Most telling to me is his inability to reasonably react to a simple question. He seems embarrassed after he curses, by the way he continues to badger the reporter. Just another amateur running for office. At least we won't have to worry about anti-curse laws on his agenda!

& for those who enjoy a little context, here is the quotation from Santorum's speech that the New York Times reporter and others "spun":

SANTORUM: Fifty-dollar abortions subsidized by RomneyCare. And if you’re low income, they’re free.
Why would we put someone up who is uniquely -- pick any other Republican in the country. He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama. Why would Wisconsin want to vote for someone like that?

from: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/03/santorum-explains-bulls-remark-on-cnn-118709.html

yea there was a post on ats forums (of course) with links to new york times where this is already being tested against protesters and to stop charismatic group leaders from rallying a riot or to stop someone being interviewed on television from finishing their sentence censoring them without having to edit.

this is really bad shit.

Your car analogy is accurate, but misleading. If the car were newer, then it would in fact be against patent law to make one on your own. The SCO case is, I believe, patent law, not copyright.

I don't get your argument regarding publishing companies of various kinds trying to make money for themselves and not paying artists much. This is the old "artists deserve more money" argument. Frankly, they don't. And I'm saying that as an artist. If you're an artist and you give someone your art in exchange for whatever percentage, then you've agreed to that amount and you deserve that amount, and no more. The fact is, selling art is hard. It might not seem that way because we see it everywhere, but having art sitting in your house or on your computer and making money off of it is just plain difficult. The easiest route is frequently to let someone else do that for you, and to artists who can't afford a cup of coffee, making some decent cash sounds like a good deal.

Artists who don't want to go that route are free to keep their content and sell it themselves.
>> ^Porksandwich:

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.
You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.
It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.
In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".
Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.
Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.
Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.
Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.
On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......
Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

I like to try to apply things to real life objects or processes instead of digital.

You can make an exact replica of a 1950s car (legal), but if you copy a PICTURE someone else took of a 1950s car you're in trouble (illegal). Or if you take the picture of a 1950s car (legal), the owner who spent all the time and effort on it is SOL if you just snap a picture of it and make a million bucks----but if it were a painting they painted and you took a picture of it to sell..they'd have you by your balls in court.

It's even confusing in the tangible world, but in general copyright is not used like a club to keep other people from producing things in the tangible world.

In the digital world, copyright is hard to enforce but it's more "chilling effect" is it being used like a club to take down things that might even remotely be related to their copyrights...whether or not it can be demonstrated or proven. Look at SCO over Linux, they have lost but they still have that whole case showing up in court even now...it took YEARS to get it settled and it's back in some form from what I read elsewhere. Youtube is full of examples of it being used to remove content that is not theirs.....they took down the music video MegaUpload guys paid for and put up using DMCA knowing it wasn't theirs because they "had an arrangement with Google/Youtube to be able to do so".

Tangible world of copyright has some sense of "reasonable expectation" when it comes to decisions and such.

Intangible world of copyright has no "reason" applied to it at any stage, it doesn't make sense to anyone. It's abused, the courts even allow it's abuse to go unpunished because THEY do even know WTF is going on with it. It's a crazy mess of finger pointing, denying access to distribution channels people want to be able to get content on (EA and Steam is a great example of this), price fixing (Publishers conspiring with Apple to price fix Ebooks to Apple pricing, Amazon is balking at this as are a lot of people), etc.

Hell the publishers are using copyrights and agreements as ways to lock in authors to prevent them from publishing themselves and are purposefully screwing with digital ebook sites to make it uncertain for non-affiliated authors. And it's not working for them as more and more authors are going self-published, BUT no one steps in and tells them to cut that shit out. The New York Times Bestseller lists won't even put Self-Pubbed author titles on their listing, even if they are best sellers. It's just another aspect of the digital world being treated like it's tangible and slow moving, the publishers are using their clout to try to force people into their "idea" of what it should all be...slow and expensive, with content creators getting less than 15% of the final sale price in most cases.

