Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

102 comments

Kentucky (2, Funny)

samriel (1456543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552025)

I can hear the banjos floating over them thar internets now, clogging up the tubes...

Re:Kentucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552055)

I'm from Kentucky and take offense to this....well....Uh....never mind.

Re:Kentucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552701)

What does KY jelly have to do with...oh Kentucky, never mind

a network not a jurisdiction (4, Insightful)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552069)

IANAL, but the Internet is a network, not a jurisdiction. I can't imagine they'd be able to do anything, other than block the site at the borders of the state, which is ridiculous.

Sure, there is gambling on the Internet. Sure, they may not like it. Could they prevent Citizens from using those websites?

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (4, Funny)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552107)

The great firewall of Kentucky...

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (0, Flamebait)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552147)

Oh these cute Americans. I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules. At least the judicial system here had the common sense to maybe think that someone outside their borders might think otherwise to them :)

And this differes from other countries how? (3, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552549)

I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.

And how does this differ from other countries - like China, Russia, England, ...?

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

(And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)

Re:And this differes from other countries how? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552875)

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries.

Looks like someone flunked american history or government. The states aren't countries. The commonwealths like Mass or VA aren't countries either.

As originally envisioned, the states were supposed to do most of the governing, except for things that are international or inter-state, but the states are not countries.

Abe Lincoln's Gettysburg Address said: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation,"

Note only ONE nation, not multiple nations. I think Honest Abe knew what he was saying.

Texas is an oddity, due to the historical republic of Texas [wikipedia.org] . But even then, Texas is not currently a country.

Re:And this differes from other countries how? (2, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553583)

Looks like someone flunked american history or government. The states aren't countries. The commonwealths like Mass or VA aren't countries either.

As originally envisioned, the states were supposed to do most of the governing, except for things that are international or inter-state, but the states are not countries.

I agree that someone flunked but I doubt it was yours truly.

Note that the first 13 states PREDATE both the Continental Congress and the Federal Government which succeeded it (though "staged a coup on it" is arguably a valid description). So they clearly were sovereign entities which eventually surrendered certain functions to the federation they formed.

Later states were sometimes formed from territories controlled by the federation (Michigan, Ohio, ...) and sometimes (Texas, Hawaii ...) independent (for some value of independent) countries admitted by treaty. However: All later states are admitted on equal basis with the original states. So if they weren't independent countries that joined a federation BEFORE they became member states they became such BY BECOMING member states. (Note that they have to be republics to be members and that one of the Constitutional functions of the Fed is to insure that they continue to be republics internally.)

Re:And this differes from other countries how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553769)

Most people living in one of the states consider themselves "American". There was a civil war that was fought over this issue (among a few others).

And I quote:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag
          of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
          one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all."

You have the technicalities down alright, but you're missing the point.

Re:And this differes from other countries how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26554177)

I agree that someone flunked but I doubt it was yours truly.

Well, you said: Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries., and that is absolutely not true.

I think you need to go back to school. US "states", despite the name, are not countries in the usual meaning of the word.

US "states" are not recognized as countries by any country, they do not have their own currency, their own embassies, do not accredit foreign diplomats, etc.

Delegated (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554325)

Your points are definitely right; keep at it. One nitpick: the states didn't surrender functions to the feds, they delegated them. In practice it's been more like surrendering, but I think it's important to maintain even the theoretical distinction.

Re:And this differes from other countries how? (3, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553101)

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

(And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)

That's a gross oversimplification. Many of the people who contributed to the Constitution were in favor of a strong Federal government (hence the term 'Federalist' used to describe them). While some were vociferously against a strong Federal government, it is mistaken to say that the United States was intended to be a federation like those you mention -- the original intent, as ratified by each of the states, was to be a much stronger union than any of those federations.

I will not disagree that the federal government has subsumed much of the authority of the states; I will, however, point out that the original States were not considered to be independent countries, otherwise foreign relations would not have been assigned to the federal government.

As for Indian tribes, they truly are more like sovereign nations, but there are entanglements that make them not quite independent.

To get back to the meat of your post, though -- states do have certain sovereign rights, and while sometimes they act without considering the impact of their actions on other states, this is one reason why we have a federal government -- to mediate disputes. It is a valid point that the OP makes, that it's somewhat screwy for a state or country to make unilateral proclamations that affect the rest of the country (or world). It's a very provincial attitude that pisses other people off.

Re:And this differes from other countries how? (2, Informative)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553307)

No, states in the US are *not* separate countries. That was true under the Articles of Confederation, but the states gave up their sovereign status by ratifying the Constitution. The states are now semi-autonomous legislative districts with delineated responsibilities under the nation the United States. Far closer to the Scottish parliament and the UK than to the EU, UN, etc.

Re:And this differes from other countries how? (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553313)

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

That's a whimsical way of looking at it, but blatantly untrue. The US is, in fact, a federation, which means that its member states are explicitly not sovereign countries; just like Canada, Brazil, and the Russian Federation. Although the US states do make a lot more noise about their self-governance than most other federations'.

Most of the other things you list are alliances between sovereign countries - an entirely different thing. It's true that the EU is moving towards some sort of new "supra-national" thing, but most people still don't consider it a federation (seeing how it's made up of sovereign countries).

Re:And this differes from other countries how? (1)

stonecypher (118140) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554035)

I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.

And how does this differ from other countries - like China, Russia, England, ...?

Well for one, US States aren't countries. They aren't soverign. They aren't self determining. US Federal Law overrides state law in clear and specific terms.

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries.

You live in a fantasy world. Why do you think this? The jurisprudence of federal over state law is well established as part of our founding documentation.

And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since

The states were never soverign. If you knew anything about the history of the Continental Congress, you'd know this.

Re:And this differes from other countries how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26558129)

Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

That's total rubbish. Do the states have their own foreign policies? Their own money? Their own defense? Do they enter into diplomatic relations with foreign countries?

No, of course not. Still - COULD they, if they wanted to? Again, no, of course not.

The states may delude themselves (and people like you) into thinking that they are really countries, but that doesn't make it true.

