Slashdot Mirror

A well written point, however the vast majority of Americans don't really understand exactly what the stakes are in the Open Internet debate, and how it will affect them.

Every single person I've heard mention anything about "Net Neutrality" that labeled themselves as a "conservative" , dismissed it as a "government takeover" of the internet, which we all know is complete horseshite, and a Faux News/Rove/Koch smoke and mirrors job.

I would like to meet some of these "reactionary" and "financial" conservatives you speak of who would rather have an Open Internet than one proposed by groups like ALEC.
Where are they?

You need to "read between the lines" on the "Conservative", "Freedom Loving" talking points, and what their actions really are in comparison with those talking points.
People like the Kochs are really after control and consolidation of power.

There are plenty of reasons for "Conservatives" to oppose an Open Internet...
Which "Conservatives"? Groups like ALEC, thats who.

"THAT IS OUR FAULT."

While it might be in our power to change things if we, the people, all stood up and demanded change....the average person doesn't care.

Are the citizens in Europe somehow more demanding and therefore get better government? No. I'd care to wager that the exact same percent of people in Europe are as apathetic as in the US.

So whats the difference? Money, power, and specifically corporate money and power. The US is a center of money and power unlike any other country. It costs millions of dollars to run for most political offices in Washington, and the biggest donors are always the corporations.

A few politicians are at any given time trying to reform elections, but it never seems to become a big ticket item. Here's a senator talking about it: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773857

And I'd argue that our lower turn out in elections is a direct result of people never having their voices heard. As lobbying, corporate influence, etc.. slowly crept into our political scene to a greater and greater extent, our voices, our needs, slowly became less important to directly winning elections. Well.. let me rephrase: a politician still needs to pretend like he cares, but he doesn't have to actually deliver on too many of his promises to get relected.

The left, right, and middle can all basically just make stuff up, lie, and get away with it. We've slowly become accustomed to it, and it is why many folks just don't give a damn anymore.

There is rarely a third party candidate to even vote for, and when faced between two people that aren't going to act any different from one another, why bother voting?

Until the money is removed from elections, things will never change, and in fact they will get worse.

The American people are not more apathetic by nature, we've just slowly come to realize that we are not in control. The path to regaining control is going to be a long, hard fought battle, and you can be sure that long time incumbent politicians will continue to distract the population will meaningless troll topics to prevent any real reform from taking place.

The "current system" can only thrive so long as there are those willing to prop it up.

True, but look at the rate of incumbency in Congress: 92.8% Everyone of those Congressmen has earmarked something that benefits their constituents, and those constituents will keep that Congressman in office, so there will be "those who are willing to prop it up" in the extreme congressional majority for the foreseeable future. Given the various powers and restriction of congress and voters , this is an expected (if undesirable) state for our government. Without a Constitutional amendment to change the congressional game, earmarking is an almost guaranteed ticket to re-election and therefore an unavoidable part of the current system.

Didn't Bob Metcalf make a similar prediction a few years back and ended up eating his hat?

Given that these guys are just a front for the phone company, what are they going to have to eat when they use this as an excuse for not delivering the bandwidth to homes that others in places like Japan enjoy?

The point was, your post begged the questions: "is the media controlled by few people, or many?" and "compared to what?"

I didn't miss your point; I understood it completely. But, there is no necessity that I am either a) incorrect about media diversity, or b) the president of a major broadcast network. I could be neither.

But anyway, I'll bite. Surely you're not denying that the media that would be covered by the Fairness Doctrine is controlled by fewer people/corporations than in the past? If so, please check these out:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQI wG&b=2127045
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_medi a_ownership#United_States
http://www.corporations.org/media/

Other than that, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

And all of it is local. Between numerous corruption scandals, the most unpopular governor in the nation and a general anti-incumbent feeling in the country I'm sure all Ohio officials aren't feeling too comfortable. Nothing like some election year tough on sex offenders laws to attempt to gain some approval. Generally, I consider any law passed in an election year to be pandering and this doesn't appear to be any different.

