USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[red oct 2]

Once again I'm amazed by the difference in 'shading' the politics in the US and the EU have.

Against gay marriage, abortion and such : seems very conservative to me. :x

I may not be very well informed, but I don't really see many good things Bush has done for the US. Weak economy and dollar, huge resources for a war, increasing poverty at home, etc.

Then again, I can't say I actively follow US politics, the snippets I do pick up are of course largely coloured by the media which supply them. Can't make an assesment as accurate as I could if I was an American citizen.

IMO, i don't think neither the EU or the US at the moment are any better or worse than the other. both have the exact same problems, unemployment, natural disasters, social security issues and from what i hear poverty is also a problem in the EU paticulary in Germany. i even hear there are some rather unpleasant ghetto's in Paris where many of the immigrants live i believe a fire broke out not long ago and killed some people.

[EiZei 0]

Once again I'm amazed by the difference in 'shading' the politics in the US and the EU have.

Against gay marriage, abortion and such : seems very conservative to me. :x

I may not be very well informed, but I don't really see many good things Bush has done for the US. Weak economy and dollar, huge resources for a war, increasing poverty at home, etc.

Then again, I can't say I actively follow US politics, the snippets I do pick up are of course largely coloured by the media which supply them. Can't make an assesment as accurate as I could if I was an American citizen.

IMO, i don't think neither the EU or the US at the moment are any better or worse than the other. both have the exact same problems, unemployment, natural disasters, social security issues and from what i hear poverty is also a problem in the EU paticulary in Germany. i even hear there are some rather unpleasant ghetto's in Paris where many of the immigrants live i believe a fire broke out not long ago and killed some people.

I think it would be fair to say that the poorest quartile is better off in Europe than in the US while the middle class and ESPECIALLY the top 5% are not so rich.

[denoir 0]

IMO, i don't think neither the EU or the US at the moment are any better or worse than the other. both have the exact same problems, unemployment, natural disasters, social security issues and from what i hear poverty is also a problem in the EU paticulary in Germany. i even hear there are some rather unpleasant ghetto's in Paris where many of the immigrants live i believe a fire broke out not long ago and killed some people.

As EiZei said, the distribution of wealth is quite different. America has far more ultra-rich people and far more ultra-poor people. By European standards Americans have no social security to speak of and by American standards Europeans have criminally high taxes.

Yes, there are "ghettos" in Europe, but again, that's a relative term. They would be categorized as lower middle class homes in the US. There are of course exceptions, I'm sure, but in general these are perfectly safe areas without any violent crime and the people living there have a fairly good quality of life. On the other hand, to support this, the upper middle class suffers through high taxes. So if you are a doctor or an engineer or something like that, economically speaking you'll do better in America. High taxes and government regulations also hurt entrepreneurship etc

And finally of course, the EU is far from homogeneous. The newest 10 members (mostly ex-east European countries) are far weaker economically, but they are catching up pretty fast. In a decade or so, they'll be on the same level as the rest.

Regarding unemployment, Europe has far more unemployed people than America. On the other hand the social system is geared in such a way that you don't have to work to have a decent quality of life, thanks to the über-strong (and really too expensive) social security system. This again is a double edged sword. Because you don't have to work to have a solid (economic) quality of life some people simply don't work by choice. We're very bad at integrating non-European immigrants into society and this leads to ghetto-building, i.e suburban areas dominated by immigrants with unemployment rates that can go as high as 90%. It's a self-reinforcing loop. People don't get integrated into society, so they don't even try to get jobs (social security takes care of their economic existence), and as they are not working they don't come in contact with the natives.. and so it goes. In America basically you have to work to survive, so you have to interact with the natives, which facilitates integration.

Anyway, both systems have their strengths and their weaknesses. Personally, you'd have to put a gun to my head to get me to move to America - although I would probably be better off economically there.  But there are other factors involved.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/5063629/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled Senate voted overwhelmingly to impose restrictions on the treatment of terrorism suspects.

The 90-9 vote is a wartime rebuke to President George W. Bush.

Defying the White House, senators voted to approve an amendment that would prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.

The amendment -- sponsored by Arizona Republican John McCain -- was added to a $440 billion military spending bill for the budget year that began Oct. 1.

Tomorrow(Thursday 10am EST) Bush will make a speach about Iraq and war on terror.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/05/bush.iraq/index.html

Quote[/b] ]<snip>

White House press secretary Scott McClellan characterized Bush's planned remarks Thursday morning as a "major speech" that will address the connection between Iraq and the broader war against the al Qaeda terrorist network "in greater detail than he has before."

"He will talk about how [al Qaeda] is a group of people that have a very clear strategy for driving us out of the Middle East, for creating a safe haven in the Middle East -- a safe haven from which they can plan and plot attacks on the rest of the civilized world and a safe haven from which they can seek to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East," McClellan said.

McClellan said the address "is not a speech on Iraq," but Bush "will talk about Iraq in the context of the broader war on terrorism."