Case in point? Here's an experiment you can do: go to your garden (or front lawn or whatever you have) and declare that it's not a country of it own, and then see if anyone takes you serious other than those living in that "country" (read: you). If noone does, then for all practical purposes, you're not a country.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552661)

The funny thing is that this judge didn't even rule that Kentucky didn't have jurisdiction over domain names. He just ruled that domain names weren't gambling devices. If the legislature decides to classify domain names as gambling devices, they could try the whole thing over again.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552995)

The funny thing is that this judge didn't even rule that Kentucky didn't have jurisdiction over domain names. He just ruled that domain names weren't gambling devices.

That is the normal process for judges. If you find a flaw that is big enough to throw out the case, you don't nitpick every other possible question in the case - those are left for future work.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553065)

Patriotism is bigotry.

Only when your country is defined by your race. Are you German or something?

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

ThinkingIsContagious (1378417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553335)

Patriotism is bigotry.

Only when your country is defined by your race. Are you German or something?

Carefully consider the definitions of "patriotism", "bigotry", and "race". It seems you may not understand them as fully as you believe.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553783)

Patriotism as derived from Father as in patrilinear decent as the basis for most early agrarian societies that gave rise to the nation-state. In modern use, pride in country.

Bigotry has no real etymology, only shifting meanings as the politically-correct deem it usefully applied to others. (like fascism). In modern use, intolerance of opinions or lifestyles other than ones familiar.

Race delineates differentiable groups within the same interbreeding taxonomic group.

Pride isn't a zero sum game. I can be proud of my country without implying inherent infallibility compared to your country. And insofar that my country has never been a single race or ethnicity, I reject the idea that a patriot is a bigot.

bitch.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

happyslayer (750738) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554541)

Man oh man...if only I had mod points.

LMFAO--the image of a peace-loving bald Indian giving a long, educated dissertation, and finishing with "bitch"

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553715)

You can be bigoted over more things than race. When you believe your race is better than all others, that's racism. When you believe your country is better than all others, that's patriotism. In each case, you only support a group because you happen to be a member of it.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555249)

I would argue that patriotism is not the belief that your country is somehow inherently better than others. I think patriotism is simply a pride in your country that motivates loyalty, with no implications about other countries.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26560699)

That's the theory at least. But in practice what is usually referred to by the word patriotism is actually jingoism.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26560767)

Interesting... I've never used patriotism in that way.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

Skippyboy (978787) | more than 5 years ago | (#26561761)

Your definition of patriotism is very simplistic, and not altogether accurate.
First definition off of Google - and one I wholeheartedly agree with says "love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it". That does not mean that you feel your country is superior - just that you love it and will sacrifice for it. In all honesty, I think that the US has a LOT of problems, and I do NOT feel that we are superior to other nations. BUT - I am still very patriotic.
Google the definition of bigotry and it basically says that it is the obstinate or even ignorant intolerance of others based opinions, lifestyles, or identities. Conversely, it could also be a preference for ones own social/etc group - but with the added intolerance of other groups. Am I bigoted regarding some things? Yes. We all are.
BUT - my bigotry and my patriotism are not related. And your explanation seems to imply that the two are inexorably related.
I submit that you are a bigot against those who are patriots.
Of course - that's just my $0.02USD - now worth less than ever!

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552815)

>>>Oh these cute Americans. I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.

Oh these cute Europeans. I love how each state in the EU thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules. ;-)

If Kentucky wants to ban gambling within its border, its certainly within its right to do so, just the same as Spain can ban gambling insides its border. The two are analogous situations. When I was in Utah, I thought it was amusing how Salt Lake residents drove an hour to gamble in Wendover Nevada. It seems silly to me that Utah bans gambling but that's what they desire, so that's what the Legislature gives them. It's democracy in action.

In California they require emissions tests. In Nebraska they don't. Different states; different rules.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552917)

It's absolutely NOT an analogous situation: Kentucky is a tiny little redneck state...No more populous than Ireland, Norway, or Croatia.

Comparing that to California, the 8th largest economy in the world...Now that's just wrong.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553139)

Kentucky is a tiny little redneck state

you really think it's acceptable to make that kind of generalization, just so long as you mean white. wow.

And that 8th largest economy is now the 10th largest economy thanks to bullshit labor laws and wealth redistribution taxes driving companies to Nevada, Utah, etc.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#26559281)

Wow. Has political correctness gone that far? Poor rednecks, so oppressed. ROFL.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

jahudabudy (714731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26561359)

I don't think it's political correctness to refrain from generalizing an entire state of people negatively. It's just common sense; that tiny little state (ranked 26th in population, so I would suggest medium sized) has over 4 million people. You really find it intellectually honest to lump 4 million people into a single stereotype?

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555357)

>>>It's absolutely NOT an analogous situation: Kentucky is a tiny little redneck state...

True. Let me rephrase my previous post with a more-accurate comparison. "If Kentucky wants to ban gambling within its border, its certainly within its right to do so, just the same as Greece can ban gambling inside its border."

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26556203)

Oh these cute Europeans. I love how each state in the EU thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules. ;-)

Yes, but you don't see say a member country of the EU "claiming ownership" of a gambling website and shutting it down just because that member country doesn't allow gambling.

That's the difference.

I would have not had ANY problems if Kentucky had said "We don't allow gambling here, so lets put these websites on a blacklist". I would have likely said it was a bit backwards perhaps, but it's their choice really. What I think is laughable is that if it's illegal in Kentucky, then Kentucky thinks no-one in the big world of the interweb can have it either.

That's the difference.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26559001)

>>>you don't see say a member country of the EU "claiming ownership" of a gambling website

No. Instead you see states of the EU arresting people for displaying Nazi artifacts (Germany) or 3-strike loss of internet without trial (France) or blocking the wikipedia (UK). Um. Remind me again how the state of Kentucky is "worse" than these EU states? Hmmm.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

Stalky (31519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26557487)

If Kentucky wants to ban gambling within its border, its certainly within its right to do so, just the same as Spain can ban gambling insides its border.

Well, actually it's not gambling per se that the current administration wants to ban here; after all, Kentucky is one of the (if not just THE) world's premier Thoroughbred breeding centers, and we have always had racetracks that have always made the bulk of their revenue off the wagering of their patrons. We also have a state lottery. Indeed, the current administration wants to actually have casino-style gambling (which is banned here) *made legal*, both for government revenue and to prop up the racetracks.