Nice idea. Clicked on the link and sent Ted Stevens a piece of my mind. BTW, Common Cause has a nice template which you can use to send your letter to Ted 'Wacky Tie" Stevens and other representatives.

I demand that Congress protect freedom and openness on the Internet by passing legislation to protect network neutrality.

The Internet is our most democratic medium. It has grown exponentially, fueled innovation and altered how we communicate. Network neutrality is the guiding principle that has allowed for these advancements.

Now, for-profit interests want to violate the principle of network neutrality in order to increase their own profit margins. They must not be allowed to destroy the free and open culture of the web.

I strongly urge you and your colleagues in Congress to support robust net neutrality legislation that prohibits network operators from blocking, impeding or interfering with any lawful Internet traffic or prioritizing any content or services.

He said 'representatives', as in House of Representatives.

They do have an incumbent election rate of 98+%

The federal government is threatening to cut off funding for
  Pennsylvania if it does not accept the new replacement touch screen Vote-a-tons from Diabold
  (and no paper trail allowed).

From the same company that delivered the 'correct' results for the state of Ohio,
they are now targeting Pennsylvania:
VoteFixing

If I remember correctly, the vote totals can be editied for 'correctness' using MS Access?

Pennsylvania:
The state where Judges get payoffs
from Legislators to approve double digit pay increases
with secret midnight voting sessions:
Payoffs

The results of secret government:
GoldDiggaz

So, Lawmakers Threaten reporters for telling the truth:
"Screw them!"

Can we please call on the U.N. to police our local state government with independent observers?

Retired judges who, by the way, are appointed by the Governor. In this case, Herr Gropenfuhrer.

Perhaps there is something to be said for public funding of political campaigns. Though it might sound expensive, it is important for the government to be responsive to all people.

Those who are interested can take a look at the following for starters:
Public Campaign -- A New Kind of Reform Politics
Public Campaign Action Fund
Campaign Finance Reform: The Issue
Money In Politics - Common Cause

Call the toll free voter alert line: 1-866-MYVOTE1

In my opinion, the connection is not solid enough. I may give a large campaign contribution because I know you already follow my thinking in areas of importance.

The connection is business as usual in modern politics.

IMHO the only way to remove bribery from large donations would be a way for donations to be masked or semi-anonymous by routing them all through a trusted neutral third party, and making sure the candidates never knew who these benefactors are. I'm not sure if that can be reliably done.

"We're functioning in a - with peacetime restraints, with legal requirements in a wartime situation, in the information age, where people are running around with digital cameras and taking these unbelievable photographs and then passing them off, against the law, to the media, to our surprise, when they had not even arrived in the Pentagon."

-- sworn testimony of Secy. Rumsfeld

Exhibit B - handbills relegated to unseen areas

Exhibit C - cavity searches for journalists on World Press Freedom Day

Exhibit D - arguments in favor of squelching 527s

The point of the electronic demonstrations isn't to take down a site, according to Ricardo Dominguez, co-founder of the Electronic Disturbance Theater, or EDT, which is releasing a FloodNet program of its own. Unlike hackers' denial-of-service attacks, which often hijack computers against their users' will, EDT's JavaScript-based software depends on how many people use the program. "It's a way to let people around the world gather and let their presence be felt," Dominguez said.

Not that he would mind if a Republican server just happened to crash along the way. In 2002, at the EDT's direction, 43,000 people flooded the site of the World Economic Forum during its meeting in New York. The organization's website went offline for several hours following the demonstration.

Stupid Ashcroft

Its not stupid to cut off the hand that feeds you.

Stupid Ashcroft

Its not stupid to cut off the hand that feeds you.

Clearchannel owns 1,200 stations, if you think they don't control the NAB, and a large portion of the broadcast media in the United States, then you are living fantasies.

They also own almost all (literally) of the concert venues, and even the ticket agencies. They use tactics that would make Bill Gates proud, and they are in bed with theGeorge W. Bush administration.

When I have more than 5 minutes to spend digging up links, maybe I'll post a proper synopsis of what this evil empire is really about, although it'll be wasted at slashdot, and its probably been done better by somebody else anyway.