[red oct 2]

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Bush is a uniter after all, he's managed to piss off everybody including those who put him in office.

Quote[/b] ]

I eagerly await the announcement of President Bush's real nominee to the Supreme Court. If the president meant Harriet Miers seriously, I have to assume Bush wants to go back to Crawford and let Dick Cheney run the country.

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney's many virtues — loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture ...

Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that's a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court.

First, Bush has no right to say "Trust me." He was elected to represent the American people, not to be dictator for eight years. Among the coalitions that elected Bush are people who have been laboring in the trenches for a quarter-century to change the legal order in America. While Bush was still boozing it up in the early '80s, Ed Meese, Antonin Scalia, Robert Bork and all the founders of the Federalist Society began creating a farm team of massive legal talent on the right.

To casually spurn the people who have been taking slings and arrows all these years and instead reward the former commissioner of the Texas Lottery with a Supreme Court appointment is like pinning a medal of honor on some flunky paper-pusher with a desk job at the Pentagon — or on John Kerry — while ignoring your infantrymen doing the fighting and dying.

Second, even if you take seriously William F. Buckley's line about preferring to be governed by the first 200 names in the Boston telephone book than by the Harvard faculty, the Supreme Court is not supposed to govern us. Being a Supreme Court justice ought to be a mind-numbingly tedious job suitable only for super-nerds trained in legal reasoning like John Roberts. Being on the Supreme Court isn't like winning a "Best Employee of the Month" award. It's a real job.

One Web site defending Bush's choice of a graduate from an undistinguished law school complains that Miers' critics "are playing the Democrats' game," claiming that the "GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness." (In the sort of error that results from trying to sound "Ivy League" rather than being clear, that sentence uses the grammatically incorrect "which" instead of "that." Web sites defending the academically mediocre would be a lot more convincing without all the grammatical errors.)

Actually, all the intellectual firepower in the law is coming from conservatives right now — and thanks for noticing! Liberals got stuck trying to explain Roe v. Wade and are still at work 30 years later trying to come up with a good argument.

But the main point is: Au contraire! It is conservatives defending Miers' mediocre resume who are playing the Democrats' game. Contrary to recent practice, the job of being a Supreme Court justice is not to be a philosopher-king. Only someone who buys into the liberals' view of Supreme Court justices as philosopher-kings could hold legal training irrelevant to a job on the Supreme Court.

To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But if we're looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 — I think we want the nerd from an elite law school. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.

Third and finally, some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.

Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven't blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer. The New York Times isn't going to mau-mau them — as it does intellectual lightweights like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee — by dangling fawning profiles before them. They aren't waiting for a pat on the head from Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something.

However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn't qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on "The West Wing," let alone to be a real one. Both Republicans and Democrats should be alarmed that Bush seems to believe his power to appoint judges is absolute. This is what "advice and consent" means.

isn't cronyism very much against the law in the United States?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Lautenberg: congratulations Halliburton and Vice President Cheney!

Cheney's Halliburton Stock Options Soar to $9.2 Million

WASHINGTON -- Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reiterated his call for Vice President Dick Cheney to forfeit his continuing financial interest in the Halliburton Co (HAL), in light of the surging value of Vice President Cheney's Halliburton holdings. Vice President Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, now worth $9,214,154.93 (at close yesterday.)

"As Halliburton's fortunes rise, so does the Vice President's, and that is wrong," said Senator Lautenberg. "Halliburton has already raked in more than $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney Administration for work in Iraq, and now they are being awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it."

All of Vice President's Cheney's stock options are "in the money" for the first time in years. According to the Vice President's Federal Financial Disclosure forms, he holds the following Halliburton stock options:

100,000 shares at $54.5000 (vested), expire 12-03-07 33,333 shares at $28.1250 (vested), expire 12-02-08 300,000 shares at $39.5000 (vested), expire 12-02-09

The Vice President has attempted to fend off criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations. Valued at over $9 million, the Vice President could exercise his stock options for a substantial windfall, benefiting not only his designated charities, but also providing Halliburton with a tax deduction.

The Vice President also continues to receive "deferred salary" from Halliburton. While in office, he has received the following salary payments from Halliburton:

Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2001: $205,298 Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2002: $162,392 Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2003: $178,437 Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2004: $194,852

In September 2003, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a memorandum to Senator Lautenberg concluding that holding stock options while in elective office does constitute a "financial interest" regardless of whether the holder of the options will donate proceeds to charities. CRS also found that receiving deferred compensation is a financial interest.

The CRS report can be downloaded at:

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/Report.pdf

The CRS findings contradict Vice President Cheney's puzzling view that he does not have a financial interest in Halliburton. On the September 14, 2003 edition of Meet the Press in response to questions regarding his relationship with Halliburton where he was employed as CEO for five years, from 1995 to 2000, Vice President Cheney said:

"And since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

Site

I'm almost positive that its just a coincidence that Haliburton recieved all those juicy no-bid contracts...I'm sure the TBA is on the up and up...