What the government of Kentucky does want banned is Kentuckians gambling at out-of-state internet sites, because we can't make a buck off that. So they told those sites to take steps to prevent Kentuckians from using them, or they'd take action; the seizing of the domain names constituted that action. Presumably what will happen eventually is that the administration will realize what they can and cannot do, and another category will show up on our state income tax forms requiring us to pay tax on money wagered out of state, in addition to that we already have to pay on untaxed out-of-state purchases.

As for whether Kentucky has a Constitutional right to prevent out-of-state entities without a Kentucky presence from selling services to Kentuckians, that is a matter for the courts to decide. As to whether it's unthinkable, it's not that different from France's case against eBay over the sale of Nazi memorabilia a few years back.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553117)

Actually no they didn't and but out!

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (0, Troll)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552513)

You anal. hehe.

Re: ack (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553819)

Great. Just great. We have a story about KY, and the highest modded +5 has to inform us "IANAL."

This is rather disturbing indeed.

Re:a network not a jurisdiction (1)

cosmotron (900510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26556995)

IANAL and KY... sheesh. One's mind can get in the gutter pretty quick. ;-P

Great... (5, Insightful)

CmdrPorno (115048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552101)

I predict a bill will be introduced in the next session of Kentucky's General Assembly changing the definition of "gambling devices" to include domain names. Way to suggest an escape hatch for the attorney general and lawmakers...

Re:Great... (4, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552235)

If it passed, the law would get struck down in the Federal courts as unconstitutional. States don't get to interfere in interstate commerce, and that includes trying to regulate internet domain names.

Re:Great... (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552865)

This isn't interstate commerce. Telling a company, "You can't create a website at www.gambling.state.ky" is no different than telling a company they can't build a gambling house in Louisville.

Go visit Utah sometime. If you want gambling or porn, you have to drive to Nevada. Within the state, those activities are banned. (You can buy a copy of Playboy through the mail, but not in stores.)

Re:Great... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553077)

Ahem, you lack context.

If Kentucky law considers something gambling devices, the Governor can seize those devices as property of the state, which is exactly what they attempted to do with 140 gambling domain names in 2008. That is very clearly interstate commerce, on par with seizing a casino in Las Vegas because Utahans can drive to it.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26555147)

I'm pretty sure that the domain names aren't *.ky.us, but rather foo.com. While there may be an argument for Kentucky having jurisdiction over ky.us, there's just no reason they could unilaterally claim jurisdiction over foo.com (or foo.cn, or foo.fr, etc).

Re:Great... (1)

Percy_Blakeney (542178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555783)

This isn't interstate commerce. Telling a company, "You can't create a website at www.gambling.state.ky" is no different than telling a company they can't build a gambling house in Louisville.

Bad example, since they are seizing .com domains, not .ky (though you probably meant .ky.us). Perhaps if the gambling sites had some physical presence in the state (e.g. servers or employees) then Kentucky could try to shut them down, but most of those gambling sites aren't physically anywhere close to Kentucky.

Go visit Utah sometime. If you want gambling or porn, you have to drive to Nevada.

You're only half right -- Utah doesn't allow gambling, but you can buy Playboy in a store. My wife used to work at a major bookstore chain which carried them.

Re:Great... (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26558897)

This isn't interstate commerce.

Of course it is.

Telling a company, "You can't create a website at www.gambling.state.ky" is no different than telling a company they can't build a gambling house in Louisville.

On the contrary, it's very different. Prohibiting a gambling house in Louisville is regulating commerce in Louisville. Websites are accessible from anywhere in the US (and, indeed, anywhere in the world). Trying to control one is attempting to regulate interstate commerce.

Re:Great... (4, Informative)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552413)

That's the court's job. When disallow something in a ruling, they tell why they did so; they don't say, "You can't do this, but we're not going to tell you why."

Re:Great... (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553121)

What GP is saying is, the reason should have been more along the lines of "What the fuck are you doing, that is interstate commerce and totally out of your jurisdiction, you fucktard Governor!" instead of "Based on a minor ambiguity in definitions, we need the legislation to clarify whether they are going to let you do this... [trample on the property rights of out-of-state and international entities with no presence in KY]"

Re:Great... (1)

flosofl (626809) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554629)

I could be wrong, but I think it's the responsibility of the Federal Courts to determine whether something is a matter of interstate commerce. A State Court can only rule on matters as they relate to the state constitution. Again, I could be (and probably am) wrong, but that was my take on it.

Re:Great... (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563913)

I predict a bill will be introduced in the next session of Kentucky's General Assembly changing the definition of "gambling devices" to include domain names. Way to suggest an escape hatch for the attorney general and lawmakers...

Hopefully if they do this somebody will register kentuckyslotmachines.com and put up an anti-gambling site on it.

What?? (3, Insightful)

imamac (1083405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552109)

It's not the job of the judicial branch to make law? Who knew?

Re:What?? (3, Informative)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552797)

No, they don't make law. However, they do invalidate unconsitutional laws.

Re:What?? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554697)

They do make law. Please note the difference between statue law, case law, common law, and administrative law. Only the first is done by legislation.

Re:What?? (1)

imamac (1083405) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554765)

I know they do. The point is that their job is o interpret it, not legislate by "interpreting" something that isn't even referenced in law.

Re:What?? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554829)

Oh for heaven sake, when you respond to a response, read the post the person's respnding to.

KY? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552125)

I thought this article was about something else entirely. Sure, Kentucky makes more sense, but its much less ... appealing.

I'm disappointed. Disappointed and dry.

Re:KY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552601)

Were you thinking that mac fags were using KY jelly to lube up their streamlined hardware for anal insertion?

Re:KY? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553761)

Were you thinking that mac fags were using KY jelly to lube up their streamlined hardware for anal insertion?

fag = cigarette
so:
Were you thinking that mac cigarettes were using KY jelly to lube up their streamlined hardware for anal insertion?
makes more sense

Re:KY? (1)

sethmeisterg (603174) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555753)

Is that a new McDonald's menu item? We don't have that here in the US, yet.

KY (4, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552129)

I saw KY, and thought it was some elaborate goatse troll.

Re:KY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552163)

Some elaborate goatse troll, that, somehow, slipped through the filters?

