that the reason Ted Cruz can't differentiate between truth and lies is that he was actually born on the fourth planet around proxima centauri, where the concepts are different.
The attempt to prevent the US government from moving control of the internet's technical functions to a technical body appears to be over. Following an extraordinary few days where the transition seemed up in the air thanks to the persistent efforts of Senator Ted Cruz, majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) filed a continuing …
I thought the debate around Ted Cruz was about whether or not his mother (his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth) spent at least ten years in the US after turning 14 before giving birth to him, which was a requirement for granting citizenship jus sanguinis to a child (born outside the US) where only one parent was US citizen, according to the Immigration and Nationality Act in effect at the time.
since it only relates to the question of whether Cruz is a US citizen (which presumably he is). The real issue seems to be that the US constitution requires a presidential candidate to be a "natural born citizen" and no one quite knows what that means. (Popular understanding takes it to mean born in the US but legal authorities tend to think it includes all children of citizens regardless of where they're born.)
The general understanding (supported by SCOTUS decisions) is that the primary condition is that citizenship was granted upon birth. This also implies that no procedure was taken to affirm this (no oath taken like in Naturalization). This happens to be consistent with English Law prior to the US's independence. Only jus soli is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution via the 14th Amendment (and reinforced in US v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898). Since jus sanguinis is neither allowed nor disallowed, under Article I, Section 8, it's left to Congress to clarify, which is does with the Immigration and Nationality Acts, amended over the years (and no document other than the Constitution itself can make the call for them, as Article VI explicitly states the Constitution stands alone as ultimate authority in the US).
His mother, apparently. Under the Immigration and Nationality Acts in effect at the time of his birth, you can gain jus sanguinis citizenship if you have at least one US Citizen parent who's lived in the US for at least ten years after turning 14. His mother was a citizen, and (last I read) she met the ten-year requirement because she didn't leave for Canada until she was around 28.
There really, really should be something in place to deal with what can only be deliberate lies and manipulation of facts purely for political or personal campaign purposes.
There is... it's called re-election. The voters should recall him or vote him out but that probably won't happen. Once in office, it's damn hard to boot the incumbent out even with a highly qualified challenger running against them. Pretty sad, isn't it?
Or the view could be taken that using these comedians (can anyone really take Cruz and Trumps positions as politicians seriously?) to propose this was a very, very successful smokescreen to cover something much more vile being added to a different bill.
Before congratulatory ass grabbing is handed out someone should perhaps make a detailed search of any bill or proposal which has recently been passed, for riders and amendments.
So there's an article on the front page of El Reg talking about how corrupt and scaly the ICANN folks are (who I guess is going to be controlling the IANA now) but this article sounds like it's bashing Cruz for trying to stop the transfer of power?
Now I know the rest of the world things we're a bunch off assholes nowadays (and what our government has done for the past 8-16 years, I can't blame ya for that) but I'm pretty sure we've kept the internet fairly intact while controlling IANA functions in house. Why would giving that over to ICANN be good?
I haven't read enough about this to really fully understand the subject. I remember hearing whispers about this last year but assumed it was crazy talk. Now I'm finding out this is going to happen, like next week? WTF?
You guys know we kind of invented this whole internet thing right? I mean it all came out of arpanet years ago and morphed into the series of tubes we have now. Why in the hell would we agree to give up power over all the most important inner functions of the web to a corrupt corporation in Belgium? Jesus Christ this administration isn't incompetent... it's actually appears to be doing things like this just to hurt our country.
Hey guys, if Hillary gets elected can you forgive my ancestors for that whole 1700s thing? I think I might need to come back to the Isle.
Democracy stinks... but we have not come up with anything better.
Similarly, ICANN stinks, but we have not come up with anything better. An attempt to do so will pretty much hand the Internet to the UN on a plate at some point in the future. That, in turn, means that it will be handed down to the Telco oligopoly at the ITU to manage and you are pretty much guaranteed to be charged for long distance web site browsing on a per minute basis.