Yeah...this war was about "freedom"....freedom to make a shit load of money on the deaths of poor americans and iraqis...good job neocon lovers....

[ralphwiggum 6]

oh don't worry. when Democrats ever do same thing, I'm sure conservatives will criticize it.

[chops 111]

Quote[/b] ]New Orleans officers plead not guilty

Justice Department opens civil rights probe after taped beating

Tuesday, October 11, 2005; Posted: 4:03 p.m. EDT (20:03 GMT)

NEW ORLEANS (CNN) -- Three New Orleans police officers Monday pleaded not guilty to charges of battery in the videotaped beating of a 64-year-old man, as federal officials opened a civil rights investigation into the incident.

Portions of the arrest were captured on videotape by two news organizations. CNN footage showed the man, Robert Davis, lying on a sidewalk with his head and shirt soaked in blood.

Davis, a retired teacher, was treated and released after the incident. He is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday on an array of charges, including public intoxication, battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. (Watch raw footage of the beating -- 1:26)

His defense attorney, Joseph Bruno, told CNN his client had not "touched a drop" of alcohol Saturday night before the beating.

The three officers charged in the incident -- Lance Schilling, Robert Evangelist and S.M. Smith -- were released on bond after appearing before a judge to make their pleas.

All three have been suspended from duty without pay, and a trial was set for January.

Police Chief Warren Riley vowed to take "decisive action once we gather all the facts."

Davis is black; the three officers involved are white.

The Justice Department said Monday that a civil rights investigation had been opened in the case.

FBI agents will work alongside the New Orleans Police Department's Office of Internal Affairs, said FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

Riley, who is black, played down the role of race in the incident.

"There is no evidence to prove this was race-related," said Riley, adding that he does not think there is a problem with race within the department.

The Police Association of New Orleans said the three officers were "upset they were suspended."

"They thought their actions were justified given the circumstances that were at hand," said union spokesman Lt. David Benelli. "They thought there should have been a full investigation before they were basically issued a summons and arraigned."........

This looks like Rodney King all over again. Have a look at the video here

The last thing New Orleans needs is a riot!

Can't imagine this happening anywhere I've been in Europe either

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]New Orleans officers plead not guilty

Justice Department opens civil rights probe after taped beating

Tuesday, October 11, 2005; Posted: 4:03 p.m. EDT (20:03 GMT)

NEW ORLEANS (CNN) -- Three New Orleans police officers Monday pleaded not guilty to charges of battery in the videotaped beating of a 64-year-old man, as federal officials opened a civil rights investigation into the incident.

Portions of the arrest were captured on videotape by two news organizations. CNN footage showed the man, Robert Davis, lying on a sidewalk with his head and shirt soaked in blood.

Davis, a retired teacher, was treated and released after the incident. He is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday on an array of charges, including public intoxication, battery on a police officer and resisting arrest. (Watch raw footage of the beating -- 1:26)

His defense attorney, Joseph Bruno, told CNN his client had not "touched a drop" of alcohol Saturday night before the beating.

The three officers charged in the incident -- Lance Schilling, Robert Evangelist and S.M. Smith -- were released on bond after appearing before a judge to make their pleas.

All three have been suspended from duty without pay, and a trial was set for January.

Police Chief Warren Riley vowed to take "decisive action once we gather all the facts."

Davis is black; the three officers involved are white.

The Justice Department said Monday that a civil rights investigation had been opened in the case.

FBI agents will work alongside the New Orleans Police Department's Office of Internal Affairs, said FBI spokesman Stephen Kodak.

Riley, who is black, played down the role of race in the incident.

"There is no evidence to prove this was race-related," said Riley, adding that he does not think there is a problem with race within the department.

The Police Association of New Orleans said the three officers were "upset they were suspended."

"They thought their actions were justified given the circumstances that were at hand," said union spokesman Lt. David Benelli. "They thought there should have been a full investigation before they were basically issued a summons and arraigned."........

This looks like Rodney King all over again. Have a look at the video here

The last thing New Orleans needs is a riot!

Can't imagine this happening anywhere I've been in Europe either

erm...

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/4-7-2005-68214.asp

Anyway, the relationship between the LAPD and the black citizens of LA right before Rodney was not great but very crappy. I think the NOPD relationship with the NO citizens is not the same. Anyway, if there were riots, they would be put down pretty fast.

[xawery 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, if there were riots, they would be put down pretty fast.

Well, seeing as the NOPD apparently has experience with beating up civilians, I think you just might be right

On a more serious note, has anyone seen the footage of that beating? There is a link in the quoted article, and I'm sure it has been all over the news (at least it was here in Europe). Having seen it, I find the following quote particularly disturbing:

Quote[/b] ]

"They thought their actions were justified given the circumstances that were at hand,"

What circumstances would justify three policemen holding one elderly man pinned to the wall, and beating him repeatedly in the back of the head? Is this a "justified reaction" to public intoxication? Gah.