Bush's Farewell Speech: Draft #1 +1, Incendiary (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552267)

from The White House Press Office [whitehouse.org]

  THE PRESIDENT: Fellow citizens:

I know the only reason you all are tuned in is to watch nonstop coverage of that USAir plane crash in the Hudson River, so you can whip yourselves up into a fit of emotional masturbation, sobbing over "miracles" and "heroes" until the next little white girl goes missing. So let me start with a brief shout-out to my fellow-pilot bro' who ditched his jet so smooth (just like I ditched my whole jet-flying career!), not even a worthless foreign life was lost. And thank Christ for that; because with barely a hundred hours left in my term, the last thing I wanna do is drag my ass up to Jew York City and cry crocodile tears over a bunch of dead folks again â" especially when I won't be around long enough to use it as an excuse to do something fun and cool â" like nuke Iran or authorize a no-bid $100 billion Raytheon contract to exterminate the Canadian Gooses.

Anyway, for eight long years, it has been my honor to serve Wall Street and its coterie of country clubbing con artist elites, the McJesus Salvation Industries, and the Confederate States Of America as the chief executive of White House, Inc. And so this is the Big Adios.

In the spirit of desperate bipartisanship that our entire societal breakdown has necessitationed, and in light of popularity poll numbers that make Richard Nixon look like a greased Chippendale at a bachelorette party, I just want to say that we can all agree on one thing: whether you're an immigrant terrorist or non-terrorist, a bellyaching homo, a legless Iraqazoid, a drowned corpse bloating in the New Orleans sun, an effete Huffington Post-reading urban iPhone zombie, or a Hannity-worshipping redneck patrio-fascist, a negro, a Mexi-rican, a normal guy, a feminist, a stoner, or a fixed income oldster reduced to buying Walgreens-brand Depends, odds are you're tickled pinker than Barry Manilow's boa that I'm getting the fuck outta Dodge.

Lots of y'all think I'm a stupid, fucking moron. Mebbe I am. But who's off to play golf in a gilded, all-expenses-paid retirement, and who's suddenly realizing that unemployment benefits can't even keep you rolling in beer and donuts? Who's done paying off his loyal hedge fund and banker fraternity brothers with gubbament cheese, and who invested (and lost!) all their shekels with Gandalf the Jew and his mystical 401K? Who's hightailing it back to a swanky Dallas suburb, and who's the broke-assed losers who double-mortgaged their McMansions to buy $4K plasma TVs, thinking they'd hit the LOTTO before they had to pay anyone back? Who's the dummy, jerk? Like, DUH. THE ANSWER WUZ RHETORICALIZED, YOU INGRATE FUCKSTICKS. Good thing I'm rich! And it's OLD money. Well, at any rate, it's comin' from OLD people! Yee-haw!

So let me remind you all of one thing: when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks back. Get it? I'm the abyss, you whiny assholes. You hate my guts, because I'm YOU. Greedy, panicky, arrogant, and willing to do slimy, awful things to other human beings if it means Domino's Pizza will still be able to deliver two to three pounds of gluten and curdled cow fluids to the Cul-de-Sac in thirty minutes or less.

Never forget that I'm the two-time winner** of the popular and totally fixed Democracy Show Live! Yeah, that's what I said. Both times I legitimately won* a contest that favors whoever can elbow (or machete chop themselves) into our version of the court of Versailles.

I get a lot of guff for speaking all folksy, and salt-of-the-earth, like the Texan I pretend to be, instead of the Yankee political scion I actually am. My speechification might be uncorrect, but if talking good is what makes good deciders, then go ahead and elect a lawyer. Oops! You idiot fruit baskets already went and done that. Well, then on behalf of the entire ruling class, I thank you. That's the great thing about our democracy: it's always the same turd, different coil.

One thing about Americans, if they don't fall for the down-home, man of the people routine, they fall for the high-falutin', hope-talking, homegrown messiah routine. Once you figure that out, you can sell lazy to Mexicans. Or drunk to Irish. Or crime to Italians. Or rhythm to blacks. Or hope to cattle, on their way to the slaughterhouse no less. That's showbiz! And there may never be no second acts in America, but you can bet there is always someone manning the ticket booth before the first one. Friends, power is like God. It talks all kinds of different ways, in different voices, but always tells you what you want to hear. It flatters, panders, hollers and purrs. Whether it sounds like a retard or a professor of used car sales, power does what it has to do to get you to like it, and give you its vote. True story.

The first decade of this new shitshow of a century has been a period of consequence, like that time when you was all mega-terrified that Obama Bin Hussein was gonna crash a freight train full of screaming people right into your local Fuddruckers and I said "Let's Shop Till We Drop!" and y'all were like "On it, Jefe!" It has been a time set apart, a gilded bubble, a vacation from reality, a drunken joyride in a fancy auto slapped on a Capitol One credit card, a giddy show of carefree ostentation until someone forgot to pay the damn light bill and our national shadow puppet show of prosperity flickered and floundered leaving everyone â" except me and my friends â" reduced to hungrily sucking fingers that had, moments before, been exploring the insides of a can of a beans abandoned by a hobo. Funny thing, fear. Remember that cripple fellow that said, "The only thing you all have to fear is fearing fearful stuff"? Easy for Teddy Roosevelt to say. Unlike you all, he was rich and didn't have to fear anything unpleasant like foreclosure or eviction!

Remember who made you feel safe, even if it meant listening in to your heavy breathing dirty talk behind your wife's back on the ol' cell phone, or ignoring the international law we done helped make up, or kidnapping ragheads with bad attitudes and giving them near-fatal freedom tickles. Most of y'all either loved me to the point of spontaneous ejaculation for doing this, pretended I wasn't doing this so you could return to your Xbox, or were so impotent with rage, you couldn't do nothing but ball up your little marshmallow fists and scribble angry rants nobody read on The Daily Kooz, or FaceSpace or on retard pinko parody sites. That's the great thing about when everybody hysterically shouts, froths, and bleats at the same time and at the same volume: nobody can hear nothing.

Let me tell you something â" awhile back, my own party sprung a spontaneous menstrual geyser when they found out we weren't so popular, and might lose an election or dozen, and so they begged me to pull my War Boner out of Vietraq. It should have come as no surprise to any of those good ol' boys that I consistently confuse brattishly demanding my own way no matter what with integrity. Tough tittie, boys. At least history will remember me, just like every dame remembers the first fucker who gives her the clap.

