Many of the issues are related, and the fact is that the issues we DO follow certainly have become mainstream. SOPA became mainstream. Net neutrality became mainstream. Mass surveillance became mainstream.
Yes - but all those were tech issues that have become so important that the mainstream took them up or mainstream issues where tech knowledge and understanding should be game changers.
. I wrote about it because I couldn't not write about it, because it's a disgrace and I have a platform.
which puts you basically in the same boat as the celebrity critics. Personally I would rather hear the opinions of experts on immigration policy and/or those who understand the legal niceties of what is and isn't constitutional.
As for the inhumanity of it - well I can think of many worse examples of inhumanity, a surprisingly large number of which have been perpetrated by governments or citizens of the very same nations that are affected by the ban.
There is no more annoying and cynical a ploy then someone saying "you can't write about this because you didn't write about some other horrible thing."
Yes - but if your going to do that then you do have to have a reason that isn't just personal bias. If you find it annoying then that is probably because it has touched a nerve somewhere.
The issue here is that this was a MASSIVE upheaval impacting hundreds of thousands of people
If you look more carefully you will find that most of that was caused by exactly the same issue that I raised - namely the fact that politicians make sweeping generalisations which then get interpreted by "jobsworth" functionaries in ways that have horrible and unintended consequences.
This is not qualitatively different from business as usual at the US border - just bigger - and because it is bigger then some of the problems have been fixed quicker than they would have been if only a few people had been affected.
Again, maybe look at this very post and see if you still think that's true.
Actually I'm not objecting to this post initially I was answering the commenter who claimed that all this was really just normal business for techdirt. I did then go on to say that (with the first post) I thought you had strayed outside the area where you were adding significant value - that is all.
Since you seem to be new here you may want to go back and read through some of the older articles. Techdirt has always been political.
It has not often strayed into mainstream political issues.
It has tended to concentrate of political issues that relate to copyright/patent/trademark or security.
As such it has thrown useful light on these issues by putting forward the viewpoint of those who understand the technology against politicians who almost always don't.
I Mike's first post on this topic he more or less admitted that he was straying for his usual stalking ground.
_We're not a political blog. We cover technology and innovation, as well as the legal, economic and policy issues related to those things. Over the years, that's included issues related to civil liberties and civil rights. We don't see these things as being separate. They are all connected and intertwined. We've even spent plenty of time discussing immigration, though focusing on high tech and entrepreneur immigration.
But I don't think there's any need for me to try to justify why I'm making this post on Techdirt today. This is about humanity. And if you want to complain in the comments that you don't want to read this on a "tech" site, well, then maybe take a second and think about what this says about you._
I'm sorry Mike - it really isn't about humanity.
It's about reacting to Trump.
If you were concerned about humanitarian issues surrounding immigration then there has been plenty to write about ever since Techdirt started.
The fact is that so long as you have any set of rules that prevent some people entering the country then there will be regular cases of inhumanity when "jobsworth" officials apply those rules.
I find myself signing petitions against such deportations (from the UK in my case) on a regular basis.
So why speak out about this particular one now?
Really there is no point when you have no particular expertise to add to this debate.
The point being that the crusades were a belated and ultimately somewhat ineffectual response to Jihad that had (by that time) already been in full flow for 400 years.
But hey - if you want your Great Grandchildren to live in an Islamic state under Sharia then just carry on saying those things.
Muslims are the easiest target because the news has been hyping anti-muslim hate for 15 years now.
Actually the exact opposite is true - the press has actually been trying to disassociate Islam from the terrorist acts.
If you were really concerned about injustice you would be protesting about the plight of Christians and other minorities in Islamic lands - here is some educational reading for you.
Trump promised a Muslim ban - then found that he couldn't easily implement it (within the constitution) and so created something that is designed to look like a Muslim ban to those who supported it.
Of course even an actual Muslim ban would have been pointless and ineffective. However I believe what he was trying to do was to send a signal that in future we would call a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism. (In sharp contrast to the words of even GWBush and many republicans - let alone Obama).
That would have been a good idea if he had found a better way of doing it.
'If you get a sadistic dictator ruling over you it's because God Almighty decided you deserved it
Which is demonstrably untrue regardless of whether you believe in God almighty.
But you shouldn't use that to tarnish the actual benefits -- both economic and social -- of actual free trade.
There has (almost) never been such a thing as "actual free trade".
Although the version of free trade that we have has helped the economic progress of society as a whole it has almost always had negative consequences for substantial parts of society.
True free trade requires that all the parties involved have a baseline bargaining position that allows them to walk away from a deal that is not beneficial to them.
Unfortunately in the real world there are almost always de-facto monopolies that undermine this and usually place the ordinary man in the street at a big disadvantage.
This concept was well explored over a century ago by Henry George.