[General Barron 0]

Hey all! Haven't popped in here for a while, so I hope this hasn't been covered yet... but it seems especially relevant to all of us, even non-Americans, so it shouldn't be ignored. (source)

Quote[/b] ]Looming struggle over Internet control could put network's freedoms at risk

By Jonathan Krim

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Next month, world diplomats will travel to Tunisia to tackle a topic so dense that it normally clears a room in seconds: how the Internet is governed.

But the United Nations-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society could be the scene of an international brawl, with some claiming that the core freedoms of the global network are at risk. The battle centers on how much control the United States will continue to have in overseeing the Internet's plumbing.

This sounds like geeky stuff, but it matters for everyday users. The technical rules for how networks and computers find and recognize each other can determine how freely and securely information can be retrieved and sent.

These matters are the province of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), under a contract with the Commerce Department that expires next year.

The Commerce Department exercises its contractual oversight lightly, adopting the position that government should be involved with Internet governance as little as possible. It has not overruled any ICANN decisions.

Several other countries, particularly in the developing world, object to continuing U.S. supremacy. As the Internet penetrates deeper into societies around the globe, many nations want the international community to supplant the United States as primary overseer. The United States suspects that some of these governments want to try to control the Internet to stifle free expression and preserve dictatorial control.

ICANN coordinates key technical elements of the Internet that enable computers worldwide to communicate with each other. Most notably, it manages the domain-name system (.com, .edu, etc.) so that there's a universal standard of finding and reaching valid addresses. The organization, which has offices in Marina del Ray, Calif., and in Brussels, is governed by a board with members from around the world.

The argument over the Internet's governance has been simmering for some time, and several proposals have been put forth by a U.N. working group for more international oversight, through the United Nations or other entities. Countries such as Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and Brazil have been especially vocal, mirroring other splits in the United Nations over a variety of issues, including the war in Iraq.

But things turned red hot late last month when the European Union infuriated the United States by endorsing the idea of international authority. Attempting to strike a pose between the United States and countries that want a new Internet governing body, the EU said an international "forum" should be created to set policy principles for ICANN and adjudicate complaints.

Martin Selmayr, spokesman for the EU Directorate on Information Society and Media, insisted this week that there is no major split with the United States on the issue.

"We believe in freedom of speech and the freedom of the Internet," he said. "No new organizations need to be set up. ... We're not asking for enhancing government's role" in the operations of the Internet.

But, he said, "The EU is proposing moving from unilateralism to multilateralism in Internet governance. Public policy principles ... issued in the future should be discussed internationally."

The United States is having none of it.

"When the EU's proposal was read, it was interesting how quickly it was endorsed in large part by countries such as Cuba, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others who have been very clear that they do not believe" in principles of free expression, said David Gross, coordinator of International Communications and Information Policy for the State Department.

Gross said the United States would not accept any other entity taking on oversight of ICANN, no matter what may happen at the conference in Tunisia.

"We are firm in our position," he said. "This is not a negotiation."

Gross said the U.S. goal is to keep all governments and politics out of the Internet's evolution and preserve free-market development.

Ugh... stuff like this just confirms my suspicion that the UN is a complete joke. Good thing they spend their time trying to regulate the free exchange of ideas on the Internet, instead of, say, stopping genocide in places like Africa.

This shouldn't be thought of in terms of "US vs the rest", but rather in terms of "unregulated vs regulated freedom of speech". I don't think that ANY government should have control over the Internet, including my own. But the idea of free speech is absolutely enshrined in American culture, moreso than anywhere else. The US government isn't actually using it's power, and doesn't plan on it, so I feel much more confident with them in charge than, say, China, where they filter the internet content coming into their country.

Honestly, does ANYONE think this is a good idea?

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]New Orleans officers plead not guilty

whats the projected outcome? what purpose is it to get the man to talk? what was the interrigation over? so many missing pieces... I hate news articles like this... they never give you the full story.

The article never states he was interrigated because of public intoxication, nor have I ever heard of a police officer question a man over public intoxication. they just leave you to believe this. I dismiss this article due to it being too abstract.