And now, I'm a-gonna make amends, furrow my brow, and spin, spin, spin, like a drunken ballerina in a greased slipper, so that I can sleep at night, unlike the thousands of young men and women I sent into combat just so I could say America has giant, barb-wire wrapped TNT balls. Shi-i-i-it, I'm gonna spend my life playing golf, shot-gunning Coors, and passing out like a baby whose Gerber is laced with crushed Ambien.

But while most of y'all just keep bitchin' and moanin' about what's gone wrong during my time in the big chair, like never-ending, poorly conceived wars with everybody, the total meltdown of our economy, and the general decline of our formerly fucking awesome civilization, I'd like to point out the stuff that's gone right. Ain't no more American cities turned to death soup, millions of Iraqazoids are so far totally shrapnel free, and the possible impending Depression probably won't be Great, but be lucky to be just shy of Terrific. Imagine if we'd privatized Social Security. Damn, I'm gonna cum. I need to stop. Let's just hear it for happy accidents!

So... mission accomplishedest!

Tonight, with a thankful, if otherwise empty, heart, I have asked for the lastest opportunity to distort, lie, shuck, jive, moisten my armpits with shame sweat, star blankly into space as some Ivy League prick's fancy patter rolls by on the Teleprompter and share some carefully phrased thoughts on the journey that we have traveled together â" oh, who we kidding? I've travelled. You all just tagged along, like a dog tied to the bumper of my bulletproof limo, just a bloody stump on a leather leash by the time I pulled into the parking lot at the Dallas National Bank.

Five days from now, the world will witness the charade of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding slavemasters, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people, only because those bozos on the Supreme Court let you. This time. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose history reflects the enduring pizzazz of Madison Avenue. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole nation, and this brief, fleeting bit of media-jizz-evoking stagecraft, is all we got. So let's put our hands together for President Smoov Operata, his wife That Tall as Shit, Bossy Negress, and their two love critters.

Tonight I am filled with gratitude â" for Uncle Vice President Cheney, whose ideological extremism and unwavering machismo never allowed him to fully reveal the loveable, insecure, viciously bullied fat kid he really is deep down inside the shambling, dying husk you see before you, and for the members of my administration who have yet to sell me out; to Laura, who brought joy to this house of death and something approximating empty gestures of support and love to my life; to our wonderful daughters, Jenna and the other one, who I made eternal pariahs; to my parents, to whom I can only ask, "ARE YOU TWO GRAYING CUNTS PROUD OF ME NOW? HOW MANY DUNE COONS I GOTS TO CHICKEN-FRY BEFORE YOU GIVE ME SOME GODDAMNED RESPECT?" And above all, I thank the American people for living up to your worst stereotypes. I thank you for the prayers to a selfish, materialistic, angry, ass-kicking Jesus that have lifted my spirits. He still speaks to me to this day. In fact, Five Inch Tall Invisible Jesus, who's currently perched on my shoulder like a pirate's parrot, just whispered in my good ear, with seething anger: "Them Pinko Pansy Cock Suckers Are All Gonna Be Sorry" before breaking into some ass-stomping Toby Keith!

This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house â" September the 11th, 2001, the most politically fortuitous windfall in modern political history. The day the fickle finger of history used immense pressure to momentarily transform a stinking turd into a diamond that shined so bright it blinded all you all out there. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since we double-dog-dared the Nips to bomb Pearl Harbor so we could hurry up with the European real estate fire sale we call World War II. I remember looking into the camera that night, talking at a nation of folks so scared, angry, and desperate for leadership, I said to myself, "Georgey-Boy, America is handing you a blank fucking check to PAR-TAY.". Sure, maybe I should had have put my Iraq War plans down on September 10th and paid a little attention to what was going on in the world. But shit works out, I guess. Well, until it don't.

As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11, only with bigger credit lines, more insipid reality television, and even greater mass delusion. It's the like totally awesome 1990s never ended!

But I never let go of the only thing approaching a mission statement my administration ever had. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our nation. I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe, including the option of killing all of the A-rabs, versus just the bad ones. And I have kept you all safe. Well, except for that time them two skyscrapers went KA-BOOM! But who's counting?

Over the past seven years, a new, super Orwellian Department of Homeland Security has been created, which is like a feckless, self-preserving bureaucracy on steroids. Thanks to my administration, for the first time in history, the parasite became the host! The military, the intelligence community and the FBI have been congealed into a something resembling a secret domestic police force. Like the SS, only without those super-cool grey uniforms with trench coats that got epaulets with lightning bolts on them. Damn them budget cuts! Our nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists' movements, freeze their finances and break up their plots, and one day, those tools will be used against you by whoever is in power, and disagrees with your thoughts, meetings, and traitorous antics. And with strong allies at our side, like Guam and the Snow Mexicans to our frozen north, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them, which, technically, could be everyone, everywhere, if you spun it right. Since the God we fight for is invisible, it only makes sense that enemy we fight against is invisible, too. Tricky, no? Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al-Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young narco-state that is rapidly crumbling back into a nation where the Taliban harbored al-Qaeda and stoned women in the streets. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Islamist-flavored Arab democracy on track to one day vote to become the sworn enemy of America. Oh, and Pakistan and North Korea? Major whoopsies.

There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions, but whatevs; I'll be worm food by the time y'all realize how good you had it, even if it was one big giant Costco-sized fib.

Our nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger, like those years I bravely fought the Vietcong by drunk flying fighter planes in Alabama until the pussies in the Air Force found blow in my piss and yanked my license. I have cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. Thank Bloody Jesus on a Cross He didn't give me an ounce of self-awareness or shame, or else I wouldn't be able to look them in the eyes for sending them on a poorly planned fool's errand. America owes them a debt of gratitude, which isn't as good as dependable, quality healthcare. But it's better than nothing. Anyhoo, if nothing else, I've helped create a whole new generation of damaged veterans who can become annoying politicians who will run decade after decade of jingoistic, self-righteous campaigns celebrating their uniquely noble ability to blindly obey orders and kill people â" until a combat-adverse Republican runs against them and swiftboats their asses.

