AFL-CIO and Big Content Advocate For SOPA 295
Weezul writes "Today's House Judiciary Committee meeting on the Stop Online Piracy Act excluded any witnesses who advocate for civil rights. Google's Katherine Oyama was the only witness to object to the bill in a meaningful way. In particular, the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks.'"
Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:3)
Laying all that fibre, installing servers, manning phones at the offices of *AA attorneys, etc.
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:5, Informative)
It appears the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) is an AFL-CIO union [aflcio.com]. Any members should apply some pressure against their support for this madness.
I'd hope the AFL-CIO would shape up if enough members threatened to quit.
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you quit the AFL-CIO?
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, but it'd be a shame if your legs got broken, and you didn't have their worker protections. A real shame. You should think about how nice it is not to have your legs broken. Maybe you don't want to quite the AFL-CIO?
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting organized crime is not heavily involved in the AFL-CIO?
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime/italian_mafia [fbi.gov]
http://americanmafia.com/Crime_And_Labor.html [americanmafia.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you cannot quit them you should be able to get back any monies that do not directly relate to the union and benefits they can provide. Such as, to use the occupy wall street terminology, payoffs to politicians.
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, try using google to crack open any one of the national labor relations websites, and you'll find that your union DUES money CAN'T be used in any way whatsoever for political action without your knowledge and consent TO BEGIN WITH.
And in my personal experience, you have approximately the same ability to withhold permission to use your dues for political contributions as you do not to join the union in the first place.
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the biggest unions around -- SEIU, Teamsters, UFW, and UFCW -- did in 2005.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, that's informative. Two followon questions:
(1) Do you have to be the size of the SEIU in order to quit the AFL-CIO?
(2) Can you quit the SEIU?
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:4, Funny)
"I'd hope the AFL-CIO would shape up if enough members threatened to quit."
As a branch of Cosa Nostra, that's unlikely to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't quit union in non-right to work states. So they don't care, they still get your money.
You can drop AFL-CIO as your union and switch to another by a vote. It's not unpossible. Probably more effective to just get a letter writing campaign going, though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not unpossible.
G. Dubya, is that you? It's great to have you back. Let's kick that pinko-commie liberal's ass clean outta the Whitehouse!
On a more serious note, why can't you leave a union? That sounds very un-free to me.
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:4, Informative)
You CAN quit a union.
However (there's always a however), in non-right-to-work States, union dues are deducted from your paycheck and sent to the union whether you're a member or not.
Re: (Score:3)
That is not accurate. The percentage of the union dues used for representation purposes, etc. (regulated to be 85% as far as I know) is deducted. As I said above, the quitter still gets all of the benefits of being in the union (salary increases, work rules, etc.). It would somehow be fair to have the union members completely carrying the freeloaders?
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:5, Interesting)
So he was 85% correct.
They can continue to deduct 85% of the union dues as long as you work in that union job. By quitting the union you forfeit your right to vote in any union elections, and your dues are reduced by 15%. That 85% covers the supposed cost to the union to provide negotiation and worker protection benefits (what a joke). But sorry you cannot negotiate on your own, or try and provide a cheaper alternative to the union in non-right to work states. And you are still bound by that union contract, i.e., senority limits on your raises, offers for promotions and so on.
Solution: Try and find a job in a right to work state like Nevada or South Carolina, etc.
At one time Unions had a necessary reason for forming and existing. But with the advent of OSHA their main reason for existing (worker safety and working conditions) is redundant. Now they are pretty much just another cash cow of the Democratic Party and senior Union bosses and also a PAC/lobby. Incidentally that 15% that you can reduce your union dues by is supposedly what unions spend on political activities. Yeah right.
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:5, Interesting)
The root of the recording industry came from distribution.
That was trucking.
It's why the same gangsters ran these concessions: recording, publishing, pressing and distribution. This is a "legitimate business" that grew out of racketeering - and has never dispensed with the original ethos - they just went "legit" and lawyered-up.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and the gangsters weren't Sicilian.