The other key fact here is that almost all proponents of free trade are hypocrits. They want just enough free trade to allow them to set up a monopoly for themselves.
I realize that there are much bigger issues at hand right now,
Actually those issues aren't that big- at least they do not represent anything abnormal in the behaviour of the US or other similar governments.
The kind of injustice you highlighted actually happens all the time - Trump's decree - whilst stupid - I'm not defending it - has not created more that a small spike in the noise spectrum of US immigration injustice.
Of course his opponents have tried to make a big deal of it and have somewhat misrepresented it in order to do so.
However I think this story is actually more important - it should be allowed to be buried under the temporary and phoney kerfuffle about immigration policy.
Except that a nation is not a unified moral entity capable of "deserving" anything.
The statement is nonsense - no matter who said it.
In fact the refutation of this idea is the real point behind the story of Sodom.
From Genesis 18
"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes."
The story then goes on to progressively count down the 50 to smaller and smaller numbers - always with the same result - until Abraham realies which way this is going.
So no - a nation is not capable of "deserving" a government and even if it were then in the real world we note that nations often get governments that have been foisted on them by other nations (quite often the US - as many S. American countries will testify.)
Chile certainly didn't deserve Pinochet for example - so your quote is rubbish.
Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire here in the U.S. and start our own comment army.
I thought you/we already had!
You can tell when reason has gone out the window however when the name calling starts.
The right and left each have their own name calling vocabulary.
My problem is that I don't agree wholeheartedly with either side and sometimes you have to swallow your distaste and do something against your normal instincts.
For example I am ashamed to say it now but I once voted for a Ukip candidate in a euro election.
On that occasion the issues of sound copyright extension and software patents were up for debate and I had received a very unsatisfactory answer to a letter that I sent to the sitting (LibDem) MEP. Ukip on the otherhand had made it clear that they would vote against at least one of these - and since they really couldn't do much damage on other matters in the European Parliament I felt that was the right thing to do.
The one thing that amuses me now is the realisation that - thanks to Brexit they are likely to lose all parl;iamentary representation over the next few years!
Yes, it is nice to have solidarity, but not at the expense of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is over rated. North Korea has Sovereignty. It is, perhaps, the small country with the most sovereignty .
Does that make it a better place to be than the EU?
What matters is the degree to which ordinary people have a say in their destiny. However (as the referendum has shown) it is important that their "say" is exercised within a framework of rational debate.
true, but 2010 was the second time a majority winner didn't get elected in that time,
Actually no government since 1931 has had an overall majority of the popular vote.
But only in 1950 and 1974(Feb) has the election neen won in spite of another party having a bigger percentage of the vote. In all other recent elections the "winning party" had the largest popular vote.
Which in practice meant that everybody who voted leave projected their own idea of what should happen onto the "leave" concept.
Worse than that most people will have thought in terms of outcomes - without ever reasoning through as to how "leave" could (actually) deliver those outcomes.
Arguably exactly the same thing will have happened with many Trump voters, although in that case there is more opportunity for any damage he does to be undone at a later date. (However having said that I am not convinced of the ability of the US political system to actually throw up anybody better. In my mind US politics has been in freefall quality-wise since Reagan was elected. )
On the post: Basically The Entire Tech Industry Signs Onto A Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Exec Order
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Many of the issues are related, and the fact is that the issues we DO follow certainly have become mainstream. SOPA became mainstream. Net neutrality became mainstream. Mass surveillance became mainstream.
Yes - but all those were tech issues that have become so important that the mainstream took them up or mainstream issues where tech knowledge and understanding should be game changers.
. I wrote about it because I couldn't not write about it, because it's a disgrace and I have a platform.
which puts you basically in the same boat as the celebrity critics. Personally I would rather hear the opinions of experts on immigration policy and/or those who understand the legal niceties of what is and isn't constitutional.
As for the inhumanity of it - well I can think of many worse examples of inhumanity, a surprisingly large number of which have been perpetrated by governments or citizens of the very same nations that are affected by the ban.
There is no more annoying and cynical a ploy then someone saying "you can't write about this because you didn't write about some other horrible thing."
Yes - but if your going to do that then you do have to have a reason that isn't just personal bias. If you find it annoying then that is probably because it has touched a nerve somewhere.
The issue here is that this was a MASSIVE upheaval impacting hundreds of thousands of people
If you look more carefully you will find that most of that was caused by exactly the same issue that I raised - namely the fact that politicians make sweeping generalisations which then get interpreted by "jobsworth" functionaries in ways that have horrible and unintended consequences.
This is not qualitatively different from business as usual at the US border - just bigger - and because it is bigger then some of the problems have been fixed quicker than they would have been if only a few people had been affected.
Again, maybe look at this very post and see if you still think that's true.