For eight years, we've also strived to expand opportunity and hope here at home, and if you need proof, it's written right here in this here speech. Across our country, students that are still in school are rising to jump through wonderful, new, shiny, meaningless hoops, specifically in upper-middle class tax brackets. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit is bringing pharmaceutical numbness to buzzed-out seniors and the disabled, and to the Healthcare Junta's tax-dollar sodden books. Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes, money in their pocket they can spend on SUVs to drive over crumbling bridges. The addicted and suffering are finding new hope through faith-based programs that dole out bromides and pious condescension in opulent, tax-free indoor arenas, freshly carpeted at taxpayers' expense. Vulnerable human life is better protected, except for children without health insurance, the homeless, and most brown-skinned river-jumpers. Funding for our veterans has nearly doubled, from pathetically insufficient for the pre-Iraq veteran levels, to pathetically insufficient for post-Iraq veteran levels. America's air and water and lands are measurably less filthy, provided they are measured by an EPA led by my cronies from the coal, mercury, and arsenic smoothie industries. And the federal bench includes wise new members like right-thinking demagogues Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts who has joined that hairy guido Scalia, who plays Edgar Bergin to his very own Mr. McCarthy, the black dude who's into porno, Clarence Thomas.

When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy by giving the keys to the Treasury to the pals who brung us to the dance (did I mention the kegger, bros?). These are very tough times for hardworking families. And if any hardworking families moved in my social circles, I tell 'em "Tough luck, suckers!" At least we ain't all gone Road Warrior on each other. Yet. America is sorta like that plane that landed on the Hudson. In a tough spot, but piloted by a hero â" me â" who ain't afraid to crash land the whole shebang in a dirty, icy river. The guy behind the controls at USAir was lucky. Me? Not so much. I flipped the fucker and you all are gurgling your last, panicky breaths of freezing sewer-water. But the thing is: We're all in this together. Except some of us are in first class and get vomiting drunk for free. Our successes are not equally shared, but our failures sure as hell are. In America, it isn't women and children first; it's rich folks and swindlers first. We will show the world once again the resilience of America's free enterprise system. All we need, really, is a big ol' war we can win decisively. I recommend Venezuela. No, better yet, Sandals Resort in Jamaica.

Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Such as... Uhhh... Well I definitely wouldn't have stuffed my package as I rocked the aircraft carrier deck in my sweet Top Gun flight suit. The Presidential giblets don't need no dressing, y'hear? Yet I've always acted with the best interests of the swaths of country I'm most concerned with in mind. I have followed my conscience until it hightailed it out of Dodge, and then I followed my beer-burping gut. And I done what I thought was right, which isn't the same thing as moral. You may not agree with some of the tough decisions I have made. But who cares what you think, asshole? I was willing to flip a coin and make the tough decisions, even if I made those tough decisions with a bullshit faux cowboy anti-intellectualism that was just pure contempt for all those fancy-ass smarties at Yale and Harvard who sneered down their patrician beaks at me and whisper-laughed how I woulda been in special ed at Midland Community College if'n my old man hadn't waterboarded the whole admissions department.

The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, especially when you all hold your noses and try to dig your way out of the steaming pile of shit I left behind, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course:

Be afraid! Of everything! Manically pursue your happiness at the expense of everybody else's happiness! We're all GONNA DIIIIIIEEE!

That's pretty much it. You're welcome, President Smoov Operata.

And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God, and Jesus, but not Allah, JewGod, or Xenu bless this house and our next CEO. And may God bless you and our wonderful pyramid scheme of a narcissistic country. Thank you.

POTUS IS OUTUS! FUCK ALL Y'ALL!

Re:Bush's Farewell Speech: Draft #1 +1, Incendiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553277)

tl;dr

What prerogative does KY act under... (4, Interesting)

Snotman (767894) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552313)

when grabbing domain names owned by some other entity in the World? If any entity can just claim that a domain name is illegal, then what prevents me from grabbing KY domain names? Why would a state entity have a greater authority than any other political entity or individual? Who holds KY responsible for acting without a prerogative for this power? For instance, why don't the island nations hosting gambling companies grab all KY GOV domains just to be malicious? I would.

It *IS* just a name after all (4, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552383)

I'm not making a statement for or against this action. But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain. The site can still be up, it just cannot be referred to by the name anymore. It won't stop the the gambling, it will simply make it more difficult to describe (or find in this case). They cannot confiscate the IP address or shut down the machines if those sites are off shore.

I guess this is the equivalent of keeping people away from a location by erasing it from their map.

No it's not. It's an entry in a database. (3, Interesting)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552619)

But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain.

"What's in a name?"

In this case it's NOT just a name. It's an entry in a publicly-accessible and trusted database, mapping the name to a set of servers.

THAT's what the state of Kentucky seized.

And it's very valuable. I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue resulting from the disruption of their business (along with damage to their trademark) caused by Kentucky's successful appropriation of their domain records.

Don't hold your breath (1)

Still an AC (1390693) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552955)

I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue

While it's a nice thought, it's not gonna happen.

Amendment XI

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commence or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Which is generally interpreted to mean states have immunity from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders.

IMHO it's not THAT cut and dried. (1)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553397)

[The 11th Amendment] is generally interpreted to mean states have immunity from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders.

I was under the impression it meant that, if a citizen of another state or foreign country wanted to sue (on civil issues) a state government it had to do so in that state's courts (or perhaps in the courts of a state where the act in question was committed and the defendant state had some "presence", i.e. assets worth seizing).

Of course the state, once sued in its own courts, might elect to assert its sovereign immunity. But it also might not - or it might already have laws on its books waiving the sovereign immunity in a range of cases that included the issue at hand.

Alternatively: The state and its officials might be vulnerable in federal court under the federal civil rights law for "violating (the plantiff's) civil rights under color of law".

The ruling was obvious (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26552439)

Things don't sieze up when you lube up with KY.

Re:The ruling was obvious (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552923)

You sir won my internet!

What is kentucky to do? (2, Insightful)

jambarama (784670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552465)

Ignoring for the moment that bans on gambling are stupid & this was a purely protectionist move, what should kentucky have done instead? Lets pretend this law was a good one that we wanted to see enforced, how can a state enforce it?

KY doesn't have jurisdiction over the organizations behind the gambling sites (or the domain registrars, another problem with this case) - so they couldn't force location aware IP blocks (which don't work anyway), they couldn't fine the organizations, or impose any normal civil/criminal penalties. In addition, ISP level blocks don't work & are costly, and the servers were also outside KY and couldn't be seized.