Lets vote this maniac out of office. If we don't then you can expect to see events unfold in a similar fashion to what transpired in Europe a little over 60 years ago, with the key difference being that weapons new exist which could destroy all life on this planet.

GWBush is a madman, and he has to go!!!

>big well funded companies like that tend to cover all their bases.

This is generally true, Microsoft does appear to contribute more to Replublicans, but that has shifted over time:


Of the nearly $1.2 million in PAC and soft money contributions Microsoft contributed between 1995 and 1998, 72 percent went to Republicans. But during the first 18 months of the 2000 election cycle, Microsoft, aware of the closeness of congressional races this fall, has upped its giving to Democrats. Of the $2.3 million Microsoft has given in PAC and soft money this election cycle, 55 percent has gone to Republicans

Microsoft spokesman Rick Miller told Roll Call that the company largely follows a "very basic business strategy to giving and that's a 60/40 approach - 60 percent to the party in the majority and 40 percent to the minority." Miller added, however, that while two years ago, Republicans were Microsoft's defenders, now the company is also seeing a number of Democrats take up its cause.

What exactly led you to equate "businessmen who used unscrupulous tactics" with "all successful businessmen"? Again, give me a break.

And, today it seems that the situation is not really different. The "Top 100" companies are all guilty of using offshore incorporation to comit tax evasion, leaving you and me stuck with the bill. Bill Gates is as rich as he is because he used his near monopoly power to illegally crush any competition. Amway rented a few politicians long enough to get the tax code specifically changed to exempt them. Success, in the financial sense at least, is limited to those who break the law, apparently. As Leona Helmsley once said "Taxes are for the little people" (that would be you and me).

Or take the great success story of Sam Walton. Everyone knows he's a good guy. The little fact that his stores use illegal tactics to crush unions, fire people who don't work overtime for free, and shave hours off their employee's time sheets, shouldn't mean he's a criminal, right?

I'm not going to claim that all successful corporations and people are criminal. But, I will admit that I can't think of any non-criminal Fortune 500 companies off the top of my head. Proove I'm wrong instead of demanding breaks (which Wal-Mart employees are routinely denied), show me examples of ultra rich companies and individuals which *aren't* criminal.

uh, since they figured out which palms to grease

One Microsoft Way. That is the address listed on Microsoft's March 31, 1998, donation of $99,316 in computer software to the Republicans. The contribution vaulted Microsoft into the number one spot among computer company campaign contributors so far in the 1997-98 election cycle. The software giant has given more than $298,000 in PAC, soft money, and individual contributions to federal candidates and parties. (This does not include an April $100,000 contribution to the Republican National Committee reported in Roll Call last month, which should show up in the RNC's next monthly filing.) Microsoft's recent contributions places it ahead of Oracle, which has given nearly $218,000, 97 percent to Democrats. Not only has Microsoft dramatically increased its giving over the last several years -- it ranked only 16th among computer companies for the 1991-92 election cycle -- but it has changed its party leanings. In the 1992 cycle, Microsoft gave Democrats 79 percent of its contributions. This figure has dropped to 33 percent for the 1997-98 election cycle. Microsoft's dominance in political contributions comes as the Justice Department may be poised to file an antitrust lawsuit against the company.

also checkout the Microsoft Playbook

Between January 1, 1995 and June 30, 2000, Microsoft contributed nearly $3.5 million in political contributions to the national parties and to federal candidates. Much of this came during the first 18 months of the 2000 election cycle, when the company contributed $2.3 million.

You mean that we might see more than 98% of incumbents re-elected?

A 5-1 funding advantage is what does that. Spamming voters can't exactly make it worse.

>Even incumbent politicans risk getting the boot if they rub special interest groups (especially those with deep pockets) the wrong way.

The evidence suggests otherwise

Direct hard money contributions to the campaigns haven't been nearly as much of a factor as the soft money, which amounted to half a billion dollars in the 1999-2000 election cycle.

