I'm of the opinion that Libertarianism as espoused by Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justice Anthony Kennedy is leading us to a new Gilded Age where corporations maintained monopolies after usurping what people desired in limiting their power against what the populace wanted.
I wouldn't blame the doctors too much... Reason being, doctors have perverse incentives in providing care in order to get funding from the government. And it's been this way since Reagan put in new rules that made doctors into factory line workers instead of oath takers.
What I mean is that you have a number if minorities that are finding succeeds though youtube. Cenk Uyger with The Young Turks, Destorm, a black gaming rapper, Freddie Wong the Asian movie maker, and countless minorities who are making news channels, creating networks outside of MSM
No... Think about it. It's an election year and the Obama administration needs campaign funds. Why not look into how much the corporations are giving in donations for their private treaties?
So I don't think people know enough about Japan to understand how dire this is. Let's put this into perspective...
Japan has had a recession for decades. They didn't have any kind of protections for their middle class and most of the salarymen that made up the middle class have not looked for work in quite some time. People don't buy music, movies, games, books or any form of entertainment like they once did. They live by the cellphone since their networks are far more advanced than what's here in the US.
So when you look at how South Korea is becoming a much more vibrant nation you see the disparity here. Japan is getting their laws that protect the music/movie industry. But it's coming at a dire cost.
Young workers in particular are having trouble finding work, and when they do, have very low salaries and no clear track for salary increases. Uncertainty about future earnings also means a higher saving rate, which further decreases discretionary spending in the present. Among the marketing community, Japanese millennials are known as the “generation who doesn’t consume.”
So essentially, Japan is locking up these people, that have no money to spend in the economy expecting them to just follow the rules and stop pirating or stop finding alternative means of music.
But here's the facts... The self publishing industry is doing fine. What we're seeing is the death of the old way of doing business. I don't doubt that this criminalization will pick up some innocents who can't do much to prove their innocence. (pdf) This is truly mercantilist protectionism from an industry trying to make more money that people just don't have. How sickening.
It's clear that you know the law, but you know jack shit about morality.
Karl, even the law understanding is debatable when he can't understand CDT v Pappert or why all of the precedents and procedures don't matter when the exact basis for copyright is so that the public benefits from the policies the government creates.
In the end, I don't see how a war against encryption or VPNs could actually succeed, but it won't mean that efforts in that direction won't be a painful annoyance when they come around. Either way, people should at least be paying attention to these discussions, and trying to educate politicians that encryption and VPNs are necessary parts of a secure internet.
This is the problem... They don't care. Most of the current batch of politicians don't care about anything but their partisan politics with SOPA being anathema to the conversation. Even with CISPA passing, all of the supporters of that legislation effectively showed that they would pass anything so long as they had the votes for it. We, the people don't have the money to fight for our rights at every turn. Sure, the law would fail on execution. But how do we get politicians to understand the dire consequences without a $5000 check saying "You must vote as we tell you to or we'll use the money against you!"
This is why the attacks on our public financing system through decisions such as Citizens United need to be amended.
We'll continue to have the federal government, whether it's the executive branch with new definitions of privacy or relaxing restrictions on information, the legislative branch with their cluelessness, or the judicial branch with their poor rulings, so long as people don't understand how to take corporations out of government .
Hell, I would argue that all of the companies in the TPP are the ones donating to Obama's campaign, hence the secrecy involved. Think about this for one moment... If these companies get what they want, the president is subservient to these companies and not to the people.
Hamilton says that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." There was little concern that the judiciary would be able to overpower the political branches; congress controls the money flow and the President controls the military. Courts, on the other hand, do not have the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The judiciary depends on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior.
Now think about when the courts are the worst. This is during times such as the Gilded Era, the Lochnear Era, or the courts of Roberts today with Citizens United.
In other words, mostly conservative rulings can have dire effects on the people. When liberals have the strength of the courts, you will have great times such as the Progressive Era from FDR's time with a minor exception being Roe V Wade (which is what Republicans are currently trying to overturn with a severe backlash)
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. ... To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them.
And this is why they should represent precedents instead of the current norm of judicial and political activism.
The liberals of that time, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, ultimately wanted power given to the states and the people. This is why TJ was skeptical of copyright as well as very angry at Chief Justice Marshall for the 1803 decision that gave rise to judicial review in Marbury v Madison.