Quote[/b] ]Looming struggle over Internet control could put network's freedoms at risk

waste of money eh... especialy if you live in the US

lets see here...the US in charge of the internet? this could get some crazy guy yelling "Motherland!" or "Jihad!". I feel like the US has lost a lot of popularity due to the [2nd] Iraqi war. But the whole purpose of a "forum" is to voice your opinion isn't it? kind of puts the US at a point of more experiance on the situation. But it seems like the US will use the internet as some sort of propoganda tool (i.e. shutting down the Al-Queda website, encuriging oppionions from China, filter anti-American oppions). This is to big for one country to dictate. I say have more than one country control the internet... say 3 ( )... with a system of checks and balances ( )

[General Barron 0]

waste of money eh... especialy if you live in the US

lets see here...the US in charge of the internet? this could get some crazy guy yelling "Motherland!" or "Jihad!". I feel like the US has lost a lot of popularity due to the [2nd] Iraqi war. But the whole purpose of a "forum" is to voice your opinion isn't it? kind of puts the US at a point of more experiance on the situation. But it seems like the US will use the internet as some sort of propoganda tool (i.e. shutting down the Al-Queda website, encuriging oppionions from China, filter anti-American oppions). This is to big for one country to dictate. I say have more than one country control the internet... say 3 ( )... with a system of checks and balances ( )

Err.... I think you are missing the point of the article. Currently the internet is 'controlled' by the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is operating under contract fromt he US government. Basically, the US currently has regulatory authority over the Internet, but it's stated policy is a "hands off approach".

For whatever reason, the UN and the EU don't appear to like this, and would rather have the 'reigns' of the internet put in some UN comittee. But since the US already does NOT excersize any government control over the internet, there are only two logical outcomes from shifting control to the UN: (1) nothing changes from the current situation (but why would the UN want control if that were the case?), or (2) the UN influences it's new-found control to regulate the internet in some way.

So basically there is a choice between the Internet continuing its current, libertarian path under US control, or having new restrictions of some form being added by countries like China and Iran via the UN.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Err.... I think you are missing the point of the article. Currently the internet is 'controlled' by the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which is operating under contract fromt he US government. Basically, the US currently has regulatory authority over the Internet, but it's stated policy is a "hands off approach".

For whatever reason, the UN and the EU don't appear to like this, and would rather have the 'reigns' of the internet put in some UN comittee. But since the US already does NOT excersize any government control over the internet, there are only two logical outcomes from shifting control to the UN: (1) nothing changes from the current situation (but why would the UN want control if that were the case?), or (2) the UN influences it's new-found control to regulate the internet in some way.

How would you feel if.. say EU had the means to completely fuck up your information infrastructure just when it felt like it? Checks and balances are indeed about more than "we will not abuse this possibility, honest!"

The US DOES exercise control over the internet, they have not just abused it.. yet. With all that crap that has been going over with FCC and seeing all that "pro-family" internet legislation I am starting to get most worried.

Quote[/b] ]

So basically there is a choice between the Internet continuing its current, libertarian path under US control, or having new restrictions of some form being added by countries like China and Iran via the UN.

Yeah, because we all know how much power some 3rd world countries wield over west. Do you think ITU or UPU have been used to censor communications?

Those countries will just use their pre-existing filtering technology, probably as effective and keep this sort of thing swept under the rug.

[Sophion-Black 0]

but still, I think it is to big for one, party, to controll. there is always the posibility of the "US" to abuse the controll. that is why it should always be kept in check, then that party to be checked. like I said, another system of checks and balances. it has kept the US out of trouble since it first came to paper (no evil dictator or complete controll over something).

[billybob2002 0]

but still, I think it is to big for one, party, to controll. there is always the posibility of the "US" to abuse the controll.  that is why it should always be kept in check, then that party to be checked. like I said, another system of checks and balances. it has kept the US out of trouble since it first came to paper (no evil dictator or complete controll over something).

Same thing can be said about OPEC and its control of 40% of the world's oil production but nobody is complaining about that. They use their control over oil to try to influence western support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

@EiZei:

Do not try to use that BS argument of checks and balances because the US has not abused it "yet". That logic means that the UN should have control over "oil" because that is very important in first and third world countries. Furthermore, to back up proof for UN "control", countries have used their production of oil to try to influence opinions (i.e. what Iran is trying to do now).

Bah, everybody knows that the comment, "anybody but the US, right now", fits here perfectly...

[red oct 2]

but still, I think it is to big for one, party, to controll. there is always the posibility of the "US" to abuse the controll. that is why it should always be kept in check, then that party to be checked. like I said, another system of checks and balances. it has kept the US out of trouble since it first came to paper (no evil dictator or complete controll over something).

Same thing can be said about OPEC and its control of 40% of the world's oil production but nobody is complaining about that. They use their control over oil to try to influence western support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

@EiZei:

Do not try to use that BS argument of checks and balances because the US has not abused it "yet". That logic means that the UN should have control over "oil" because that is very important in first and third world countries. Furthermore, to back up proof for UN "control", countries have used their production of oil to try to influence opinions (i.e. what Iran is trying to do now).

Bah, everybody knows that the comment, "anybody but the US, right now", fits here perfectly...

heres something Billybob said that i actually agree w/. i fail to see why we should share control of the net w/ nations known for censorship and imprisoning people who speak of things that displeases their government. maybe the EU should forfeit its influence over the world market and trade if its so concerned over checks and balances.

[denoir 0]

Same thing can be said about OPEC and its control of 40% of the world's oil production but nobody is complaining about that.