I agree with a recent editorial in The Atlanta Journal Constitution that hopes the SCOTUS upholds the McCain-Feingold closing of soft money loopholes.

Find your Representatives Here

Simply enter your zip code, and type your message to your representative. You can also e-mail the president, although I'm not sure it will do as much good. Let's defeat this one!

Heh, that's funny. You could campaign on a platform of raping the corpses of underage pandas and still get releected to the House so long as you keep getting the campaign contributions that allow your panda raping policies to be As Seen On TV. Representatives. Good one.

House Representatives have a 98% reelection rate. Why? Well, because they enjoy a 5 to 1 advantage in campaign funding over their opponent(s), and Joe Sixpack trusts the candidate who can afford to be "As Seen On TV".

The more evil Berman gets, the more he's likely to be reelected. Apparently it doesn't pay to be an honest politician.

But Berman isn't the problem, he's just a particularly blatant symbol of it. Contributing to the EFF is just papering over the cracks. Campaign reform, or civil disobedience, or outright revolt is the only way to get these parasites off of us.

> Actually, in 1984, the government itself bombs it's own citizens

That's never made clear. It's implied, but the book also says that the wars are genuine, just small scale. You can attribute the rocket bombs to Oceana, Eurasia or Eastasia, if you think it makes any difference.

>just maybe... it's to aide other nations and international organizations (i.e. United Nations & NATO) in providing not just domestic security, but global security.

Your "security" is the other guy's "corrupt imperalism" though. Security isn't synonymous with global good. Global peace would be good, but security doesn't mean peace, it means defending your interests. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to be part of Oceana rather than Eurasia, but that doesn't mean that I can't question each of Oceana's actions on their own merits. Helping in Bosnia and Somalia in the name of security was good. Leveraging predatory trade deals and propping up dictators (*cough* Saddam *cough*) in the name of security is plus ungood.

>n 1984, there was no democratic elections, but there are in the U.S. (make all the lame comments you want about the Supreme Court "giving" the presidency to Bush).

The Supreme Court gave the Presidency to Bush. Funnily enough, that doesn't suck any less with time. Incumbents get relected because they enjoy a five to one finance advantage over challengers. That's what campaign contributions means, and that's why corporations continue to control US politics. They can buy more airtime, and people will always vote for the guy "As Seen On TV".

From the point of view of Eurasia, and even Airstrip One, the US is split between very right wing and ultra right wing. Even that needs qualifying though, as right wing often implies small, hands off government. Both parties in the USA look nearly identical from outside, being (demonstrably if not in rhetoric) in favour of big government, domestic surveillance, huge military, national brainwashing of children, social inequality, with cheap gas and two hundred channels of garbage TV for all. Fiddling around the edges with Medicare and affirmative action doesn't really distinguish them, especially when the "liberals" appear to be a bunch of spineless patsies too terrified of being labelled Un-American to dare to say the word "socialism", let alone propose policies that benefit society rather than the individual.

Got a bit off track there. Don't get me wrong, the USA is a wonderful country, it just looks a little different from outside, even when viewed from other parts of Oceana.

98% of House incumbents get reelected. He could suggest a bill in favor of allowing Mickey Mouse to come round and assrape your kids (physically rather than just financially), and it wouldn't matter, because as far as Joe America is concerned, it's better the devil you know from his reelection compaign than the devil you don't.

Hatch will keep in his seat until they scrape his festering corpse out of it. Or perhaps a bit longer, depending on whether his corpse's reelection campaign has already been funded by the *AA.

Republicans get just a bit more than the Democrats.

Both sums are really sick though.

In Minot, North Dakota, a train derailed in the wee hours of a cold January morning in 2002. After the accident, Minot was covered in a toxic cloud of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer that killed one person. But when local law enforcement officials tried to warn the community by calling radio station KCJB, they couldn't get through to anyone. Finally, local officials reached station staff by calling them at home, but the snafu lost valuable time.

Media giant Clear Channel owns all six of Minot's radio stations. Local news for the radio public in Minot is now served by one full-time news employee staffing all of the city's stations. So when an emergency struck, local radio in Minot struck out.