This was first enacted under Jefferson's rule. It's not a coincidince that SCOTUS didn't use the power again until after his death:
In the case of Marbury and Madison, the federal judges declared that commissions, signed and sealed by the President, were valid, although not delivered. I deemed delivery essential to complete a deed, which, as long as it remains in the hands of the party, is as yet no deed, it is in posse only, but not in esse, and I withheld delivery of the commissions. They cannot issue a mandamus to the President or legislature, or to any of their officers.
Presidents can ignore the ruling and do such as Andrew Jackson. The point here is that the Supreme Court is meant to be the weakest of our three branches, not the strongest.
Link up with other nerds, get on Reddit, show your message and try to link up with Russell Feinstein on campaign reform. Get your message out on Youtube, get your message out to the hackers and the communities that are far larger than TV and make sure that you advocate for an open internet every step of the way. If you want to go on TV, there's the Current Network that is more than happy to show more Progressives that are fighting for the cause of liberals of the left wing.
I can't help but feel that the mayor has a lot to do with this. Like his brother Ari, he's rather clueless on the skill sets needed and when you listen to his plans, they seem rather superficial. Who cares how long a school day is when the one thing that people need are skills and better budgets in schools?
Further, he's arrested individuals for illegal drugs and feels that the poor should be fined for these offenses instead of not arresting people or ticketing them for drugs in the first place. How are expensive tickets actually going to help children learn?
What I'm seeing is a town that doesn't have a focus on what's best for children and seems instead focused on what's best for their bottom line.
All in all, I still like Garrett popcorn downtown, and maybe the pizza, but I sure don't want to live in a city where education is not a major concern to the people in the city.
I don't know why people have not demanded that they have their power returned when it's so easy to collect information.
The core problem here is electoral and campaign finance reform. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We've allowed the US to be turned into a corporate oligarchy similar to Fascist Italy. And both parties are to blame. We've had a number of problems. One being that we allow the US to take away people's fundamental right to vote, which came from ALEC in the 1980 election of Reagan who gave it to Lee Atwater to begin to deprive Democrats of votes. His "tough on crime" rhetoric translated to the War on Drugs that we've essentially been waging ever since. Cost of that electoral problem? 5.3 million felons in private prisons, being deprived of their rights daily while prosecutors fight for convictions instead of justice. Such is the problem with our criminal justice system.
So what we need is reform of the prison system. Get private industry out of our prisons. Give people their rights to vote in prison. Less prison sentences and more humane treatment.
Now on to campaign finance reform... Gotta say, all of the dirty party tricks we see now were the result of one man: Richard Nixon. This is the man that had a strong relationship with the media in order to pass his agenda and pass legislation that Republicans and Democrats supported that again, lead to poor protections for those that need it most.
Essentially, we do need a grass roots movement to allow people to have their democracy back. It was one thing that Henry Wallace warned us about in regards to fascist government. While we fought for freedom abroad, it is the threats at home that begin to try to usurp the people the most.
Several leaders of industry in this country who have gained a new vision of the meaning of opportunity through co-operation with government have warned the public openly that there are some selfish groups in industry who are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage. We all know the part that the cartels played in bringing Hitler to power, and the rule the giant German trusts have played in Nazi conquests. Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.
People, our constitutional republic is in peril. Long ago, Henry Wallace, Vice President to FDR warned us about fascism (better known as corporatism) might take hold in America. The Citizens United case stands as the point in the sand when our republic was threatened.
Giving the Supreme Court the ability to make laws was horrible. In Federalist Paper 78, we see that the Founders did not allow for this power to be given to the Supreme Court at all. Instead, they were to just review these actions which the government could ignore. What is most troubling about the Supreme Court as it is today, we have to rely on their bad calls that aren't based on anything but their opinions. With a stroke of the pen, we were given the INDUCE Act even though Congress never passed it. After 200 years, Congress should take back this power. Also, there should be a Constitutional Amendment to ensure that no Supreme Court will usurp the will of the people. return the power to the states
Instead of allowing the federal government to review itself and give itself more power, it's time to recognize that we have plenty of work to do on preventing the government from getting larger. But that's just my views.
No, they haven't failed. They are exposing the lies of the banks in extending austerity while beginning a movement akin to what was seen in the time of FDR. Sure, it took 35 years of voodoo economics but there wool very shortly be a sharp reaction to the problems of austerity as evidenced by the Greek majority of Socialists, the ouster of Sarkozy in France, and even the Pirate Party's emergence as an alternative to the same plans that have not worked before.