Rubbish - the difference is that the OPEC countries actually own the oil. It's theirs. They dug it up. Finders keepers and all that.

The US doesn't own the root servers or the backbones. The greatest number of internet users are for instance in Europe not in America (2002 - possible Asia by now).

( http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/ )

It's quite obvious that not one single country should have any pivotal control over the basic internet infrastructure. And yes, Iran, North Korea, China et al should also have a say. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the world is larger than the Iraq-invading MacDonald's loving segment (guess who?). Even though your or I may disagree with Iranian or Chinese views, they are very much a part of the world and thus should have a say. In a world forum, they are a minority.

And on the contrary, a UN regulated internet is bound to be more free than the crap we have today with private companies making all sorts of shady deals with regimes that wish to censor the internet. Look at Yahoo or Google and how they are helping the Chinese with censorship. With real political backing, this could be prevented (or at least they wouldn't be able to do it as openly as they are now).

Anyway, I think overall there's very little to discuss here. The US may moan and bitch about losing control, but ultimately they have no choice. If they remain entrenched in their position the only thing that will happen is that the rest of the world will develop a parallel root structure. At that point the US can either choose to accept the new situation or face the situation of Americans not being able to reach any servers outside the US (like this one). The other way around won't be a problem as a new root system is bound to be compatible with the old one. Hence for instance Europeans will be able to reach US servers while Americans won't be able to reach European servers. Ultimately it hurts America far more than it hurts anybody else.

You'll see, they'll bitch for another six months or a year and then they'll reach a compromise. That compromise will be that America gets to keep control of the American root index for another decade or so before integrating into the system that the rest of the world runs. And again, that will only hurt America as it will have to maintain a system of its own.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Same thing can be said about OPEC and its control of 40% of the world's oil production but nobody is complaining about that. They use their control over oil to try to influence western support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War.

Yeah, expect for the "countries getting invaded and billions of dollars spent on finding other ways to get oil/replace it alltogether" part. If saudis would completely stop giving out oil to the west there would be a war within a month. Same can't be said about root servers.

Quote[/b] ]

maybe the EU should forfeit its influence over the world market and trade if its so concerned over checks and balances.

EU control over world market? What are you smoking?

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]The US doesn't own the root servers or the backbones. The greatest number of internet users are for instance in Europe not in America (2002 - possible Asia by now).

Um... yes, numerically, Europe has about 4% more Internet users. But per-capita, 40% of North Americans are on the Internet, vs only 27% of Europeans.

Quote[/b] ]What you don't seem to comprehend is that the world is larger than the Iraq-invading MacDonald's loving segment (guess who?)...

Wow... you should really try to be less of a bigot. Or perhaps the Swedish idea of polite conversation is a little different than the American one...

Quote[/b] ]It's quite obvious that not one single country should have any pivotal control over the basic internet infrastructure.

Agreed, only I would take it one step further: not one single government should have pivotal control over the internet; be it the US, or the UN. Currently the US does have the authority, but it does not use it, and it's stance is to keep things that way. Seeing the UN and EU's record on freedom of speech, I don't see how they could possibly do any better, so it is really a case of 'the lesser of 2 evils'.

Quote[/b] ]Even though your or I may disagree with Iranian or Chinese views, they are very much a part of the world and thus should have a say. In a world forum, they are a minority.

And on the contrary, a UN regulated internet is bound to be more free than the crap we have today with private companies making all sorts of shady deals with regimes that wish to censor the internet. Look at Yahoo or Google and how they are helping the Chinese with censorship. With real political backing, this could be prevented (or at least they wouldn't be able to do it as openly as they are now).

So, out of one side of your mouth, you say "China should have a say" in how the internet works. But out of the other side of your mouth, you complain about how Yahoo and Google are helping the Chinese with censorship.

Don't you understand?!? The very fact that the Chinese government does have a say in how their internet is run is the reason why they can censor it in the first place! If the Chinese govt had no legal authority over their internet, then there would be no censorship. The same is true of ANY government: the power to regulate is the power to destroy (free speech in this case).

Now extrapolate that govt authority to the ENTIRE WORLD, and you can see why I would be concerned. Right now, the US position is to not excersize it's authority. I don't know what the UN's position would be, but they obviously have problems with the US's position, which likely means that they will excersize their authority, if given.

Now if the UN were arguing that the US should reliquish it's authority over ICANN, and rule that NO govt can excersize control over it, I would support them 100%.

Quote[/b] ]If they remain entrenched in their position the only thing that will happen is that the rest of the world will develop a parallel root structure.