Techies like you and I do, and I would rather cast my lot with fellow techies who share in my pain.

Success comes from failure if you dare to try again, revise, adapt, and overcome. I don't see why we should continue to bend over for spammers if the possibility exists that they will exploit a new system for mail transfer.

Personally, the SMTP system has rendered e-mail useless. I'd accept a challenge system, whitelists, or whatever else someone comes up with if it meant I could communicate with my family and friends effectively. As it stands, 100-200 spam messages are jamming the transmission.

Does anyone know how to donate to NASA? I'm not sure if it's even possible, but I want to do something to support the space program. This tragedy is even more far-reaching than the lives and the families of the astronauts -- it threatens the future of space exploration. The best way to honor the astronauts is to continue manned space missions with renewed vigor. I disagree with the view that this disaster is senseless. More can often be learned from failures than from successes, but although more funding for the space program is the obvious answer to me, I fear the the opposite will be the result. I encourage /.ers to write their congresspeople in support of the space program.

Or go here to look up more on contributions.

Or go here to look up more on contributions.

This is a fairly common misconception that political parties "reward" those that supported them financially.
You'll probably find that the reason that a group gives donations to a party is because they feel that the party thinks in a similar way to they do.

Did you read the linked article? They quote documents that damn-near say they'll let you write your own laws for a quarter million. For example:

Nicholson enclosed a copy of the RNC's health care proposals and asked Heimbold for his suggestions to improve it. He also included an outline of GOP lawmakers were doing involving health care legislation.

In the next paragraph, Nicholson encouraged Bristol-Myers -- already a GOP donor -- to give $250,000

Guess what? Bristol-Myers gave $291,200

READ IT! The letters and internal memos are disgusting! We're not talking about corporations supporting parties and candidates that they happen to agree with, we are talking about selling political influence. Why else would all these companies hand equal amounts of soft money to BOTH parties?

-

Open Secrets is absolutely the BEST source of information on who has bought who in our political system.

KNOW WHO OWNS YOUR CONGRESSMAN.

The soft money Laundromat over at CommonCause.org also has a good deal of information for the would-be informed citizen.

By Joining one of the many organizations fighting corruption. Thats how. Nothing better than supporting the folks that have been fighting the good fight for years.

Gas is not subsidized by the government, it is taxed

Read this article. Gas is most certainly subsidised, only it's through the virtually free use of public lands. Of course, then there are the wars we start to protect our cheap source of gas...

From your previous post, i rather suspected that you're (formally or informally) trolling for the Dems, but this one proves it. As much as i dislike this phony and destructive Left-Right political paradigm, people like you (and that right-wing idiot who didn't do any fact checking) insist on keeping the ball rolling.

My Sincere Apologies to the thinking/rational members of the /. Community for the excesive length, but "tossed off" facts require real context. SORRY!

Let's deconstruct some of the above post, why don't we?

"Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans.

In the last two Federal cycles, Republicans received about 625 million dollars and Democrats received 449 million, or the Democrats recieved about 70% of revenues the Republicans received. Don't know about where you live, but around here, 449 MILLION DOLLARS is a lot of money.

here are some links to real data, you can find verified numbers for just about anything, if you look;

Common Cause
Judical Watch
Federal Election Commission
Roll Call Magazine
Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative info site
Vote dot Com
TownHall dot Com
Pew Research Center (reasonably balanced/verified poll data)

You also neglected to mention some rather important things. Especially as you seem to be attempting to tie the current economic probs to a particular party.

1. The vast majority of Technology CEOs supported Clinton and Gore, and routinely give big donations to the Democratic Party.

2. The vast majority of CEOs in the Finance sectors (stock brokerages, investment banks, bond houses) are also Democrats and are amongst the Dems biggest contributors

3. The Republican Party gets much more of its money from individual "grass roots" contributors (i.e., people sending in twenty or fifty bucks) than the Democratic Party does.

Whereas, the Democratic Party gets the vast majority of its donations from corporations, with very few dollars coming from "grass roots" donations. That's a kinda important point in this discussino, since you seem to be so wound about corporate donations.