You know, Meyer Lansky, that lot.
Re:Must be some AFL-CIO people .. (Score:5, Insightful)
But that's just it. He sees people getting content electronically online as taking (Stealing) things out of his members trucks.He doesn't care if you bought a legal electronic copy or not. Even if you buy a physical copy his members deliver it. He's speaking solely out of self interest. He doesn't like anything that lets you get delivery electronically.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's just it. He sees people getting content electronically online as taking (Stealing) things out of his members trucks.He doesn't care if you bought a legal electronic copy or not. Even if you buy a physical copy his members deliver it. He's speaking solely out of self interest. He doesn't like anything that lets you get delivery electronically.
Too bad for him, as that's the direction of entertainment delivery - no hard copy sitting in your bookshelf, bought at Sam Goody, down on the corner, delivered to that store by loaders and drivers.
Correction, it's afl-cEo. (Score:2)
AFL-CIO no longer represents the workers
Ever since the mid 1980's, AFL-CIO has changed into AFL-CEO
Re:Correction, it's afl-cEo. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
From Almeida''s statement:
28th Ammendment.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:28th Ammendment.. (Score:5, Informative)
That is actually exactly what's at stake. Imagine a future where replicator technology [slashdot.org] is commonplace. We'll be freed from the shackles of cost being linked to the amount of labor and expertise needed to manufacture a physical object. The only limit is going to be materials cost and our imaginations.
So we could have a world where anyone can own a car for the just cost of the metal and plastic needed to construct it. But it won't happen if it's illegal to download the design of said car without paying a $20,000 license fee to Ford, who still holds its 150 year copyright and whose patent portfolio prevents anyone who is not also a big auto company from legally selling you a design.
To paraphrase the ST:TNG episode [youtube.com], the decision we come to in the coming decade or two regarding software patents, copyright extensions and enforcement will extend far beyond music, movies, and software. It will redefine to what degree access to cheap manufactured products can improve the standard of living of the human race. Expanding them for some (IP creators), savagely curtailing them for others (consumers). Are we prepared to condemn the billions who come after us to servitude and slavery by making sure no idea with contemporary value ever makes it into the public domain?
This is our chance to make law. Let's make it a good one.
I Agree (Score:2)
> the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'"
>
Why should one be allowed to steal stuff ?
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
It all depends on whom gets to define "steal".
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on whom gets to define "steal".
+1
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if you accepted the "copyright infringement is theft" analogy, SOPA is not about the Internet equivalent of "stealing goods off a truck." Copyright infringement is already illegal and there are already provisions to handle it. You notice your copyright is being infringed, you send a DMCA notice to the website, they take down the infringing material (or open themselves to a lawsuit), and then the uploader gets to respond (to get the stuff put back up). If you want to take down an entire site for copyright infringement, however, you need to first prove your case to a judge.
SOPA takes that pesky judge out of the equation. Suppose that there are 10,000 sellers on SomeAuctionSite.com. Of these, 9,999 are legit. They sell items that nobody would have any problem with. One seller, however, is selling copyright infringing material. (For example, copies of DVDs.) Instead of the DMCA notices, the MPAA could contact the payment processors and ad sites that SomeAuctionSite.com uses to get their operating money. With their access to money cut off, SomeAuctionSite.com closes down. 9,999 legit sellers are taken down to get rid of 1 pirated DVD seller. It's using a bazooka to kill a fly, but the RIAA/MPAA doesn't care because they just want the fly dead and don't care about the collateral damage.
In fact, it's even worse than that example. Suppose that the 1 seller on SomeAuctionSite.com didn't sell pirated DVDs but instead sold photos he took. Now let's say someone looked at one and thought it looked like a photo they had taken. They start to believe that this seller is selling other people's copyrighted photos and send SOPA notices to the payment/ad companies SomeAuctionSite.com uses. Nothing is proven in court, but still funding is cut off and SomeAuctionSite.com closes. Even if that seller is innocent of any infringement. SomeAuctionSite.com isn't even given any notice until their funds are cut off. By that point, their business will be bleeding money until they can clear things up. (Imagine if your business couldn't take any money in for some reason. How long would it last before it closed shop?)