Exactly. If the rest of the world doesn't like America's idea of a free marketplace of ideas, then they should do like the Chinese, and make their own. However, it is foolish to think that the rest of the world would just 'block out' America from their network, since the US is the world's foremost economic power. To cut yourselves off from 'internet trade' with us would be foolish, to say the least. Not even China is going that far; they just try to regulate political dissent; they don't completely block out the rest of the world's network.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's quite obvious that not one single country should have any pivotal control over the basic internet infrastructure. And yes, Iran, North Korea, China et al should also have a say. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the world is larger than the Iraq-invading MacDonald's loving segment (guess who?). Even though your or I may disagree with Iranian or Chinese views, they are very much a part of the world and thus should have a say. In a world forum, they are a minority.

And on the contrary, a UN regulated internet is bound to be more free than the crap we have today with private companies making all sorts of shady deals with regimes that wish to censor the internet. Look at Yahoo or Google and how they are helping the Chinese with censorship. With real political backing, this could be prevented (or at least they wouldn't be able to do it as openly as they are now).

You do not comprehend that some of those countries that are throwing their support behind a UN oversight board or something non-US are the ones that actively censor basic internet content. You have to ask why are they doing this. It begins with a "i".

General Barron took must of my thought...

[ralphwiggum 6]

if rest of the world wants to have something like internet, MAKE THEIR OWN NETWORKING SYSTEM!

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]The US doesn't own the root servers or the backbones. The greatest number of internet users are for instance in Europe not in America (2002 - possible Asia by now).

Um... yes, numerically, Europe has about 4% more Internet users. But per-capita, 40% of North Americans are on the Internet, vs only 27% of Europeans.

It's in absolute number that counts. Per capita is not relevant here. Or do you think that Sweden that has the highest per capita usage should get to decide how the internet is administered?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]What you don't seem to comprehend is that the world is larger than the Iraq-invading MacDonald's loving segment (guess who?)...

Wow... you should really try to be less of a bigot. Or perhaps the Swedish idea of polite conversation is a little different than the American one...

That one went right over your head, didn't it? It was a caricature of billybobs assumption that American values are the only one worth considering. But seriously, there is a very strong trend with Americans (far from all, but still many) to automatically assume that the American value system is the "right" one on an absolute scale and that it thus should be enforced.

Quote[/b] ]Agreed, only I would take it one step further: not one single government should have pivotal control over the internet; be it the US, or the UN. Currently the US does have the authority, but it does not use it, and it's stance is to keep things that way.

That it doesn't use it right now means jack shit. The US has a very strong record of not giving a damn about what the rest of the world thinks and acting in its own interest. Given the shitty status of your civil liberties, yours is one of the last governments I would trust to "not touch" the internet. I'd sooner trust the Chinese government than yours (and I really, really don't trust the Chinese government).

Quote[/b] ] Seeing the UN and EU's record on freedom of speech, I don't see how they could possibly do any better, so it is really a case of 'the lesser of 2 evils'

Our record on freedom of speech? You mean the fact that we actually have full freedom of speech and don't have to worry about privacy invasions - like the Patriot act? I'd say that is a good thing.

Not that I'm arguing that the EU should regulate the internet. As I said, no single country should be able to do it.

Quote[/b] ]So, out of one side of your mouth, you say "China should have a say" in how the internet works. But out of the other side of your mouth, you complain about how Yahoo and Google are helping the Chinese with censorship.

Again, it's not that difficult. My opinion is "censorship is bad", but it does not give me the right to silence those that think otherwise. Yes, we should advocate our values and we should defend them, but this has to be done in an open forum where every party can express its opinion. A forum where all the parties have agreed to the rules. That forum is the UN. You may dislike it, but it's the only thing we've got.

Quote[/b] ]Don't you understand?!? The very fact that the Chinese government does have a say in how their internet is run is the reason why they can censor it in the first place! If the Chinese govt had no legal authority over their internet, then there would be no censorship. The same is true of ANY government: the power to regulate is the power to destroy (free speech in this case).

They don't have any formal control now, but as the internet is not unregulated, but regulated by the market, they can and do buy control. At least through a political structure behind it free speech could be guaranteed on a formal level. Of course, it won't stop the Chinese as they'll continue doing it while swearing that they are not. But it will prevent companies like Google from helping them doing it, and in this context I think it means everything.

Quote[/b] ]Now extrapolate that govt authority to the ENTIRE WORLD, and you can see why I would be concerned. Right now, the US position is to not excersize it's authority. I don't know what the UN's position would be, but they obviously have problems with the US's position, which likely means that they will excersize their authority, if given.

The UN is not a government. It is an international forum built with the purpose of preventing war through diplomacy. It's current form and function are a result of its primary role during the cold war: prevent the Americans and the Soviets from blowing each other up with nuclear weapons. The method is quite simple: bureaucracy. You make sure that everything takes long time enough for countries to cool down. And it's quite good at that.

Letting the UN administer the internet equals making sure that nothing changes. At best they could possibly draft a declaration on internet user rights'.

Quote[/b] ]Now if the UN were arguing that the US should reliquish it's authority over ICANN, and rule that NO govt can excersize control over it, I would support them 100%.

That's the EU position, but it has been flat out refused by the US.