Corporate establishments should not be dictating policy.... they shouldn't be able to force distribution channels offline (netflix comes to mind, Amazon Kindle titles, etc) by dictating or forcing it to be unreasonably costly/restrictive in comparison to their own services (Hulu, Apple Ebooks, etc). They are forcibly carving a spot for themselves into the contracts and agreements, despite what's best for consumers and content creators and getting additional laws/policy to enforce it.

On the other side of dictating policy, we have corporations pushing to take away restrictive policies when it hurts their profits. And we end up with the housing bubble and economic crisis......

Laws and policy should be written with the people in mind first, society second, anything else, and corporations last. Corporations should be adapting to the will of the people and the laws of the society that reinforce their will, not telling everyone how it's going to be.

>> ^heathen:

You're not how many power points you have. You're not your sifted videos. You're not your playlists. You're not your star points. You're not your username. You're not your personal queue. You're not your anniversary. You're not your unsifted videos.
... but you're still going to upvote this video. You're going to upvote this comment too. Or these guys are going to take your balls. They're going to send one to the New York Times, one to the LA Times press-release style. Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us.


Oooo I was so tempted not to upvote that comment you troll you, but it was impossible not to. Good stuff

You're not how many power points you have. You're not your sifted videos. You're not your playlists. You're not your star points. You're not your username. You're not your personal queue. You're not your anniversary. You're not your unsifted videos.

... but you're still going to upvote this video. You're going to upvote this comment too. Or these guys are going to take your balls. They're going to send one to the New York Times, one to the LA Times press-release style. Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not fuck with us.

The New York Times published a fascinating video about this a few months ago, too:

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/11/21/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html

Lawrence "Larry" Lessig
is an American academic and political activist. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications, and he has called for state-based activism to promote substantive reform of government with a Second Constitutional Convention.
He is a director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor of law at Harvard Law School. Prior to rejoining Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. Lessig is a founding board member of Creative Commons, a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center, an advisory board member of the Sunlight Foundation and a former board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig


Chris Hedges
is an American journalist, author, and war correspondent, specializing in American and Middle Eastern politics and societies.
Chris Hedges is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City. He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times, where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

I can't NOT do a run-down of the subtitles. They're just too goddamn funny.

"The justified and has charged up former C_i_a_ officer
are john and tour kalo
steeple player is said that right
arbiter reiterates problems they write me anyway out with a espionage act
now that's a very very serious charge you know that before president obama
theres only been
three instances of the united states government
charging someone with the espionage act
forgiving excessive information
as they claim
this former cia officer there
and
six different tastes
that is special on it because president or bob promise to
i'd be air and friend to whistle blowers
entrance passage
there's something wrong in our government he reported he was going to
help you
doesn't look like he's albania
so whatever sag ideal while he talked about
how we want a quart of people
and how was torture
now he thought it was justified even did an interview on sixty minutes
and said
uh that he thought it worked the underplayed amount of george but we did
but do you happen to call it torture
now they look at that missy i did not like that
furthermore there was a two thousand a new york times story which invade
believe he is the source of the dam
proving at and so they well okay i got past and i jack I guess you're you
know
there was one of the toughest laws we have
and we're company get your are part of the spaces
because it's if
here's a great irony of that
if you actually do the waterboarding if you didn't torture
you got no punishment whatsoever
now present all mama claimed it was torture and ridiculous and he says he
stopped at
as ridiculous in a squabble right
is torture
but he didn't always scot-free
the president will not
look backward euler look for work
if you report the waterboarding the torture
espionage act
when I play with a look back work
all its to protect the C_i_a_'s after this thing
protect that's the bush administration
error and dick cheyney that order that torture well then of course you look
backward and in fact the new uh... looked very deep into you know us info about
charging
the defense lawyers at one time all back
our whole system is based on
an adversarial system
where somebody gets a defects
now one of the press uh.. tactics was to look at that
interrogators
and try and determine who they were so they can bring them into the court
and say eight use them as witnesses
because the guys who aren't going to have a bank
that are face execution
listen when you get an executed we should be able to call the witnesses

That's not even half the video. But I laughed my ass off.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wired has a great overview of the current status of SOPA/PIA
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/websites-dark-in-revolt/

New York Times with some analysis:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/technology/web-wide-protest-over-two-antipiracy-bills.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

I love the top comment for this article from Bobo:

"Protecting US corporate media from theft is like putting guards around a garbage dump. Long live the BBC!"