SOPA is a MPAA/RIAA wet dream and a Freddy Krueger for the rest of us.
Re:I Agree (Score:4, Informative)
SOPA has nothing to do with theft. This is a completely flawed analogy.
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Why should the record companies be allowed to steal art from the public domain by eternally extending copyright?
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is in the assignment of the word "theft" to this phenomenon.
Say for a moment that I, personally, am responsible for domesticating wheat. I use this position to control the distribution of wheat and wheat based products, citing that my hard work in the domestication process is what justifies my monopolist behavior.
Now, let's say that some other person finds out that they can grow their own wheat. So, they do. They do this from a single wheat seed that they legally purchased from me.
They plant the wheat, and in a few years, have cultivated enough wheat seeds to start undercutting my monopoly. Let's say that they simply just give away the wheat seeds that they are now producing.
Which does this constitute?
A) stealing
Or,
B) competition
The person giving away the free wheat seeds is not stealing them from my grainary. I am not losing wheat by his actions. What I am losing is market power. I am losing the ability to solely dictate the unit price for wheat. Does this constitute theft? If so, how?
Re: (Score:2)
According to Monsanto, it's theft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite right, quite right.
The rest of the question though:
"Why is it theft?" ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, forgot that part...
Again, if you're Monsanto, it's theft because they have more lawyers....
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but apart from legislation from the bench, lawyers do not create laws. Only interpret existing ones.
From what legal interpretation is the claim that this is theft based?
(I understand that you are making a funny. I do appreciate that. But the bullshit these morons are engaging in is no laughing matter.)
If the argument, is that I, as the original domesticator of the wheat would not have domesticated the wheat without the implied power of being the sole distributor of that product, and that therefor permi
Re: (Score:3)
What you are missing is that it doesn't matter all that much that you're right and you didn't actually steal. With enough money and competent lawyers, you can tie someone up in court for so long that they just fold. At that point, theft is indeed defined by who has more lawyers. It is bullshit, it is no laughing matter, and there is nothing you can do about it, short of reforming the current legal system. Furthermore, quite a few people do equate competition with stealing.
Re: (Score:2)
So how is this scenario different from any other patent infringement?
Suppose I develop a brand new widget that increases gas mileage by 50%. By dint of my genius I feel I am deserved an exclusive franchise on this invention and use US law to obtain a patent on it.
Now some other person goes out and buys one of these widgets, and uses it as an example to produce many more of these. The manufacturing process includes sunshine, water and fertilizer as it's main inputs. This person decides to include these widge
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the problem with intellectual properties in general.
You cannot prevent people from using your ideas. If its a good idea, people will use it.
Patent and copyright laws are intended to COMPROMISE between necessary competitive agents, and incentivisation of creators.
It *ONLY* works, when the public at large defacto agrees on the compromise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! So what we need is a law that allows any corporation to confiscate any car or truck that they claim has any stolen goods in it, or has been used or is likely to be used to carry stolen goods without proof or judicial oversight on those claims.
"We think that Volkswagen over there might have had stolen candy in it, Volkswagens are hippy cars. Confiscate it. And that van over there... you can see those people in the van are singing and I'll bet they haven't licensed the song they are singing for a public
Re:I Agree (Score:5, Interesting)
You're aware that this is already legal, right?
That's how the police can confiscate a drug-dealer's stuff and keep it without any inconvenience like warrants, trials, verdicts, that sort of thing.
And if the police take your stuff under those laws, you have to bring suit against them to recover the stuff, after PROVING that you are not, in fact, a criminal....
Re: (Score:2)
That's it. It's over. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore the idiot AC. He would rather bitch about somebody _doing_ something then post their "brilliant" plan, because it is far easier to be an arm-chair critic then get off his/her ass and do something.