I personally don't necessarily agree with that. The problem with you libertarians is that you think that the market can regulate anything. While the market can regulate economic matters, for the rest, it's crap. The spam, the censorship etc are all the results of a market regulated internet. In short, you can treat people any way you like, just if you pay for it. The Chinese can censor their citizens because they can buy that service from Google et al Freedom of speech is by no means a result of free markets. On the contrary, without regulations, in a free market system, anything can be bough or sold - including civil liberties.

Quote[/b] ]Exactly. If the rest of the world doesn't like America's idea of a free marketplace of ideas, then they should do like the Chinese, and make their own.

"Free marketplace of ideas"? Don't make me laugh. The rest of the world doesn't like that the American government might want to pull an Abu Ghraib on the internet: i.e abuse of power.

It's quite simple, very few in the world trust the US government. Not even your closest allies do.

Quote[/b] ]However, it is foolish to think that the rest of the world would just 'block out' America from their network, since the US is the world's foremost economic power. To cut yourselves off from 'internet trade' with us would be foolish, to say the least. Not even China is going that far; they just try to regulate political dissent; they don't completely block out the rest of the world's network.

Actually, the EU is the world's biggest economy, in terms of

GDP, but that's really not relevant. The EU and the US have about a fifth of the world economy each. Point being is that a schism would hurt everybody, but it would hurt the US four times more. It's not something that the US economy could handle, so it won't come to that.

You'll see there will be some form of compromise allowing the US to either run things for a limited time before turning over power, or running its own system on the side, compatible with the one everybody else uses.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's quite obvious that not one single country should have any pivotal control over the basic internet infrastructure. And yes, Iran, North Korea, China et al should also have a say. What you don't seem to comprehend is that the world is larger than the Iraq-invading MacDonald's loving segment (guess who?). Even though your or I may disagree with Iranian or Chinese views, they are very much a part of the world and thus should have a say. In a world forum, they are a minority.

And on the contrary, a UN regulated internet is bound to be more free than the crap we have today with private companies making all sorts of shady deals with regimes that wish to censor the internet. Look at Yahoo or Google and how they are helping the Chinese with censorship. With real political backing, this could be prevented (or at least they wouldn't be able to do it as openly as they are now).

You do not comprehend that some of those countries that are throwing their support behind a UN oversight board or something non-US are the ones that actively censor basic internet content. You have to ask why are they doing this. It begins with a "i".

General Barron took must of my thought...

So what excactly would having a vote in a board of tens of countries do? The process would be awfully slow, much more visible and would not achieve anything that they can't already do with at the local level. Do you think rest of the organization members are going to fork over the money to set up unpopular, cumbersome, expensive filtering systems?

Does the ITU or the UPU censor phone calls or mail for China? Of course not, it just does not make any fucking sense.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]That it doesn't use it right now means jack shit. The US has a very strong record of not giving a damn about what the rest of the world thinks and acting in its own interest. Given the shitty status of your civil liberties, yours is one of the last governments I would trust to "not touch" the internet. I'd sooner trust the Chinese government than yours (and I really, really don't trust the Chinese government).

Thanks for proving my point of anybody but the USA. I guess the internet, now, is what the TBA wants it to be...

Quote[/b] ]

Our record on freedom of speech? You mean the fact that we actually have full freedom of speech and don't have to worry about privacy invasions - like the Patriot act? I'd say that is a good thing.

Not that I'm arguing that the EU should regulate the internet. As I said, no single country should be able to do it.

So, you don't think your country's hate speech law is not a limitation of freedom of speech?  Every "civilized" country has a limitation on what you can or cannot do.

Quote[/b] ]They don't have any formal control now, but as the internet is not unregulated, but regulated by the market, they can and do buy control. At least through a political structure behind it free speech could be guaranteed on a formal level. Of course, it won't stop the Chinese as they'll continue doing it while swearing that they are not. But it will prevent companies like Google from helping them doing it, and in this context I think it means everything.

That is fine and all but that is not the EU position on this matter.

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html

Quote[/b] ]

"There is clearly an acceptance here that governments are not concerned with the technical and operational management of the internet. Standards are set by the users."

Hendon is also adamant: "The really important point is that the EU doesn't want to see this change as bringing new government control over the internet. Governments will only be involved where they need to be and only on issues setting the top-level framework."

From what is written, he wants a "global" ICANN. I wonder how great that is going to turn out.

Quote[/b] ]So what excactly would having a vote in a board of tens of countries do? The process would be awfully slow, much more visible and would not achieve anything that they can't already do with at the local level. Do you think rest of the organization members are going to fork over the money to set up unpopular, cumbersome, expensive filtering systems?

Does the ITU or the UPU censor phone calls or mail for China? Of course not, it just does not make any fucking sense.

They want influence simple has that. Why would they want influence I ask you.

Quote[/b] ]if rest of the world wants to have something like internet, MAKE THEIR OWN NETWORKING SYSTEM!