Actually I'm not objecting to this post initially I was answering the commenter who claimed that all this was really just normal business for techdirt. I did then go on to say that (with the first post) I thought you had strayed outside the area where you were adding significant value - that is all.
On the post: Basically The Entire Tech Industry Signs Onto A Legal Brief Opposing Trump's Exec Order
Re: Re: Sigh
Since you seem to be new here you may want to go back and read through some of the older articles. Techdirt has always been political.
It has not often strayed into mainstream political issues.
It has tended to concentrate of political issues that relate to copyright/patent/trademark or security.
As such it has thrown useful light on these issues by putting forward the viewpoint of those who understand the technology against politicians who almost always don't.
I Mike's first post on this topic he more or less admitted that he was straying for his usual stalking ground.
_We're not a political blog. We cover technology and innovation, as well as the legal, economic and policy issues related to those things. Over the years, that's included issues related to civil liberties and civil rights. We don't see these things as being separate. They are all connected and intertwined. We've even spent plenty of time discussing immigration, though focusing on high tech and entrepreneur immigration.
But I don't think there's any need for me to try to justify why I'm making this post on Techdirt today. This is about humanity. And if you want to complain in the comments that you don't want to read this on a "tech" site, well, then maybe take a second and think about what this says about you._
I'm sorry Mike - it really isn't about humanity.
It's about reacting to Trump.
If you were concerned about humanitarian issues surrounding immigration then there has been plenty to write about ever since Techdirt started.
The fact is that so long as you have any set of rules that prevent some people entering the country then there will be regular cases of inhumanity when "jobsworth" officials apply those rules.
I find myself signing petitions against such deportations (from the UK in my case) on a regular basis.
So why speak out about this particular one now?
Really there is no point when you have no particular expertise to add to this debate.
On the post: The Real Controversy Over The Non-Existent 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is That It Was The FBI's Own Plot
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But hey - if you want your Great Grandchildren to live in an Islamic state under Sharia then just carry on saying those things.
On the post: The Real Controversy Over The Non-Existent 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is That It Was The FBI's Own Plot
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo
On the post: The Real Controversy Over The Non-Existent 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is That It Was The FBI's Own Plot
Re: Re: Re:
Muslims are the easiest target because the news has been hyping anti-muslim hate for 15 years now.
Actually the exact opposite is true - the press has actually been trying to disassociate Islam from the terrorist acts.
If you were really concerned about injustice you would be protesting about the plight of Christians and other minorities in Islamic lands - here is some educational reading for you.
https://cruxnow.com/interviews/2017/02/02/iraq-prelate-backs-preference-minority-refugees-fleei ng-genocide/
https://medium.com/@najwa.najib/donald-trump-is-good-for-middle-eastern-christians-350f 049bed62#.2r2lhylym
On the post: The Real Controversy Over The Non-Existent 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is That It Was The FBI's Own Plot
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you know what they call "islamic terrorism" in muslim countries? Terrorism.
Well they would say that wouldn't they?
You sound like a shill for Erdogan.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/02/turkeys-erdogan-orders-merkel-not-say-islamist-t error-tense-exchange/
However the terrorists themselves shout islamic slogans when they commit these acts. And that is the motive they claim themselves for their actions.
They don't call it terrorism they call it jihad. See, it is so well entrenched that they even have a special word for it.
I at least will respect these people enough to actually believe them when they echo the "prophet" who said "I have been made victorious with terror".
http://www.quranexplorer.com/Hadith/English/Hadith/bukhari/004.052.220.html
On the post: The Real Controversy Over The Non-Existent 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is That It Was The FBI's Own Plot
Re: Re:
Syria IS not just predominantly Muslim, but it's OVERWHELMINGLY Muslim.
And the way in which a predominantly Christian country got that way ought to give pause for thought - think grey squirrels and red squirrels.
http://www.rsne.org.uk/threats
And of course, just like with islam there is a grey squirrel apologist site.
http://www.grey-squirrel.org.uk/index.php
On the post: The Real Controversy Over The Non-Existent 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is That It Was The FBI's Own Plot
Re: Re:
Of course even an actual Muslim ban would have been pointless and ineffective. However I believe what he was trying to do was to send a signal that in future we would call a spade a spade when it comes to Islamic terrorism. (In sharp contrast to the words of even GWBush and many republicans - let alone Obama).
That would have been a good idea if he had found a better way of doing it.
On the post: Trump Advisor Pens Almost Totally Clueless Piece About 'Intellectual Property Theft'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
'If you get a sadistic dictator ruling over you it's because God Almighty decided you deserved it Which is demonstrably untrue regardless of whether you believe in God almighty.
(See my quote above)
On the post: Trump Advisor Pens Almost Totally Clueless Piece About 'Intellectual Property Theft'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Such as that the earth is flat and the sun goes around it.