On the post: Ron And Rand Paul: Net Neutrality And The Public Domain Are Really Evil Collectivist Plots
Re:
On the post: The USPTO: Where Up Is Down, Expensive Medicine Saves Lives, And Cheap Alternatives Violate International Law
Re: They dont want to cure you
On the post: The USPTO: Where Up Is Down, Expensive Medicine Saves Lives, And Cheap Alternatives Violate International Law
Re:
On the post: Bias In Tech & Media: Lists That Perpetuate The Stereotypes
Re: Re:
On the post: USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations
Re: Re:
On the post: Bias In Tech & Media: Lists That Perpetuate The Stereotypes
On the post: USTR Rejects Rep. Issa's Request To Observe TPP Negotiations
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Countries That Don't Put In Place Copyright Regimes The US Likes May Be Deemed 'Cybersecurity Concerns'
Re: Re:
On the post: Darrell Issa Asks To 'Observe' Next Round Of TPP Negotations
Re:
On the post: Japan Criminalizes Unauthorized Downloads, Making DVD Backups -- And Maybe Watching YouTube
Japanese market
Japan has had a recession for decades. They didn't have any kind of protections for their middle class and most of the salarymen that made up the middle class have not looked for work in quite some time. People don't buy music, movies, games, books or any form of entertainment like they once did. They live by the cellphone since their networks are far more advanced than what's here in the US.
So when you look at how South Korea is becoming a much more vibrant nation you see the disparity here. Japan is getting their laws that protect the music/movie industry. But it's coming at a dire cost.
Young workers in particular are having trouble finding work, and when they do, have very low salaries and no clear track for salary increases. Uncertainty about future earnings also means a higher saving rate, which further decreases discretionary spending in the present. Among the marketing community, Japanese millennials are known as the “generation who doesn’t consume.”
So essentially, Japan is locking up these people, that have no money to spend in the economy expecting them to just follow the rules and stop pirating or stop finding alternative means of music.
But here's the facts... The self publishing industry is doing fine. What we're seeing is the death of the old way of doing business. I don't doubt that this criminalization will pick up some innocents who can't do much to prove their innocence. (pdf) This is truly mercantilist protectionism from an industry trying to make more money that people just don't have. How sickening.
On the post: Being Pissed Off Doesn't Mean You Have A Legal Claim
Re: Re: But ... but ... innovation is evil!
On the post: A Business Model Failure Is Not A Moral Issue
Re: Re:
Karl, even the law understanding is debatable when he can't understand CDT v Pappert or why all of the precedents and procedures don't matter when the exact basis for copyright is so that the public benefits from the policies the government creates.
On the post: Get Ready For The Political Fight Against Encryption
Campaign finance
This is the problem... They don't care. Most of the current batch of politicians don't care about anything but their partisan politics with SOPA being anathema to the conversation. Even with CISPA passing, all of the supporters of that legislation effectively showed that they would pass anything so long as they had the votes for it. We, the people don't have the money to fight for our rights at every turn. Sure, the law would fail on execution. But how do we get politicians to understand the dire consequences without a $5000 check saying "You must vote as we tell you to or we'll use the money against you!"
This is why the attacks on our public financing system through decisions such as Citizens United need to be amended.
We'll continue to have the federal government, whether it's the executive branch with new definitions of privacy or relaxing restrictions on information, the legislative branch with their cluelessness, or the judicial branch with their poor rulings, so long as people don't understand how to take corporations out of government .
Hell, I would argue that all of the companies in the TPP are the ones donating to Obama's campaign, hence the secrecy involved. Think about this for one moment... If these companies get what they want, the president is subservient to these companies and not to the people.
That's much more scary than anything in the laws.
On the post: Supreme Court Overrules Fine For Naked Butt On TV; Punts On 1st Amendment Question
Re: Re: Re:
The courts never got that power. Federalist paper 78explains the power of the judicial review:
Hamilton says that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ...It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." There was little concern that the judiciary would be able to overpower the political branches; congress controls the money flow and the President controls the military. Courts, on the other hand, do not have the same clout from a constitutional design standpoint. The judiciary depends on the political branches to uphold its judgments. Legal academics often argue over Hamilton's description of the judiciary as the "least dangerous" branch. Hamilton also explains how federal judges should retain life terms as long as those judges exhibit good behavior.
Now think about when the courts are the worst. This is during times such as the Gilded Era, the Lochnear Era, or the courts of Roberts today with Citizens United.
In other words, mostly conservative rulings can have dire effects on the people. When liberals have the strength of the courts, you will have great times such as the Progressive Era from FDR's time with a minor exception being Roe V Wade (which is what Republicans are currently trying to overturn with a severe backlash)
There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. ... To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them.