Your idea of "private libraries" is a great idea. Everybody pools in, and takes turn watching the movie(s). Could even do something like DKP and/or some software match up wish-lists amongst everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
The trouble is that they're less inclined to pay $30 for that DVD, but now they have that $30 burning a hole in their pocket and there are still a big pile of other DVDs sold by the same studios that they haven't got.
Again, the important figure is the number of dollars you don't give them, not the number of copies you make. Making a thousand copies and giving them to a thousand people who, rather than not buying a movie, simply watch one more movie that year than they would have otherwise, doesn't cost the
Well (Score:2)
the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'
He's quite right. It has fuck all to do with SOPA and its associated discussions, but he's right.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'
He's quite right. It has fuck all to do with SOPA and its associated discussions, but he's right.
That's Chewbacca defense, right? (it's actually offence, but you get the gist).
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
We currently have no bills where we can merely accuse a random person of stealing an auto which point no service station would be allowed to sell them gasoline.
The problems with SOPA aren't with piracy but rather that the burden of piracy prevention falls onto third parties, and the lack of needing proof of wrong doing before penalties are applied.
Great Firewall of America (Score:5, Informative)
There was also an op-ed by Rebecca MacKinnon in the NY Times: "Stop the Great Firewall of America [nytimes.com]". Unfortunately behind their paywall, but may be accessible through a Google search?
Re:Great Firewall of America (Score:5, Informative)
I got through just fine, I think turning javascript off stops the NYT paywall from working. Text of TFA:
China operates the world’s most elaborate and opaque system of Internet censorship. But Congress, under pressure to take action against the theft of intellectual property, is considering misguided legislation that would strengthen China’s Great Firewall and even bring major features of it to America.
The legislation — the Protect IP Act, which has been introduced in the Senate, and a House version known as the Stop Online Piracy Act — have an impressive array of well-financed backers, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Motion Picture Association of America, the American Federation of Musicians, the Directors Guild of America, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Screen Actors Guild. The bills aim not to censor political or religious speech as China does, but to protect American intellectual property. Alarm at the infringement of creative works through the Internet is justifiable. The solutions offered by the legislation, however, threaten to inflict collateral damage on democratic discourse and dissent both at home and around the world.
The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.
Abuses under existing American law serve as troubling predictors for the kinds of abuse by private actors that the House bill would make possible. Take, for example, the cease-and-desist letters that Diebold, a maker of voting machines, sent in 2003, demanding that Internet service providers shut down Web sites that had published internal company e-mails about problems with the company’s voting machines. The letter cited copyright violations, and most of the service providers took down the content without question, despite the strong case to be made that the material was speech protected under the First Amendment.
The House bill would also emulate China’s system of corporate “self-discipline,” making companies liable for users’ actions. The burden would be on the Web site operator to prove that the site was not being used for copyright infringement. The effect on user-generated sites like YouTube would be chilling.
YouTube, Twitter and Facebook have played an important role in political movements from Tahrir Square to Zuccotti Park. At present, social networking services are protected by a “safe harbor” provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which grants Web sites immunity from prosecution as long as they act in good faith to take down infringing content as soon as rights-holders point it out to them. The House bill would destroy that immunity, putting the onus on YouTube to vet videos in advance or risk legal action. It would put Twitter in a similar position to that of its Chinese cousin, Weibo, which reportedly employs around 1,000 people to monitor and censor user content and keep the company in good standing with authorities.
Compliance with the Stop Online Piracy Act would require huge overhead spending by Internet companies for staff and technologies dedicated to monitoring users and censoring any infringing material from being posted or transmitted. This in turn would create daunting financial burdens and legal risks for start-up companies, making it much harder for brilliant young entrepreneurs with limited resources to
Quick and dirty activism (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a site to quickly push a complaint to those who need your votes:
American Censorship.org [americancensorship.org]
Think we can Slashdot it?
