Comment by bitops | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitops | Hacker News Reader

> A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.

This statement, in my eyes, shows just how ridiculous the whole thing is. Regardless of your political leanings, I think most folks in the US right now agree that Congress is doing a pretty shoddy job of representing the people's interests. It's basically a joke, on both sides of the aisle at the moment, when politicians claim to be doing what's best for the public.

There are a lot of things that go right every day, and we don't hear about them, which is unfortunate.

But the things that politicians are beating their chests over right now are so obviously in the interests of lobbying groups and "big money" that it's ridiculous. Lady Gaga might lose money to piracy, but she is hardly a starving artist. And those artists that are usually are happy to get ANY kind of exposure, even if it's through piracy.

Also, and this is lost sometimes in the debate, piracy is responsible for the spread of a lot of ideas. And almost everyone does it at some point in their life. Even Lars Ulrich from Metallica - he and James bonded while Lars was at James's house, ripping LPs to tape. Times have not changed much.

Most people are dissatisfied with Congress, but I suspect that if you asked them to compare America to anywhere else in the world, they'd immediately jump to America's defense. My favorite line I've heard from some of my friends: "Our system may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got."

Absolutely, I'm in the same boat.

The reason it's so upsetting is precisely for the reasons you state. I (perhaps foolishly?) believe that America has the opportunity to be a role model for the rest of the world in terms of how a society can work.

America has its problems. I will be the first to agree with that.

But for all its problems, America has a lot going for it. It's a relatively free society, there is social mobility (more for some than others, it's true) and it's a nice place to live, even just in terms of its geography. (I live in California and so that of course will make me biased).

Consider - America is a country that, despite all its problems, people risk their lives to get into. There's a simple reason why America continues to attract illegal immigrants - it's better than wherever they came from. So much so that they'll pay sleazy people to transport them across borders under the cover of night. It sounds dramatic, but that's because it is!

So - America is great and I'd personally like it to stay that way. That's why it's the responsibility of the people living in America to keep their backyard clean and their politicians in line.

> "attract illegal immigrants - it's better than wherever they came from"

I am not a US citizen, all I know about US is from TV, Movies and the web. But this is not a proof that US is a great place to live in. It just means that the neighbouring countries have far worse living conditions. I harder test would be if the more fortunate, richer class of people who are already comfortable with their living standards in their respective countries, choose to move to US because they cannot add to their level of satisfaction otherwise.

I am not a US citizen either though I live here. (I'm a permanent resident, intent on becoming a citizen, as I like this country a great deal).

> this is not a proof that US is a great place to live in. It just means that the neighbouring countries have far worse living conditions.

In my book, that means the US is better than those places. True, it doesn't make it great. But there are many other places in the world with good living standards and yet the US is where people try to come.

> I harder test would be if the more fortunate, richer class of people who are already comfortable with their living standards in their respective countries, choose to move to US because they cannot add to their level of satisfaction otherwise.

This is actually my own case. My parents left a very comfortable life in Western Europe to go to the US and try and make things better. My stepdad was doing a startup back in the late 90's and it was much easier to get funding here. Americans are risk takers, which is why so much innovation comes out of this country.

There's a reason why the Apples, Googles, and Intels of the world are located in the US, and it's much more than economic.

>and yet the US is where people try to come.

You don't see the people flooding into France? Italy? Switzerland? Germany? The UK?

The US is good at one thing though: advertising.

There is a reason that most of emplyees of Apples, Googles and Intels of the world are located outside of US :)

> There is a reason that most of emplyees of Apples, Googles and Intels of the world are located outside of US :)

Yes, the labor is absolutely cheaper. But US labor has never been cheap. It's a common illusion that politicians have gotten very good at selling. Even in early times (100-200 yrs ago), US labor was not inexpensive.

My point was more that all those companies were founded in the US.

I definitely agree. I would rather go to US than Europe and this is not because the former has better living conditions but because there are better opportunities to learn and for a CS student like me, Silicon valley is the Mecca.

But the point I am making is that illegal immigration, the example you had given, is not a measure of how good the country is with respect to the rest of the world. It only measures how good the country is (and how porous the borders are) with respect to its neighbours. Legal immigration on the other hand is a much better measure, and US has tons of it.

[Edit - typos]

slightlymobvious, but the us only has two neighbours, canada d mexico. canada is no more a source of illegal immigration to the us than the us is to canada (it happens in both directions, nobody cares.) which leaves mexico. osmsure, people sneak in because life for them is better as an illegal in the hus than legal in their own country. this happens all over the world, not just to the us.

further, just because a country is better than many (it is) is no reason for complacency..... if things are going so great, why not khelp out your suffering neighbours more? and if they arent going so great, how can one say its the best place on earth?

They even speak English there - it would be so much easier to move to the US!!! Except, ten days holidays; no employee protection; no medical care; no social welfare; insane politics and warmongering; property taxes that screw your retirement; high crime rate...

Yet, we still love you guys (except for Adam Sandler), and wish you would just moderate a little on the politics: things are grey, not black and white ;).

Ugh, typical example of the attitude many of us find so annoying. America has the same things going for it any first world country does. People risk their lives to get into lots of first world countries as well.

Living in the first world is great, we hope you can stay in the club.

- An American expat who's most likely never coming back.

In terms of cultural cache alone, America is leaps and bounds beyond most other third world countries. This isn't from luck; America's brilliance has always been in its sociogeographic diversity.

The United States of America hasn't existed long enough to develop its own high culture.

USA is, by the very definition of the term, not a third world country.

I meant to type first world country (pitfalls of posting at six in the morning.)

Ack, I assumed that was the joke and gave you an upvote. :(

You obviously haven't been to rural Indiana.

> - An American expat who's most likely never coming back.