4. The two largest contributor groups of the Democratic Party are two of the most regressive and damaging special interests in America. Teachers Unions (NOT the teachers themselves -- for whom i have HUGE respect by and large) and Trial Lawyers.

Teachers Unions have gutted and stalled any meaningful educational reform in this country for 30 years, while students' test scores have plummeted (and they continue to actively obstruct schoool reform) and Trial Lawyers are making it virtually impossible for anyone to start a new business in America without hugely expensive liability insurance (which many entrepeneurs cannot afford). I've done several tech startups in Cali -- next one WON'T be here, i'm done with this messed up state.

Trial lawyers are also increasing the price of virtually every product we buy with frivolous deep pockets liability lawsuits.

The key determinent in politcal fundraising actually seems to be, not so much supposed politcal affiliation, but rather who has control of the House. When the Dems had control of the House (and the White House) they outraised the Republicans by about an average of 20%.

The actual reality is that corporations will give money to whoever can deliver the goods. That will always favor the Party in the Majority. We have the best legislators money can (and does) buy. But, why would any corporation want to waste money on a legislator in the Minority??? What sense does that make? You spend money to buy influence, PERIOD.

When the Republicans took control of the House, they found that they could outraise the Dems, especially in "party building" monies. The reason is generally held to be that whoever controls the House, controls the purse strings. If you're looking for bucks, you go to the Majority Party.

"Once again you are lying. Insdustries give much more money to republicans while unions tend to give more to democrats. It's the classic struggle. Teachers, cops, firemen, plumbers etc support democrats while CEOs support republicans."

nice troll! actually cops and firefighters vote mostly republican (about 68% nationwide), teachers do indeed vote mostly democrat (about 82% nationwide -- though that's starting to change -- there's been nearly a 10% increase nationwide of teachers who are voting republican in the last decade, whoda thunk it?)

(i have no idea how plumbers vote), you're sidestepping the fact that it's actually police and fire unions who give big amounts of their members' dues to far-left candidates.

"All of this adds up to the grim fact that republicans get a ton more money then democrats over all.

True kinda/sorta, but certainly NOT "..a ton more", through the next election cycle, there will probably be about 18-22% advantage for the Republicans. Or about the same numbers that the Dems had over the Republicans when they controlled the House and Senate.

A significant difference, but certainly not fatal. Clearly the Dems aren't attacting voters the way they used to. The Republicans are (and have always been) the "Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight", when it comes to image projection. So, that pretty much suggests that the Dems are just losing their appeal. The Republicans are usually not adroit enough at attack politics, they're too busy blowing off their own media toes. (Look at Bill Simon in Cali,-- this guy couldn't get a BJ in a whorehouse, what were the Republicans thinking????)

From about the 1960's to the late 1980's, the Dems had an (by your standards "large") advantage in money raising. When the Republicans and Gingrich took over the Congress in the '94 mid-terms, the money gap started favoring the Republicans.

My favorite though is "...Combine that with the conservative media and you can explain how they control the country."

Where would this conservatie media be? You've got the looney-tunes Washington Times, the spooky strange FoxNewsChannel and that's about it.

Meanwhile, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washingpost, Time, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC and CBS, and most big city newspapers might as well just print the DNC's "Message of the Day".

Limbaugh gives the Republicans a pretty large presence on talk radio. (despite a decade of dire predictions by the Left about Limbaugh fading away, he's still do quite well, fascinating. i woulda never thunk it.)

But the most successful "politics" shows on TV are O'Reilly (yeech, i'm waiting for Bill to allow a guest to complete a sentence before he starts screaming at them) and Larry King, who spends more time discussing his own opinons than his guests. I can't watch EITHER of them without getting a headache. So, I don't.

O'Reilly is hardly a conservative, and while King is technically a liberal, as O'Reilly continues to pummel King in the ratings, King has drifted back to the center.

So the vast majority of media in this country is pretty much Center-Left.