> "Why in the hell would we agree to give up power over all the most important inner functions of the web to a corrupt corporation in Belgium?"
Until you manage to clear out all of the lobbyists, power-brokers, and pork-barrelling that is so prevalent in the US political scene, I think you should avoid calling other institutions "corrupt".
"Until you manage to clear out all of the lobbyists, power-brokers, and pork-barrelling that is so prevalent in the US political scene, I think you should avoid calling other institutions "corrupt"."
And that'll never happen.
1) It's impossible to remove lobbyists completely. Even if you take the money angle out, there's still the "nice cushy job after you leave" angle as well as other, non-monetary, post-position influences that are pretty much protected on First Amendment grounds, as well as influence from actual constituents who can't be blocked without interfering with their primary duties. Finally, there's the family angle. How do you block lobbyists if they're spouses, who MUST be able to talk in order to raise their families?
2) Politics is a power magnet; it simply comes with the territory. And as long as there's power, there WILL be power brokers due to the human condition.
3) As for pork-barrelling, recent Congressional experience has demonstrated it to be a necessary evil. Part of the reason for the "Do Nothing" Congress' reputation is that they voluntarily limited themselves in the name of ethics but found their hands tied when it came to big bills. Smaller representatives basically have nothing to lose with voting against the grain because the communities they represent are too insular for greater politics to affect them. You need something close to home to sway them, and that means give-and-take, and the only things that will influence them enough is pork-barrel projects. In other words, pork is pretty much the only thing that can "grease" smaller representatives into getting on board broader projects that need their vote to pass.
So in the end, if you want a better government, you're going to need a better HUMAN first.
Just because something is bad, it does not mean that something opposed to it is good. The world turns out to be complicated and trying to reduce stuff to simple narratives where 'good guys' take out 'bad guys' usually doesn't work very well. The world would be a considerably better place if the general citizenry of most Western democracies realised that.
ICANN is corrupt as hell. However, Cruz is not objecting to that. He hasn't brought up ICANN's corruption whatsoever (I doubt he's aware of it, or would understand most of the technical details anyway), instead banging on about completely irrelevant issues around sovereignty and freedom of speech, neither of which have a thing to do with it. Any space there was for a genuine debate about the pros and cons of letting ICANN take over the IANA functions has been drowned out by his hysterical bleating, and there's been no benefit to his talk. It's basically just a means for Cruz to persist in his 'I'm anti-establishment, honest' schtick, which has taken something of a battering from his refusal to endorse the Great Tangerine One.
He was aiming for another government shutdown (the previous one also being little more than a platform for Cruz's personal aggrandizement). This happened to be the tool he chose for that job. If he'd been on the Senate Fisheries Committee, he'd have used that, probably even using the same sovereignty and free speech arguments. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the relative merits or otherwise of the case.
"Just because something is bad, it does not mean that something opposed to it is good. The world turns out to be complicated and trying to reduce stuff to simple narratives where 'good guys' take out 'bad guys' usually doesn't work very well. The world would be a considerably better place if the general citizenry of most Western democracies realised that."
But of course, the average human (Western or otherwise) is pretty stupid about stuff like that and simply want to see tomorrow (there have been studies mentioned on El Reg about this). You have to take Stupid into consideration. That also explains how the likes of Cruz get into office in the first place.
The second he starts to support something, the political parties will be falling all over themselves to work with the other side to stop it. Nothing gets long-time rivals to work together like a terrible enemy. Hitler was terrible enough to get the US, UK, France, and even Russia to stop hating each other long enough to get rid of him.
"ban any spending on the IANA contract"
The irony of that surely shows how stupid Cruz and his staff must be. Zero spending by the Commerce Dept. is exactly the plan, since all they have to do now is precisely nothing and the contract automatically expires next week.
I've commented in the other thread about the fact that those most critical of ICANN have vested interests. Most people who've actually dealt with ICANN are perfectly happy, except for people whose particular get-rich-quick-with-DNS scheme was knocked back.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020