On the post: Trump Advisor Pens Almost Totally Clueless Piece About 'Intellectual Property Theft'
Re: Re:
But you shouldn't use that to tarnish the actual benefits -- both economic and social -- of actual free trade.
There has (almost) never been such a thing as "actual free trade".
True free trade requires that all the parties involved have a baseline bargaining position that allows them to walk away from a deal that is not beneficial to them.
Unfortunately in the real world there are almost always de-facto monopolies that undermine this and usually place the ordinary man in the street at a big disadvantage.
This concept was well explored over a century ago by Henry George.
The other key fact here is that almost all proponents of free trade are hypocrits. They want just enough free trade to allow them to set up a monopoly for themselves.
On the post: Trump Advisor Pens Almost Totally Clueless Piece About 'Intellectual Property Theft'
Re: Bigger issues?
" it shouldn't be allowed to be buried"
On the post: Trump Advisor Pens Almost Totally Clueless Piece About 'Intellectual Property Theft'
Bigger issues?
I realize that there are much bigger issues at hand right now,
Actually those issues aren't that big- at least they do not represent anything abnormal in the behaviour of the US or other similar governments.
The kind of injustice you highlighted actually happens all the time - Trump's decree - whilst stupid - I'm not defending it - has not created more that a small spike in the noise spectrum of US immigration injustice.
Of course his opponents have tried to make a big deal of it and have somewhat misrepresented it in order to do so.
However I think this story is actually more important - it should be allowed to be buried under the temporary and phoney kerfuffle about immigration policy.
On the post: Trump Advisor Pens Almost Totally Clueless Piece About 'Intellectual Property Theft'
Re: Re:
Every Nation gets the Government it deserves.
Except that a nation is not a unified moral entity capable of "deserving" anything.
The statement is nonsense - no matter who said it.
In fact the refutation of this idea is the real point behind the story of Sodom.
From Genesis 18
"And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes."
The story then goes on to progressively count down the 50 to smaller and smaller numbers - always with the same result - until Abraham realies which way this is going.
So no - a nation is not capable of "deserving" a government and even if it were then in the real world we note that nations often get governments that have been foisted on them by other nations (quite often the US - as many S. American countries will testify.)
Chile certainly didn't deserve Pinochet for example - so your quote is rubbish.
On the post: China's Response To Study Confirms It Uses 'Strategic Distraction' To Prevent Collective Action. Sound Familiar?
Re:
Maybe it's time to fight fire with fire here in the U.S. and start our own comment army.
I thought you/we already had!
You can tell when reason has gone out the window however when the name calling starts.
The right and left each have their own name calling vocabulary.
My problem is that I don't agree wholeheartedly with either side and sometimes you have to swallow your distaste and do something against your normal instincts.
For example I am ashamed to say it now but I once voted for a Ukip candidate in a euro election.
On that occasion the issues of sound copyright extension and software patents were up for debate and I had received a very unsatisfactory answer to a letter that I sent to the sitting (LibDem) MEP. Ukip on the otherhand had made it clear that they would vote against at least one of these - and since they really couldn't do much damage on other matters in the European Parliament I felt that was the right thing to do.
The one thing that amuses me now is the realisation that - thanks to Brexit they are likely to lose all parl;iamentary representation over the next few years!
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re: Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane
Yes, it is nice to have solidarity, but not at the expense of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is over rated. North Korea has Sovereignty. It is, perhaps, the small country with the most sovereignty .
Does that make it a better place to be than the EU?
What matters is the degree to which ordinary people have a say in their destiny. However (as the referendum has shown) it is important that their "say" is exercised within a framework of rational debate.
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re: Re: Re:
Pu it this way - however bad it is for the US it is worse for Mexico.
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
true, but 2010 was the second time a majority winner didn't get elected in that time,
Actually no government since 1931 has had an overall majority of the popular vote.
But only in 1950 and 1974(Feb) has the election neen won in spite of another party having a bigger percentage of the vote. In all other recent elections the "winning party" had the largest popular vote.
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re: Why?
The UK isn't - however trade deals are an important part of convincing the public that brexit isn't a disaster.
What worries me is that the brexiteers will never admit it was a mistake - no matter how bad things get.
On the post: After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
nobody knew what "leave" really meant
Which in practice meant that everybody who voted leave projected their own idea of what should happen onto the "leave" concept.
Worse than that most people will have thought in terms of outcomes - without ever reasoning through as to how "leave" could (actually) deliver those outcomes.
Arguably exactly the same thing will have happened with many Trump voters, although in that case there is more opportunity for any damage he does to be undone at a later date. (However having said that I am not convinced of the ability of the US political system to actually throw up anybody better. In my mind US politics has been in freefall quality-wise since Reagan was elected. )
Next >>