Classic Quote: +4, Inflammatory (Score:2, Insightful)
"'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'" .... by AFL-CIO members !!!
Yours In Ashgabat,
K. Trout
Stealing Off Trucks (Score:2)
In particular, the AFL-CIO's Paul Almeida advocated for the internet blacklist, saying 'the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks'"
That's ok, we're stealing off Tubes, not Trucks. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Unless of course you also happen to be affiliated with the Mob.
Whores (Score:3)
The AFL CIO leadership has show itself in the last few years to be little more than a group of high-priced whores.
I support the unions. But they suffer from the same leadership crisis our broader society labors under.
Fallacious (Score:5, Interesting)
the First Amendment does not protect stealing goods off trucks
Yeah, true. But there are several points to consider that I feel make the quoted statement utterly fallacious. First, an accusation of theft isn't immediately punished; guilt has to be proven first. Second, theft of a physical object means that the original owner loses the object. In the case of a piece of digital property, the original holder hasn't lost possession of anything. The content-creation industry's obsession with immediate punishment before investigation doesn't make sense. It violates the due process rights of the accused for no legally-sound reason. It allows for corporate actions to replace proper review by the judicial system....and it's a short-sidedly, seemingly-logical extension of a content-holder's desire to maximize revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, while the Constitution does not protect stealing good off trucks (and why the hell would it?), it does both protect trucks and taking things off of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting on a response, but essentially told them that if they vote for this law, I will actively engage in getting them voted out of office.
Fuckers.
Poor analogy (Score:2)
Does anyone else think this was a poor analogy? I thought everyone knew by know that the internet isn't a big truck. It's a series of tubes. Maybe she can come back with an analogy that includes those tubes at the bank drive through or something.
Property or License (Score:2)
Property and License (Score:2)
A license gives you bounded permission to use someone else's property. Someone has to have a proprietary interest before they can provide someone else a license, so the "property or license" dichotomy you suggest that someone needs to "pick one and stick to it" is nonsense. For their to be a license, there must be property.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you steal a license?
US gov and the Media corps need each other (Score:2)
The Media companies NEED the US gove to pass laws that help them stay alive at the same time the US gov NEEDS US made music and movies to keep the masses entertained while they sneak in censorship laws with each anti piracy bill that is passed.
First Amendment doesnt allow spineless bastards (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do something! (Score:5, Informative)
Remember the proposed legislation mandating DRM TCPA chips on all computers years ago? Someone on slashdot linked the senate's website and contact info. It died. :-)
So instead of whinning let your senators know how you feel?
Their website is here [senate.gov] for the American Slashdot readers. Don't know who your senators are? There is a list here including an email link [senate.gov].
Calling your senator is effective as well [senate.gov].
When contacting your senator do not mention you want to dowload illegal material or that you are just angry and think it is unfair. Mention you work in the I.T. field and are worried about negative implications and liabilitiy risks for non copyrighted or infringement uses that this bill could be abused. Mention it would harm Google's youtube service costing American jobs as they would move overseas. This bill would be costly and could cost American innovation and jobs. Mention we already have existing copyright laws in force and sites like youtube already remove copyrighted or infrindged material in a timely manner and this is nothing but a power grab.
If your senator is a democrats mention your worried about the power grab by the media companies will harm competition. If your senator is a republican mention this would increase government intervention and regulation as it would cost well into the billions of dollars of tax payer money to fund this etc. You all can be creative.
Someone mod this up for the links. I just made it easier for everyone to spend 5 minutes telling your representative how you feel. Remember if you do not pick your voice the RIAA/MPAA will. If all they hear is the RIAA/MPAA then they will vote for the bill as it shows we don't care and like being fucked over. Do your duty.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up!
Let your representative know. Many senators are clueless and if they start getting calls and emails into the hundreds they will quickly notice and re-exam the bill. Trust me even if they are corrupt many are having a tough fight with a 9% approval rating and maybe willing to cater.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much =exactly= what I did.