If you see my others comments in this thread, I'm a Danish expat who's never going back. Perhaps it's the idealism of the immigrant that makes me feel the way I do.

> I (perhaps foolishly?) believe that America has the opportunity to be a role model for the rest of the world in terms of how a society can work.

Yes, you believe foolishly. See below for why.

> But for all its problems, America has a lot going for it. It's a relatively free society, there is social mobility (more for some than others, it's true) and it's a nice place to live, even just in terms of its geography. (I live in California and so that of course will make me biased). Consider - America is a country that, despite all its problems, people risk their lives to get into. There's a simple reason why America continues to attract illegal immigrants - it's better than wherever they came from.

Background: I am an United States citizen now working in northern Europe.

To quote a TED Talk, "If you want the American Dream, move to Denmark."

The United States is not a free society. Is it more free than China? Yes. Is it more free than the majority of the OCED? No. They have gotten very good at selling the "American Dream", that is the sole reason people still risk their lives to get into it.

The dream cracked for me when I realised that despite 10 years of programming experience, I could not get a job in the U.S.; whereas, one month after searching for work in Europe and I had a job offer.

"Well, why didn't you start your own business in the U.S.?" My answer is simple: I am sick of living "at the pleasure of the king". To live in the U.S. is to be constantly unsure of where you stand with respect to the law. This applies doubly so if you start a business.

This problem with the law results from two positions:

1. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.

2. Interpretation of the law can change.

This brings up some major problems. Principally, how can I know the law if the interpretation (and thus the application) of the law is not constant? Add in low levels of corruption (on average, the bad ones are really bad) and different application of the law as a function of a person's class and you might begin to understand why I want no part of living at the pleasure of the king.

I'm not sure how you can feel like any place that is ruled by laws does not fall under your two positions.

What your argument fails to do is demonstrate how Denmark is any different. Please do.

>Background: I am an United States citizen now working in northern Europe. To quote a TED Talk, "If you want the American Dream, move to Denmark."

That's interesting to me as I am a Danish citizen living in the US. I grew up in Denmark but have no intention of ever moving back permanently.

I don't know how long you've lived in Denmark, but perhaps you are familiar with "Janteloven"? To someone who did not grow up in Scandinavia, it may just seem like another one of those cultural quirks that pops up from time to time. But, it is quite real and drilled into your head from the moment you're born. Some parts of the country are worse than others in this respect, but everyone succumbs to it at times. Many Danes make it a point to vigorously deny this.

Perhaps it's just because I grew up there, but I was overjoyed when I found out that my family was moving to the US. I definitely feel more at home here than anywhere else in the world.

With that said, I can absolutely understand why you, as an American, would like and probably prefer to live in Denmark. The people are friendly (mostly, there's always a grouch somewhere), it's a well-educated culture, and the social safety net is enviable. If you're okay with the tax rate and don't mind the weather, I would agree it's quite idyllic.

Also, the points you make about the US being a litigious society are well taken. The US is rightly made a laughing stock for people being able to sue McDonalds for making them fat. That's just ridiculous.

So I think it may just be that we value different things in life. I've met many American expats in Europe who would never want to go back, who feel, as I do, that where they are is their home. If we all are interested in making where we live a better place, that's probably the best we can do.

I suspect you're talking in generalities, but from an outside perspective the US is far from best practice.

Three things that you could implement that other democracies already have:

- electoral boundaries are controlled by a statutory independent body, not the government.

- voting and counting are controlled and supervised by a statutory independent body, not the government. The Bush-Florida mess could not have happened here.

- all political donations over a trivial amount, say $5000, must be reported.

As well, Ministers cannot take jobs in their portfolio's area for some period of time, from memory it is 5 years, after leaving politics.

All fair points with which I agree. Again, the US could get better, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad now. (I, like many, have days where I feel the US is going to hell in a handbasket). But I agree with the things you've pointed out.

I think our (the US) government has a lot to say against it. But America's not great because of its government, it's great in spite of it. America is great because of our culture of risk taking and experimentation, a culture that we are slowly losing to increasingly mind-numbing entertainment (which, I admit, is quite addicting) and restrictive legislation.

I agree with your first point; gerrymandering is the cause of a lot of our problems, I believe. But a 3rd party would be just as susceptible to tampering.

I think a better approach is to define an algorithm for setting boundaries: something like "minimal border perimeter of districts, starting from the northwest corner of the state". But we might need to find a way to avoid breaking up cities between districts, that makes it a lot more complicated.

Your proposal would not have saved the Bush/Gore election mess. The big controversy there wasn't over the recounting, but in the way that State laws governing the counts would be enforced, in the context of the 14th and 15th Amendments. Any legislation you propose would probably fall afoul of the same problems. In any case, I believe that actual voting and counting is a very minor issue today in America.

And your third suggestion is already in force. Political donations must be reported today.

Not to mention the sheer bigotry of blaming piracy on "foreign criminals", which makes this the pure nuts. Is the average US pirate kind of tanned, has a really tacky foreign accent, or conveys in any other way a vaguely menacing ethnicity?

" Is the average US pirate kind of tanned, has a really tacky foreign accent, or conveys in any other way a vaguely menacing ethnicity?"

You forgot to mention the parrot on the shoulder and the peg-leg...and the gratuitous usage of Google Pirate:

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=xx-pirate

That part is actually relevant to the bill. SOPA's intended purpose is to close the foreign loophole that the DMCA leaves open, in that there's no recourse for a US holder of copyright to stop a foreign-owned/operated site (a la Pirate Bay) from giving pirated content to US users. So "foreign criminals" is actually what we're talking about, here. There's a lot of other things you could pick up on, but xenophobia probably isn't the best tact to take.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com