's rights).
Seriously, had that bill passed, we wouldn't have been able to legally record a show with a VCR, rip a CD, own an mp3 player (since it wouldn't have been legal to actually play anything...). It was disgusting.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, like most (all?) politicians, the are likely just telling us what we want to hear and not what they intend on doing.
Everything sounds fine and dandy until they get elected....
Just my 2 cents (2.1 cents USD)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... well your two cents is worth a lot more then what you think:
Conservative MPs were worried about the electoral implications of copyright reform
That means they did not give a FUCK about the ethical implications. They did not care about copyright either. What does it mean? What is its true purpose in society? How can we create copyright law that encourages innovation and creativity by protecting the artists while also nurturing and protecting a strong public domain that is critical to the very success of an advanced society? How do we do all that and balance out the motivation
Re: (Score:2)
That last 0.1 cent must feel realy good for you :)
Re: (Score:3)
The bit on pharmaceutical patents (further down the Cable) is worrying, too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not disagreeing completely, but I just want to point out that the stated reason why he opposed the legislation was because of "the electoral implications".
Not for ethical reasons, not because it was the right thing to do, not because it was best for the citizens of Canada, but for "electoral implications".
So I guess that still makes him "a lying scumbag asshole politician". But, h
Re: (Score:2)
Good point
Re: (Score:2)
"were worried about the electoral implications"
THAT gives you new faith in government?
Re: (Score:2)
"were worried about the electoral implications"
THAT gives you new faith in government?
Yes, because it proves we still have the power to choose and that they're still aware of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Delay... not actually discard.
Bill C32, our government's latest copyright reform bill, is not really any better than the DMCA, and in a lot of ways it is much worse. The debates and panels for Bill C32 are on temporary hold until after the election, but it's inevitable that if the conservatives win this election, they will either reintroduce the bill shortly thereafter, or else they will draft up something even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be under the misguided thought that this is a Conservative only bill... I have news for you. This bill WILL pass, no matter what government gets in. The only question is how may tries, and how long it takes. The official platforms of the opposition parties all include reference to copyright changes... and you can guarantee none of them involve increasing fair use or shortening copyright term!
Not really about listening, Minority Government. (Score:3)
At least they listened for once.
The only reason it couldn't be passed was we have always had minority governments when they tried to introduce it multiple times.
Monday could bring a Majority Conservative government and whatever DMCA industry lobbyist ask for in short order. :(
Re: (Score:2)
This failed not because of lack of support from the opposition on this particular bill. You can guarantee that if it ever came to a vote it would pass. It failed because they ran out of time because the government fell for completely unrelated reasons. Don't underestimate the dangers here, EVERY major political party supports this bill. it WILL pass, the only question is how long we can stave it off.
Beholden to the Public They Serve (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you ever invent a political system where such thing is possible, I strongly suggest you keep it to yourself.
Because if you even whisper about it, you going to vanish. Essentially all the powerful people in the world like the current system very much, especially because they can run through things that are in direct opposition of public interests using their political puppets, and still get those puppets re-elected a few years down the road instead of having to invest in new ones.
Re: (Score:2)
The system is in place. The trick is that the public has to realize that voting is one of the least important political actions. Far more important is to be in frequent communication with your representatives' offices and convincing others to do the same. It takes a decent chunk of people making a lot of noise to convince a politician that he'll lose the next election by passing a particular measure. That requires paying consistent attention to what's happening in the off-season, and it requires a much
Some advantages... (Score:3)
I guess there's got to be some advantage to having an election every 18 months...
Re: (Score:2)
We are winning some victories. Now if we could just get rid of the CRTC entirely and let REAL competition in...
Re:Some advantages... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because deregulating an industry is a "great" idea. *rollseyes*
The problem with the CRTC is not that it exists, but that it is a captured regulator. It is a regulatory body controlled by the industry it's supposed to regulate.
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't say deregulation. I said get rid of the CRTC.
You are entirely correct in your assessment of the CRTC. If you didn't have the CRTC (but still a regulartory body protecting consumers) then we could ditch all the farked suck-off-Canadian-corporations rules and bring other global players into the TV/Cell/Phone/Internet/etc space.