I agree this was a stupid stupid order that violated due process, free speech, and commons sense. But if the websites & owners in Antigua (or wherever they're based) were selling US credit card numbers & the accompanying data, from servers in Antigua at http://identity-theft.ag/ [identity-theft.ag] for purposes of fraud - what could a state do to enforce anti-fraud laws? (assuming this was a state question) What could the feds do, apart from file a claim with the WTO? (which they have regarding gambling in antigua I believe).

Information wants to be free (2, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552645)

Lets pretend this law was a good one that we wanted to see enforced, how can a state enforce it?

Short answer: it cannot. It would be unconstitutional in at least two counts: if considered as commerce, states cannot interfere in interstate commerce. If not considered as commerce then it's equivalent to speech, and would violate the First Amendment.

A state can prohibit gambling, for instance betting on horse races. But it cannot prohibit anyone to publish horse race results. What could the state of Kentucky do if someone phones a bookmaker in Las Vegas placing a bet on a horse?

if the websites & owners in Antigua (or wherever they're based) were selling US credit card numbers & the accompanying data, from servers in Antigua at http://identity-theft.ag/ [identity-theft.ag] for purposes of fraud - what could a state do to enforce anti-fraud laws?

Go after the buyers. Who uses that data for committing fraud? That's where the actual harm is perpetrated.

Re:Information wants to be free (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552933)

>>>If not considered as commerce then it's equivalent to speech, and would violate the First Amendment.

When I was in Utah I tried to buy the just-released copy of Playboy's College Girls. None of the stores sold it, and when I asked why they said it's illegal to sell such things in stores. So I ordered it via the mail. POINT: The first amendment applies in most situations, but not all. States still have a lot of power to regulate what happens within their borders.

And of course gambling is forbidden. If I wanted to gamble I had to drive an hour to the Nevada border (where prostitution is also legal). Kinda ironic. Utah is the most conservative state, but it's sitting directly next to one of the most liberal states. Nice balance there.

Re:Information wants to be free (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555275)

Hey, we don't get to pick our neighbors :P

Re:What is kentucky to do? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552693)

KY doesn't have jurisdiction over the organizations behind the gambling sites (or the domain registrars, another problem with this case) - so they couldn't force location aware IP blocks (which don't work anyway), they couldn't fine the organizations, or impose any normal civil/criminal penalties. In addition, ISP level blocks don't work & are costly, and the servers were also outside KY and couldn't be seized.

I know, it sucks, doesn't it? But if someone created, I dunno... say, a Bingo system that used conference calling to connect players to a site in some other country, they'd have the *exact same problem*. And the answer? Simple: tough shit. You can't control what entities outside your jurisdiction do.

The best you can try to do is stop people from accessing those sites in the first place. And if they want to attempt a Great Firewall of Kentucky, they're free to. It's their state. But it'll be hard, and wickedly expensive, so they better be sure their "values" are worth it before trying to embark on something like that.

Re:What is kentucky to do? (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552831)

But it'll be hard, and wickedly expensive, so they better be sure their "values" are worth it before trying to embark on something like that.

No need to worry there, they will just increase the sin taxes.

Re:What is kentucky to do? (1)

hguorbray (967940) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553717)

Well, they probably don't want to go to the WTO (assuming that the Feds would even let them for reasons of jurisdiction)

Because the WTO has already ruled in Antigua's favor as to the legality of offshore internet gambling:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/30/us_gambling_ban_investigated/ [theregister.co.uk]

and the fact that the US is allowing some forms of gambling (horse racing, lottery, etc) while unfairly restricting offshore and internet gambling (despite the fact the TVG conducts interstate horse race wagering online in the US)

I'm just sayin'

Re:What is kentucky to do? (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554135)

That's been covered a few times on slashdot already.

Yes, the WTO ruled against the US in favor of Antigua -- but it doesn't matter. Antigua is powerless.

The US is simply removing gambling from the treaties governing the operation of the WTO [iht.com] .

Make no bones about it... the WTO is a tool of the big players, and Antigua is playing shorthanded against the big stack at the table.

Re:What is kentucky to do? (2, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555731)

What are they to do? Nothing. What should they have done? Not passed laws they can't enforce, or tried to enforce them in ways that are clearly not legal.

Politicians simply need to stop thinking they can control the world or get everything they (personally) find morally objectable. It's silly enough when the federal government tries to enforce its morality on the Internet, but it's twice as silly when an individual state purports to have any authority over the rest of the world.

Bad Stuff(tm) will always be on the Internet, and that's just a fact of life. They don't have to like it, but they need to get behind it. They can save a lot of money and trouble for a lot of people simply by coming to that revelation. (And all of this ignores the questions about whether or not it is right to enforce personal moral standards on others, much less others not in your jurisdiction.)

If they really want to help with things, they need to educate people in their jurisdiction to the risks or help those who have already gotten in trouble. EG, if identity-theft.ag really did exist, they should help the people whose identities were stolen to begin rectifying the situation. They're perfectly free to contact legal authorities where the crime is taking place, of course, and see if that leads anywhere. Just assuming they have some sort of authority to stop it independent of that... urgh.

Re:What is kentucky to do? (1)

jambarama (784670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555781)

Right I understand that. But consider the hypothetical situation I proposed. What if instead of targeting poker sites, the law targeted fraud rings? Still a fact of life? If so, what about kiddie porn distributors? How about a how-to on suicide bombing & evading border patrols?

At some point, some service will be offered over the internet that we just won't want around. Then what can a state, or even a country, do to enforce the law on an entity outside its jurisdiction? So far the answer seems like "nothing" which doesn't seem terribly helpful.

Re:What is kentucky to do? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#26559305)

Then what can a state, or even a country, do to enforce the law on an entity outside its jurisdiction?

That has *always* been a problem. Take poppy production in Afghanistan. I'm sure, if the US had it's druthers, it'd carpet bomb any such operations, but it can't. So it has to live with their existence. The same goes with gambling, kiddie porn distribution, etc, in foreign countries.

The only way this is handled today is through international law, in the form of treaties. At least then, the US could put pressure on foreign governments to enact or enforce laws banning the things they don't like (obviously they'd need those treaties in place, first). But, alas, if they can't get nations on board, guess what? The only answer is economic or military intervention.