It is also boring, trite and doesn't spend any real time discussing any alternatives to the obviously dysfunctional Left-Right paradigm that has captured the votes of the majority of the few voting Americans and turned off/over about half the eligble voters in America.

I voted for Nader before, and it looks like i'll be doing it again in '04.

I'll go you one better - imagine you're a US President who doesn't get along with MicroSoft. Better yet, imagine you're a citizen in an America with a President that does.

I get the feeling that if microsoft wasn't a US company,they'd all feel differently. What if it was located in Iraq? Russia?

Now imagine that we live in a world where stocks in a Washington company are openly traded on international stock exchanges.

Microsoft gave $16M in political contributions in the last four years. Obviously it didn't go to waste. Time Magazine also has a good (although a little dated) article on the size and scope of Microsoft's intense lobbying effort since the antitrust trial started.

and forces the corporations to pay a massive financial tribute to the government (corporate taxes far exceeed corporate welfare).

For more details read this, what's that? Shall I quote it? Mmmmmmkay

the federal budget is top-heavy with corporate welfare. Counting tax breaks and expenditures, corporations and the rich snuffle up over $400 billion a year-- compare that to the $1400 billion in total expenditures, or to the $116 billion spent on programs for the poor.

Where's all that money go? There's direct subsidies to agribusiness ($18 billion a year), to export companies, to maritime shippers, and to various industries-- airlines, nuclear power companies, timber companies, mining companies, automakers, drug companies. There's billions of dollars in military waste and fraud. And there's untold billions in tax credits, deductions, and loopholes. Accelerated depreciation alone, for instance, is estimated to cost the Treasury $37 billion a year-- billions more than the mortgage interest deduction. (Which itself benefits the people with the biggest mortgages. But we should encourage home ownership, shouldn't we? Well, Canada has no interest deduction, but has about the same rate of home ownership.)

• And I don't mean consumers 'chose' dos back in 1981 and so it's gotta to be that way forever. I mean, just like in the US once a politician is democratically elected he isn't in power forever, every 2-4-6 years he has to be chosen again

As an aside, bear in mind that 90-98% of political incumbents are reelected in the USA, and that incumbents enjoy a huge advantage in attracting brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions. We've already accepted the idea of a monopoly in government; it hardly seems fair to punish business for adopting the same attitude (Microsoft could argue).

My god, every day brings a new lesson about how far the USA has slipped from its founding ideals. We're already at the level of Italy, it won't be long before we reach the old Soviet Union's level. Shudder.

Does anyone keep just lists of the Bills, voting records, etc. on these issues? Opensecrets.org does this for their issues, and Common Cause publicizes voting record for their issues, but I haven't seen anything like this for Geek issues.

Perhaps the EFF would do something like this, but I didn't find it on their Web site. Well, they are probably open to suggestions, especially with a contribution in the envelope!

3) a google search will provide a lot of information. This link provides a good summary. i would say for infants they are quick learners.

Frowning on an act would indicate some remedial conscience or morals, and as we see everyday corporations have NONE.

While you and I may believe that, evidently others do not.

We allow corporations to donate soft money, thereby influencing the political process, probably more so than the votes. We even allow them to give favors to candidates and politicians. They have property rights, can invent, can author creative works, can be exempted from laws, can buy other laws, can be sued, and can even sue for wrongs done to it! In the meantime, we also award companies for being "good corporate citizens"!

For something that only exists on paper, and that has no morals, ethics, conscience, spirit or life...corporations sure do have a lot of corporate rights. As if a they were "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...".

>> You mean the company that was such a major D party contributor?

According to this and to the major national newspapers in Switzerland, they certainly were not choosy when it came to brib^H^H^H^Hcontributing to the other party as well.

>>Ahh -- the one who found they could not bribe W as easily as Clinton and was exposed?

Without supporting facts, this looks like a "Post Hoc, Ergo Poster Hoc" fallacy (Enron got busted under the Bush administration, therefore the Clinton administration was corrupt and the Bush administration is not). I'm not saying that there is no causality, only that without solid facts, it's just wishful thinking.

Raymond