I pointed out that this law will have a negative impact on millions of IT workers in the US, at a time when we can least afford to be fucking the one major industry that seems to be doing well.
Contact your representatives (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm just gonna throw this one out there... mostly because it's obnoxious.
http://www.reverserobocall.com/ [reverserobocall.com]
Politicians robocall you. Now you can robocall them.
Welcome to the Robocall Revolution. We believe that voters should have access to the same technology political groups use to get their message across; so we built a simple web-based robocall tool to literally give citizens back their voice in the political discourse. What better way to exercise your rights to to speech, than to actually speak truth to power?
ReverseRobocall.com provides voters an easy way to communicate with one or hundreds of politicians or political groups using the same technology politicians use, the robocall or automated phone call.
Re: (Score:3)
Can we also drape huge banners outside of their houses so they refuse to leave their rooms or look out of any window? Do this to enough congressfolk and we just might solve the problem!
pinhead unionist. not stealing off trucks. (Score:2)
if media piracy was stealing off trucks at red lights in traffic, the law and cops could stop it. like they could stop the Chinese copy shops if China got on board.
the issue is the hearts and minds of the public in the face of a continuous history in recorded media of all kinds of the corporations ripping off the artists, and changing up formats all the time to rip off the customers.
at base is this... a customer can buy a license to use a work for their own purposes... and under fair use provisions of the
As I understand it... (Score:3, Interesting)
As I understand it, I need only send a "take-down" notice indicating a site is infringing on my trademark. The DNS must then be blocked and the site owner must be notified of the blockage. The site owner may then send a counter-notice claiming it should remain unblocked. If the site owner sends a counter-notice the site is unblocked and the matter is referred to the courts. If the site owner does not respond with a counter-notice the site remains blocked.
If I am correct, what is stopping me from drafting a "take-down" notice stating that I own the trademark for MPAA.org? RIAA.org? whitehouse.gov?
Would this not automatically force the specific site off-line until they produce a counter-notice?
Re:As I understand it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, yeah, this "democratic republic" isn't about giving power to its citizens. It's just about preventing revolutions by making people think they can get some sort of change once their group size tips slightly over 50%.
And it does a damn fine job of it :-P
How did the Roman democracy finally fail? Decayed from within. So we don't even really have to do anything about it, just let the powers-that-be proceed on their present course of action :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. The "Wasted Vote" argument can continue to be extrapolated reductio ad absurdum to say, "If you didn't vote for the winning candidate, you wasted your vote."
Third Parties (Score:2)
Why not vote for who you want rather than the lesser of two evils?
Every now and then we try that. The most recent example was in 2000, when enough people voted for Ralph Nader to decide the election.
I will point out that the "lesser of two evils" is a false dichotomy. If you wait for November next year, yeah, that's what it comes to. If you want more choices, get active in the parties -- the people who actually put in the work year in and year out have a lot more leverage than those whose whole involvement amounts to checking a few lines on a ballot.
Re:Third Parties (Score:5, Interesting)
It's known as the Spoiler Effect and it got both Clinton, via Perot and Bush, via Nader elected. Somehow, it got stirred up into anger at the "third party" candidate, when the real problem is that the US uses a simple plurality voting system that is extremely biased towards a two party system since voting any other way risks throwing your vote away on a spoiler. The fundamental problem is that simple plurality is the best functional system for choosing between exactly two options. For all numbers other than two, it's the worst functional system (there are other, worse, systems, but I wouldn't consider them functional). All of the known single pass systems have paradoxes, but the one that the US actually uses has the worst paradox in the Spoiler Effect.
Then, of course, the Democrats and Republicans, realizing they have a duopoly, work together to ensure it stays that way. For example, the so-called "presidential debates" are a purely Democrat/Republican media affair. There's no invitations for other parties to participate and no established mechanism for other parties or independents to join. Real presidential debates would last about a month and be either arranged tournament style like an actual debate competition, or in some format that allowed every candidate to debate every other candidate. Instead, there's just a polished media event between members of the traditional duopoly arranged by power brokers. I'm not going to say that voting in the US is a sham per se, but I would like people to think about how many US elections have been decided based on a difference in votes that was actually smaller than the margin of error in the voting system (which the debacle in Florida a while back that was sorted out in part by the brother of one of the candidates makes abundantly clear).
