Slashdot Mirror

If you're inspired to become a gadfly to those who think they can turn you into a consuming conforming ruminant:

First off, check out Dennis Powell's advice on responding to the DOJ's attempt to give the Internet to MS.

Never let your senator or congressperson do anything that concerns you and your liberties without hearing from you.

I've never seen Common Cause mentioned here, but they are a real lobbying group who deserve your support and dollars, have done so for decades.

About the only ways to get post-60's/70's into most backend business systems is to either start with it (still get same out-of-date problem in five, ten or fifteen years) or to have the higher-ups declare that a particular system will be used. Too bad a lot of Linux companies are getting a bad rap. If the hype had kept going, a lot of higher-ups would probably have switched to *Open Source* systems just to be the first in their country club to have all-Linux accounting department.

Sorry about the cynicism but I've worked with migrating few small inventory and accounting systems to something from the 90's and none of them were pretty from the personal or technical point of view. Sometimes it's all about culture.

You can use Causenet at CommonCause.org to e-mail/fax/snail-mail your representatives about anything you like.

Not in market cap!

Sony's: $41.314B

Criminal Monopoly's: $352.2B

I think GE's bounces up higher than M$, but M$ is always way up there.

Criminal Monopoly's soft money

SONY's soft money

GE's soft money

Who do you want to pay off today?

black hats, you're our only hope for justice!!!

Not in market cap!

Sony's: $41.314B

Criminal Monopoly's: $352.2B

I think GE's bounces up higher than M$, but M$ is always way up there.

Criminal Monopoly's soft money

SONY's soft money

GE's soft money

Who do you want to pay off today?

black hats, you're our only hope for justice!!!

Not in market cap!

Sony's: $41.314B

Criminal Monopoly's: $352.2B

I think GE's bounces up higher than M$, but M$ is always way up there.

Criminal Monopoly's soft money

SONY's soft money

GE's soft money

Who do you want to pay off today?

black hats, you're our only hope for justice!!!

Now would be a good time to politely remind
the Attorney Generals of the various States
and remind them to fight this slap on the
wrist injustice being perpetrated for the
benefit of Ashcroft's campaign contributer:
Microsoft. For example, Ashcroftâ(TM)s Victory Committee last year received $10,000 in corporate soft money from Microsoft Corporation.

"Money has little to do with it (believe it or not..). Campaign financing is a very heavily regulated thing, and its not so simple as a lobbyist or group giving money to the congressman. Most people blame it on that, since they just dont know any better."

"Money has little to do with it (believe it or not..). Campaign financing is a very heavily regulated thing, and its not so simple as a lobbyist or group giving money to the congressman. Most people blame it on that, since they just dont know any better."

If you're interested in getting to the root cause by helping to support Campaign Finance Reform, check out http://www.commoncause.org/

-glenn

$16M in political contributions [Common Cause] by Microsoft in the last four years obviously didn't go to waste. Time Magazine and the BBC also have good (although a little dated) articles on the size and scope of Microsoft's intense lobbying effort since the antitrust trial started.

Take a second to jump off the MS/Republican campaign finance bashing. The fact is MS gave over $1 million to BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats in the last election. Check it out here: Top soft money donators during the 99-00 election cycle. While I do think it's likely that the Democrats would have handled this differently than the Republicans, there is no way that these donations were the sole reason or even a significant reason for MS getting off the hook in this way.

The fact is that big corporations tend to give lots of money to both parties so that both parties will find that company in good favor - take a look at how many times Time Warner, SBC, and other big companies show up on the list. And you know each of those companies has gotten favors from the government as they lobby for deregulation and merge into bigger monopolistic entities.

Money is everywhere in DC - it only gets your foot in the door. You gotta play the political game if you want all the benefits from your donations. Maybe a generous donation to the GOP helped the DoJ "decide" it was time to speed up the trial. The DoJ isn't backing off though - remember, MS is still guilty of being a monopoly and that will be seen to the end.

Cross yer fingers everyone. It isn't over yet...
t

Aside from the point made about imprisoning someone for making software, that remark was made in general and not just as a comment on this particular "injustice". Without going into a whole diatribe, comparing the events that lead to the American Revolution (what other revolution would I be referring to in english, and how often is the term 'Revolutionary War' used to describe anything else) to current abuses perpetrated by the private sector, would need to include deaths caused by HMOs, deaths caused by drug companies (cures aren't as profitable as expensive, long-term treatment), corporate slave-labor, crimes against the environment, bribery, money laundering, I could go on and on. So yes, the revolutionary war started over less.