And this is why they should represent precedents instead of the current norm of judicial and political activism.
The liberals of that time, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, ultimately wanted power given to the states and the people. This is why TJ was skeptical of copyright as well as very angry at Chief Justice Marshall for the 1803 decision that gave rise to judicial review in Marbury v Madison.
This was first enacted under Jefferson's rule. It's not a coincidince that SCOTUS didn't use the power again until after his death:
In the case of Marbury and Madison, the federal judges declared that commissions, signed and sealed by the President, were valid, although not delivered. I deemed delivery essential to complete a deed, which, as long as it remains in the hands of the party, is as yet no deed, it is in posse only, but not in esse, and I withheld delivery of the commissions. They cannot issue a mandamus to the President or legislature, or to any of their officers.
Presidents can ignore the ruling and do such as Andrew Jackson. The point here is that the Supreme Court is meant to be the weakest of our three branches, not the strongest.
On the post: The Hypocrisy Of Congress: As Big A Threat To The Internet As The UN They're Condemning
Re: Re: Re: Best course for the public
It's just in how you play it.
On the post: A Broken System: Einstein Wouldn't Have Been 'Qualified' To Teach High School Physics
Rahm Emanuel
Further, he's arrested individuals for illegal drugs and feels that the poor should be fined for these offenses instead of not arresting people or ticketing them for drugs in the first place. How are expensive tickets actually going to help children learn?
What I'm seeing is a town that doesn't have a focus on what's best for children and seems instead focused on what's best for their bottom line.
All in all, I still like Garrett popcorn downtown, and maybe the pizza, but I sure don't want to live in a city where education is not a major concern to the people in the city.
On the post: Lamar Smith & House Judiciary Committee Don't Want To Know How Often The NSA Spies On Americans
Re:
The core problem here is electoral and campaign finance reform. I've said it before and I'll say it again. We've allowed the US to be turned into a corporate oligarchy similar to Fascist Italy. And both parties are to blame. We've had a number of problems. One being that we allow the US to take away people's fundamental right to vote, which came from ALEC in the 1980 election of Reagan who gave it to Lee Atwater to begin to deprive Democrats of votes. His "tough on crime" rhetoric translated to the War on Drugs that we've essentially been waging ever since. Cost of that electoral problem? 5.3 million felons in private prisons, being deprived of their rights daily while prosecutors fight for convictions instead of justice. Such is the problem with our criminal justice system.
So what we need is reform of the prison system. Get private industry out of our prisons. Give people their rights to vote in prison. Less prison sentences and more humane treatment.
Now on to campaign finance reform... Gotta say, all of the dirty party tricks we see now were the result of one man: Richard Nixon. This is the man that had a strong relationship with the media in order to pass his agenda and pass legislation that Republicans and Democrats supported that again, lead to poor protections for those that need it most.
Essentially, we do need a grass roots movement to allow people to have their democracy back. It was one thing that Henry Wallace warned us about in regards to fascist government. While we fought for freedom abroad, it is the threats at home that begin to try to usurp the people the most.
Several leaders of industry in this country who have gained a new vision of the meaning of opportunity through co-operation with government have warned the public openly that there are some selfish groups in industry who are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage. We all know the part that the cartels played in bringing Hitler to power, and the rule the giant German trusts have played in Nazi conquests. Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself.
People, our constitutional republic is in peril. Long ago, Henry Wallace, Vice President to FDR warned us about fascism (better known as corporatism) might take hold in America. The Citizens United case stands as the point in the sand when our republic was threatened.
Giving the Supreme Court the ability to make laws was horrible. In Federalist Paper 78, we see that the Founders did not allow for this power to be given to the Supreme Court at all. Instead, they were to just review these actions which the government could ignore. What is most troubling about the Supreme Court as it is today, we have to rely on their bad calls that aren't based on anything but their opinions. With a stroke of the pen, we were given the INDUCE Act even though Congress never passed it. After 200 years, Congress should take back this power. Also, there should be a Constitutional Amendment to ensure that no Supreme Court will usurp the will of the people. return the power to the states
Instead of allowing the federal government to review itself and give itself more power, it's time to recognize that we have plenty of work to do on preventing the government from getting larger. But that's just my views.
On the post: US Invites Mexico, Canada To Join TPP Negotiations But With Less Power
And what is the point? Power...
On the post: NSA: Figuring Out How Many US Citizens We Illegally Spied On Would Violate Their Privacy
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: NSA: Figuring Out How Many US Citizens We Illegally Spied On Would Violate Their Privacy
Re:
Next >>