Re: (Score:2)
As an example, some years ago the corrupt CRTC allowed Rogers to buy out Fido, thereby creating a GSM monopoly. And this was supposed to somebody benefit Canadians? Unbelievable.
Get rid of the bastards. Replace them with almost anything; it couldn't be worse.
Re: (Score:2)
The CRTC isn't stopping competition from getting in, the government is. The CRTC is only enforcing the rules. letting competition in is simple, change the law to allow it. Something the government has refused to do.
Boring (Score:3, Interesting)
Where are those bank memos we were promised?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you mean wikileaks?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey thanks, that went under my radar until now. However, a cursory glance puts those emails at being from 2010. I was referring to the ones WL was hinting at back late last year, I remember they said the emails were from 2006 and earlier, before the whole meltdown thing, which makes them especially juicy.
The rule is (Score:3, Interesting)
You put the vote off on these laws until after the election.. So everybody will forget by the next election. They could've passed it without serious consequence.. Hell, nobody's protesting the wars. You think anybody gives a damn about this?
Re:The rule is (Score:5, Insightful)
People tend to give more of a damn about things that affect them directly than things happening in other countries. Even if the "other country" thing is comparatively horrific (as in the case of copyright here vs war and killing there).
Whether anyone knows this is happening or understands the consequences is a much bigger concern. The media and other copyright promoters do everything in their power to convince everyone that "we've got to stop the pirates" when in reality most of what they're doing will have little to no impact on pirates but will affect average users severely.
Take a really simple example. How many pirates bother watching the 2-minute (per language up here in Canada!) FBI/Interpol warning on their movies? Probably very few -- its either stripped off or at least the "unskippable" flag is removed on almost every torrent. Yet legitimate viewers have to watch the thing over and over and over again.
And don't even start on those DVDs where they decided to mark the ads and previews as unskippable.
Or all of those various CD "protection" hacks in the late 90s/early 2000s that did little more than prevent the discs from playing on older (legitimate) CD players. Yet it didn't stop them from showing up on Napster within a day or two of release.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually didn't know that still existed because I have not seen it in a long time. A few software players let you skip over it even on real DVDs. I think Handbrake (ghb) which lets you move it to USB device to play in a set top media player doesn't even list that stuff in the track list.
Beware still (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You you really believe any other party would do differently? They're all being lobbied by the same industry goons. The Liberals, Green, and NDP would probably end up doing exactly the same.
That said, I'm voting for the Pirate Party this election.
Re: (Score:3)
The liberals can be bought. I think it would have to be a cold, cold day in hell before the NDP passes anything that is both American backed and pro corporate. Simply not their thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The NDP are quite clear that this is one of their platform issues. I sincerely doubt that PM Jack Layton would push through CDMCA.
Minority Government... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is less to do with it being a minority, and more to do with it not being a conservative majority.
God help us if they ever get one. The social conservative reform freakshow will really come out if they do.
NZ Govt is more efficent (Score:5, Insightful)
They just pass it under urgency in the evening with about one day of notice to the public.
Surely what WikiLeaks is really saying is something we all know: The governments of the world no longer act for the people of their countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, you just beat the UK way of introducing it's so called "Digital Economy Act". The proposed law was rambling through parliament, then a general election was called (last possible moment it could have been called).
In a process called "wash up", all the proposed laws that were still going though parliament were rammed through in 2 days flat with next to no discussion, because they HAD to be rammed through. And so the UK is lumped with it's own version of the bastard DMCA, with no scrutiny of it whatsoeve
Help me out here, I have a problem understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
So there's an issue that is sufficiently unpopular that they even fear they'd lose an election over it if they implemented it before the election? Hell, not even tax hikes have that effect! To some degree, most people understand that taxes have a reason to exist, some even welcome them, while most accept them as a necessary evil.