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Yogi:
I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.

No, Hitchens was refusing to be a fool and base his entire opinion on a New York Times article. He actually went over and spent time in North Korea to put his view of the country to the test.
And Yogi, what is with you acting like America is the big evil baddie in the relationship between it and North Korea? America agrees to pay North Korea an enormous amount of aid, including the construction of a pair of nuclear reactors, and all that North Korea was asked to do in return was to stop making nuclear weapons.
Hitchens also destroyed Noam's argument by noting how rapidly North Korea was able to get it's nuclear weapons program back up and running at 100%. It was almost as if they'd never stopped it in the first place, because THEY HADN'T!

Sorry after you said Noam Chomskys argument was destroyed I stopped considering you as someone who knows anything about anything. Fuck off.


Well said.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Yogi:
I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.

No, Hitchens was refusing to be a fool and base his entire opinion on a New York Times article. He actually went over and spent time in North Korea to put his view of the country to the test.
And Yogi, what is with you acting like America is the big evil baddie in the relationship between it and North Korea? America agrees to pay North Korea an enormous amount of aid, including the construction of a pair of nuclear reactors, and all that North Korea was asked to do in return was to stop making nuclear weapons.
Hitchens also destroyed Noam's argument by noting how rapidly North Korea was able to get it's nuclear weapons program back up and running at 100%. It was almost as if they'd never stopped it in the first place, because THEY HADN'T!


Sorry after you said Noam Chomskys argument was destroyed I stopped considering you as someone who knows anything about anything. Fuck off.

>> ^Yogi:

I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.
The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.
In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.


No, Hitchens was refusing to be a fool and base his entire opinion on a New York Times article. He actually went over and spent time in North Korea to put his view of the country to the test.

And Yogi, what is with you acting like America is the big evil baddie in the relationship between it and North Korea? America agrees to pay North Korea an enormous amount of aid, including the construction of a pair of nuclear reactors, and all that North Korea was asked to do in return was to stop making nuclear weapons.

Hitchens also destroyed Noam's argument by noting how rapidly North Korea was able to get it's nuclear weapons program back up and running at 100%. It was almost as if they'd never stopped it in the first place, because THEY HADN'T!

I like Hitchens and he's probably correct in this video. However I remember him on Bill Maher once talking about North Korea and sounding like a complete moron. So much so that Noam Chomsky indirectly had to correct people on Hitchens quoting of an article in the New York Times.

The story was that basically North Korea wasn't going to fulfill their contractual agreements with the United States because the United States wasn't going to fulfill theirs. It was North Koreas natural reaction to a breach of contract by the States. Hitchens glossed over that and condemned North Korea, like an idiot not even bothering with the rest of the article which stated WHY they were acting this way.

In summery Noam Chomsky > Hitchens in my mind because he's too fucking lazy to read an ENTIRE Article.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).


Well said sir, in my view no department is inherently bad or good, the value of the department depends on who is running it, how it is used and how policies governing the department are made. If the Department of Education is causing harm to the education of students then this could be fixed by resolving the underlying issue which is one of corrupt policy making. Look at Bill Gates for example, he's playing his part to destroy and privatize the education system so he can have Windows on every school computer and influence the public education budget. He's allowed to do this because of policy changes and enormous amounts of lobbying money (which go hand in hand).

Here's an interesting read about some of the sweeping changes he's been able to introduce via lobbying:
http://techrights.org/2011/09/09/new-york-times-and-washpo-on-edu/

Plus of course all the other issues dystopianfuturetoday mentions - these won't go away just by removing a couple of departments - the core issues of corruption and lobbying have to be fixed first.

Is Ron Paul going to fix these? Hell no. Even if he was strongly in favor of these sorts of real changes, he wouldn't get support for them under the current system, the GOP would block everything, the Dems would keep talking about how bad the GOP is for blocking everything, and everything would continue to get fucked just as badly, or worse, than it currently is.