Barring that, the best KY can do is firewall the internets and hope they can block things they don't like. But given how successful China has been in this regard, I'm not sure it's really worth it...

Re:What is kentucky to do? (1)

Snotman (767894) | more than 5 years ago | (#26562097)

Yes, it is still a fact of life. Since KY has no jurisdiction over domain names, then tough is the answer. You only can legislate over what you have control of like their borders. So, setup a firewall into KY if KY thinks it should censor speech. Think about what the supreme court ruled yesterday - internet porn filters to protect children are unconstitutional based on freedom of speech. Apparently, KY must be flush with money in their state budget to take on a luxury like fighting in court whether they have the prerogative to steal domain names. Because they will be sued and it may not be in their courts as it may come in federal court.

I think it is really funny that people believe they should go to war when they have no money. Principals are the luxury of those that can afford them. So, either pick cheap principals to have or become rich and fight for them.

Re:What is kentucky to do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26558409)

What could the feds do, apart from file a claim with the WTO? (which they have regarding gambling in antigua I believe).

Work with Antiguan police to make sure Antiguan citizens and businesses do not violate Antiguan law?

Also, gambling? Some things ARE legal in other places, y'know. What would you say if China came knocking and demanded that you censor websites because there's no freedom of speech in China?

You'd tell them to shove it, that's what, because China's laws don't matter to you, your own do. Why should Antigua care about the USA's laws instead of its own?

This Kind of Thinking (1)

hduff (570443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552635)

This kind of thinking by the political leadership of Kentucky is what's wrong in general with politics and leadership in the USA.

Look at whatever economic or social statistics you want about the Bluegrass State and you'll see that the state has more important problems to address. By diverting attention to this kind of absolute nonsense, the Kentucky political leaders expose themselves as the asshats they really are and reinforce negative stereotypes of the state.

Next thing you know, they'll be legislating values of pi like those boobs in Indiana.

Re:This Kind of Thinking (1)

samriel (1456543) | more than 5 years ago | (#26552877)

As a matter of fact, that bill was never voted down. There it sits, still on the docket... We could literally re-define mathematics if we saw fit.

/Indiana here

Re:This Kind of Thinking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26556713)

That bill was a perfect example of why politicians should not make laws about stuff they know nothing about.

Wait -- then they'd never make any laws . . .

Re:This Kind of Thinking (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26558321)

"Wait -- then they'd never make any laws..."

And I say that's a good thing.

Here in washington state, we have initiatives. I must say that our initiatives aren't even half as asshatted as some of the laws that have been passed.

Case in point:

Initiative outlawing smoking vs. making it a criminal offense to be a member of the communist party.

Re:This Kind of Thinking (1)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553043)

Look at whatever economic or social statistics you want about the terrorist-sponsoring & harboring anti-West countries of the Middle-East and you'll see that the terrorist-sponsoring & harboring anti-West countries of the Middle-East have more important problems to address. By diverting attention to this kind of rabid hatred for the West & radical Islam, these Middle-East political & religious leaders expose themselves as the asshats they really are and reinforce negative stereotypes of their countries.

There, fixed that for you in a way that demonstrates that this is not a new idea, and has been used widely to distract the populace from the poor decisions, greed, inaction, and cowardice of their leaders.

Cheers!

Strat

Disassociation (1)

Anon1072 (1444945) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553179)

This kind of thinking by the political leadership of Kentucky

I appreciate you disassociating Kentucky's citizens from it's current political leadership. When this story first broke a few months ago, Kentuckians were just as surprised as anyone. All that was known about the administration was that it intended to leverage gambling to bring more revenue into the state. What happened came completely out of left field as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not embarassed or ashamed by what happened, however, since.. I didn't vote for him.

Re:Disassociation (1)

Korrente (1458511) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553323)

I didn't vote for him.

High Five!

Re:This Kind of Thinking (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26553223)

the state has more important problems to address.

You have obviously never met our leadership.

"asshats"

Nevermind, I guess you have.

I was once at small meeting that Trey Grayson (secretary of state) held for some students, the day after he had gotten his iPhone 3G...30 minutes of the discussion were spent discussing it instead of his policies, work, etc. As funny as it was, I sometimes hate to think that that could be what's going on in the state capital...

common sense judgement (1)

terraformer (617565) | more than 5 years ago | (#26553229)

That was one great, common sense judgement. Instead of allowing the executive branch to run free, they clearly stated it was up to the legislature to make a decision first. Imagine if the feds had judges this good. States and municipalities wouldn't be running around seizing just about anything their heart desired during arrests for everything from drugs to DUI abusing a vague and misguided statute when seen in it's intended form, and one that is beyond comprehension in how it has been applied.

GoDaddy in this case was a Wimp (2, Insightful)

CuteSteveJobs (1343851) | more than 5 years ago | (#26554995)

What sucked in this case was that GoDaddy handed over all those domains without a fight, but Network Solutions fought the suit for their customers and won. Network Soluions > GoDaddy.

http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/kudos-network-solutions-standing-online-gambling-sites-100708.html [gambling911.com]

Good and Bad (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26555905)

Well, it's nice that this was killed on appeal. Kinda sad it made it to this point though.

YUO FAIL1 IT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26556569)

end, we nned you somet4ing done the party in street simple solution

nice judge, now you go out back and play (1)

Trailer Trash (60756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26556691)

The court ruled that 'it's up to the General Assembly â" not the courts nor the state Justice Cabinet â" to bring domain names into the definition of illegal gambling devices.

Yeah, up to the General Assembly. That is, when they gain the power to enter into the international treaties that it would require to do this.

Do they not have one judge in that state who can step up and put an end to this shameful display of ignorance and idiocy?

Lubricant (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26559875)

At first, I couldn't understand what this ruling had to do with personal lubricants.

Wars on stuff people find objectionable (1)

sean.peters (568334) | more than 5 years ago | (#26562527)

For the life of me, I can't understand why we continue to waste time and money trying to prohibit things that 1) don't affect anyone not involved in the transaction and 2) people are absolutely, positively going to do, no matter how illegal they are. People are going to gamble, use drugs, and patronize prostitutes, period. Why can't we just accept the fact and move on?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...