But a DMCA would have been an issue that would have cost them the election. Well, clue me in then: If nobody that should matter to a politician (i.e. the people possibly electing him) wants it, who does he actually represent? The people? Obviously, he does not.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a bit more complicated. I believe the pressure to do something is coming mostly from the US, citing treaties canada has signed on copyright-enforcement alliances. So right now, Canada isn't living up to its treaty obligations. Unfortunately, I don't know much about those obligations. So hell, I could be wrong on that actually. I'm all for avoiding DMCA-like law. I'm just saying the politicians may be in a bit of a tough spot trying to satisfy both the people and the existing treaty obligations. Often s
Re: (Score:2)
Actually we don't really care as only Saudi Arabia has more oil that we do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Talking about oil, you do notice we ship our oil to US to process, and then get t
Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians, like all power figures, are innately tied to the influences of power. In this case, a powerful nation to the south, which has powerful incentive to push intellectual poison on the rest of the world to prop itself up. [yes, I am a citizen of that powerful country, but I can see the handwriting on the wall. The US has no real manufacturing infrastructure. Our agribiz infrastructure is no longer first rate in the world market, and our last strongholds for world relevency are intellectual property and military might. Without IP, I believe we would crumble like the former soviet union, due to the shortsighted practices of our corporations who have no sense of national loyalty, only loyalty to money-- and our politicians who are loyal to those corporations, and not the voting public. As such, the US is a sinking ship, with bandaids over huge holes of economic policy, and bilge pumps of government bailouts running 24/7. It is NOT sustainable.]
This whole issue with "Worldwide DMCA" would dissolve rapidly if [when] the USA finally tanks. Without the US to make a fuss over it, the corporations would be unable to leverage such global policy positions on the rest of the world, and the effort would suffer huge spirals of inefficiency as every little government everywhere suddenly had the 300lb gorilla with the billy club removed from the parlament floor, and politicians had golden parachute cords cut.
As suicidal as it seems, what is best for the WORLD right now is for my country to suffer the consequences of its own complacency, and to deminish-- in profound and spectacular fashion.
Props to the people of Canada for telling my government to shove it. I love you guys.
Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, he was lying about being American. That makes a whole lot of sense. That's why he wrote in American English, knows about American economics and politics, and has a deep passion for American policy. He was lying because. . .well, who knows? But you know it's true because. . .he didn't fit a stereotype? Sure, there may be more Americans than any other nationality on Slashdot, but it's not exactly where you go to find stereotypical Americans. If you want an American stereotype go to a truck stop or a Wal-Mart.
Part of the whole 'land of the free' thing is that one is free to have their own opinion. Even if it's self-depricating and wishes ill on the country as a whole.
Side note: Almost all Americans want it to get worse. The Republicans want things to get worse so they have an excuse to shrink the government by way of massive cuts (Bush burned all that cash for a reason). That's their goal and the only way to achieve it is for the government to be in a financial crisis. It worked! The Democrats want it to get worse. Quality of life, even for the poorest Americans, is good enough so that most don't complain and don't see the need for a big education or health care overhaul. Until things get worse socialized medicine is a dream. Until it gets worse, no one will see the value of education and therefore no one will want their tax money to fund it. Independents want it to get worse. Until the Democrats and Republicans screw things up much worse than they already have, the old Simpsons line of, "Go ahead, vote independent, throw your vote away!" will ring true.
Everyone wants things to get worse because no one has a solution for our current problems without making it worse. The majority is far too complacent to care and will continue to be so until things get worse. Until the economic problems, the government spending, the piss-poor education and health care, and lobbyist-centric government interfere with the average American's life in a way they understand (the hard part: it's one thing to understand that you can't find a job, understanding why is difficult -- especially with the talking heads on TV all making sensationalist claims and that's where people turn for their 'information'), then nothing will change.
The foundation isn't solid. The house has to be taken down to repair it. But it will never happen as long as 'socialist' is a dirty word in this country.
Re: (Score:3)
I work in Aerospace myself!
Sadly, The US does not refine any of the raw materials used to make airplanes, with exception to the petrochemical side. The US has maybe 2 functional steel mills, and a handful of aluminum plants... Nearly all of our raw materials are sourced overseas. We dont produce nearly enough raw material for the combined consumption needs of our populace.