Take over the democratic party says Prof. Domhoff (Score:2)
using Democratic Egalitarian Clubs: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html [ucsc.edu]
He suggests to run progressive candidates in the primaries.
His big picture:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_freshstart.html [ucsc.edu]
"The failures of the American left are not in its egalitarian values, but in the means it uses to realize those values. This document suggests the strategies the left could follow in the United States if it took the findings of the social sciences more se
Re: (Score:2)
If enough people start voting for who they want, you will start to see the top two parties lose percentage points to lesser known parties.
This is the problem. Those points are coming from the party which is closer to your position. Sure, if enough people join in you may be able to get someone even closer elected (though they may turn out to be just as bad once they're in power). The odds of that happening in any given election, however, are minuscule, so you'd just be hurting your own interests. If your candidate doesn't win, you've had no more positive effect on the election than if you'd stayed home. Rather than voting for third-party candi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...and then the thing I said would happen, did. The Whigs and the Republicans merged. Lincoln was a Whig before he was a Republican. The fact that most of the former Whigs joined the Republicans rather than the other way around doesn't really change anything. You can't get a stable third party with a first past the post voting system. The incentives for the two most similar parties to merge are too overwhelming.
Re: (Score:2)
The wrong lizard might get in.
Re: (Score:2)
No, jackass. Vote for who you think should be in office. Not "the lesser of two..." or other voting strategies. This is the surest way to keep things from changing.
Re: (Score:2)
What is your position on Captain Picard stationed on the Enterprise replicating the Earl Gray Tea leaves off of your trucks?
Thank you.
Sorry, dude, but the Enterprise is a tool of the government. Did you actually not think about that all these years? Earl Grey Tea supplier, which provided the original pattern for the replicator probably got a big payoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Earl Grey tea is just black tea blended with bergamot [wikipedia.org] You can get it from thousands of suppliers. Quality varies--too much bergamot is bitter, too little can be insipid.
Re:LOL! American Freedom! (Score:5, Insightful)
While I am knowingly replying to two trolls, it makes for a poignant comment.
The rest of the world isn't too worried about this I think. With actions like this, America is just making itself more and more of a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. The credibility of America has been in decline for decades and eventually it will write itself out of the world stage that it so desperately want to stay in.
I am not saying that everyone in the US is to be painted with the same broad brush, but the folks at the top certainly seem to have free reign to write their own legislation and rules. With that sort of playing field, it is only a matter of time before all the other teams stop turning up to matches.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "LOL! American Freedom!" comment is actually the most insightful and intelligent of the 40+ comments currently posted under this story.
Using just three words, the author managed to make the following points:
1) That American citizens and organizations claim to hold freedom in high regard, but then hypocritically practice the complete opposite.
2) That the American government claims to hold freedom in high regard, but then hypocritically practices the complete opposite.
3) That most Americans are oblivious
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The rest of the world is worried about the extent that this will spread outside your borders. The US is a very imperialist nation and will try very hard to press other nations into similar situations. They have to, because if they're the only draconian nation they're at an economic disadvantage, to say the least.
So yes, we're worried about NAFTA, ACTA (and PATRIOT as it relates to cloud services). Beyond that, we couldn't care less. You're deluding yourself if you think the US has any credibility left. We'r
Re: (Score:3)
ACTA is virtually toothless compared to TPPA. Look it up sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world SHOULD be worried. If SOPA (etc) passes it will effectively make a good chunk of the internet subject to US law. The remainder of the internet will either be willingly subject to US law, or risk exile outside of the "Great American Firewall"
If this gets rammed through your government, it WILL change the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to learn how to use Tor I guess.