If the US Dollar tanked severely, we would be unable to acquire the raw materials to produce anything, and the factories we DO have wou
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's something I'm not following with this logic either. I'm going to exaggerate here but does the conservative government honestly think that:
If all of the following is acceptable behavior and will still have them elected
- Increase all taxes
- Decrease health care
- Increase politician salary and vacation time
- Reduce job creation programs
- Increase corruption
Yet, the following WILL cost them the election
-Introduce DMCA
At least they're honest about it (indirectly): they alter their policies to get t
Re: (Score:3)
If nobody that should matter to a politician (i.e. the people possibly electing him) wants it, who does he actually represent? The people? Obviously, he does not.
There-in lies my biggest issue with the whole thing. Not only are the politicians who are pushing for this garbage selling out Canadians to corporate interests, they can't even be bothered to sell us out to _CANADIAN_ corporations. They're selling us out to corporate America. It's so profoundly disgusting that it boils my blood. These ... people can't even be bothered to be patriotic while the screw us over...
Seriously, if the Conservatives win a majority in this coming election, I think I would cry...
Re: (Score:2)
And Harper is a corrupt autocrat with a penchant for saying "screw you guys, I'm going home" whenever he doesn't get his way. He is the single most dangerous prime minister that this country has ever known, and I would rather Ignatieff over Harper any day of the week. Neither of them is my first choice, but between them, I think that Ignatieff is significantly less frightening.
We're talking about a prime minister whose first act in office was to try to repeal the controls on the banking sector that are the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Help me out here, I have a problem understandin (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people welcome them on other people (not just donks -- I wish everyone would pay the 20% that I do). When I was poor(er) and qualified for all kinds of credits that pushed my effective tax rate down to single digits, I thought they were reasonable. I'm sure the 47% of people that pay no income tax (especially if they get a refund) welcome them.
When I was a college student, I used to get refunds, and that made sense, I had no extra money. Now I'm at a high bracket, and I'm happy with paying my taxes. If I'm well-off enough to be in a higher bracket, that means that I can't complain...I have a lot more spending money than I did in college, and actually have savings for retirement! Obviously taxes are not ruining my life.
That said, although I'm all for contributing to needed services, I don't want my money wasted on pork. So I very much support government transparency and decreased spending. If the decreased spending leads to lower taxes, yay. Lower taxes leading to cuts in needed programs, that's not so good.
And yes, the problem is that nobody can agree on which programs are the ones we need and which ones are the ones that are pork. There is no perfect solution.
May 2nd (Score:2)
Nice to get this before we go to the Polls!
who's running the government? (Score:2, Interesting)
All these comments about majority or minority governments, who's the better or worse person to lead the government, the question I'd ask from this Wikileaks document is why is the minister reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about the difficulty of getting such a piece of legislation passed? Why are we reporting to the U.S. Ambassador about our internal matters at all.
If they have that much control over our Parliament then why the hell don't we just cede Canada to the U.S. and let them work out what to do wit
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you just cede Quebec to them? Then US will have enough trouble on their hands that they'll forget about this whole little copyright problem. ~
Re: (Score:3)
Because making sure copyright laws are in sync is an international issue.
Not that I support either version of the DMCA and am glad to see some resistance to it, but in general, international cooperation on copyright matters is appropriate and necessary.
I hope people get the message... (Score:4, Insightful)
...which is that if you do actually take an interest and make enough noise, you CAN scare politicians enough to actually do their jobs, which is representing you rather than representing large corporations.
This information should galvanize further actions against DMCA style laws (and all bad laws, for that matter).
Random Complaint (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish, I wish, I wish... (Score:2)
...that people would stop calling it copyright "reform". It makes it sound as though it's broken, and this will fix it, making it all rainbow and sunshine.
I'd agree on the first part, but not the second.
Is it just me? (Score:3, Interesting)
There also seems to be a minor tone of irritation when 'the public' and 'Michael Geist' is mentioned.
Damn you pesky citizens of a sovereign nation, getting in the way of our plans for your country...
Seeing it explicitly laid out like that is just, well, disturbing.
copyright fascism is not copyright reform (Score:2)