Illegal!? this is illegal. These labels are licensed by the public. We gave them the privelege of providing a service that we would reward with our hard earned money; they subverted our position to buy legislative influence and squelch all activity that might take a bite out of profits. And I'm supposed to abide by legislation that demands I continue to line their pockets!? At this point, vilifying music piracy is about as insulting as a prohibition law. When the RIAA sets out to step on the rights of all citizens, including the people it's comprised of (whether they can see past their wallets to realize it or not), it's going to get a collective pimp-slap -- because the RIAA is our bitch, and they need to be reminded of that.

That's fairly short-sighted. You assume that customers who are being lied to will somehow figure it out, and that without regulations and legal action they'll be able to prevent the same deception in the future. The government *is* the means through which customers fight back. Corporations are licensed (employed) *by* the government to serve the public, and when they abuse this privilege the people use the government to 'fire' or (more likely) penalize them. What's at issue here I think, is that there's many a capitalist posing as a libertarian, who would love to tell you about how the horrible government wants to push communistic restrictions on poor Corporate America. Nevermind giving consumers a mechanism to fight greed and deception when they threaten the rights and freedoms of all people, from a CEO to a garbage man. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why a business entity, that has to abide by the constitutional rights of it's customers, would set out to destroy the entity that enforces those rights, all in the name of profit. (Serving customers who have rights, and the means to enforce those rights, doesn't maximize profits). It's as if the government is simply competition to be defeated. Let's just hope the government doesn't become the victim of a hostile takeover.

Microsoft Breakup Decision Overturned by the Court of Appeals

Judge Jackson had compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers".

by Michael Jennings

(Thursday, June 28, 2001) Today the Court of Appeals handling the Microsoft anti-trust case overturned the lower court's decision to split Microsoft into two or more companies. The breakup would have placed the Microsoft Windows operating system in one company and created a second business for everything else.

This decision of the Court of Appeals has been widely recognized as fair because of the behaviour of the judge of the lower court, in which he had not given the required appearance of impartiality. Judge Jackson had, for example, compared Microsoft to "drug traffickers", and Bill Gates to Napoleon. (See page 111 of the Court's decision [PDF format]).

The Court of Appeals found that Judge Jackson's 206-page Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal conduct, was entirely acceptable. It was his conduct outside the courtroom that was a violation of the code of conduct for United States judges. (For more about this, see pages 111 to 115 of the decision.)

Earlier, many people had praised Judge Jackson's skill in handling the case inside the courtroom. Technically oriented observers considered the Findings of Fact to be very well informed.

However, the penalty that Judge Jackson recommended for Microsoft was voided because of his public misconduct. The Court of Appeals directed that a new district judge examine the case, using the Findings of Fact as a starting point.

The story is very widely reported. For examples, see: ABC, AP, BBC, Washington Post, Seattle Times, CNet, The Industry Standard, Reuters, Guardian, Motley Fool, and MSNBC. The NY Times article requires that you register. Registration is free.

Silicon Valley.com said "[Microsoft] can continue its brutal practices for a while longer..."

There were two parts to the anti-trust case, 1) the Findings of Fact, in which Microsoft was found to have engaged in illegal activity, and 2) the remedy, which is what would happen as a result of the court finding illegal activity. Judge Jackson had ordered that Microsoft be broken into two companies. It is only this second part, the remedy, that has been voided (vacated) by the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals wrote, "We vacate the judgment on remedies, because the trial judge engaged in impermissible ex parte [outside the court] contacts by holding secret interviews with members of the media and made numerous offensive comments about Microsoft officials in public statements outside of the courtroom, giving rise to an appearance of partiality."

The Court of Appeals added, "Although we find no evidence of actual bias, we hold that the actions of the trial judge seriously tainted the proceedings before the District Court and called into question the integrity of the judicial process."

The ruling of the Court of Appeals was unanimous, by a 7-0 vote.

More links:

Open Secrets.org report on Microsoft soft money donations

Common Cause report on Microsoft political contributions

Antitrust Law and Economics Review

Older Articles:

Microsoft Unfazed by Threat of New Antitrust Suits (Thursday, June 21, 2001)

What, me worry? Microsoft's Ballmer stays cool, confident, composed. (PC World, June 17, 1998)

Michael Jennings
Futurepower®
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.

Tel: (503) 233-7820
Fax: (419) 781-4606
E-Mail: jennings_michael @ hotmail.com (remove spaces)

Futurepower is a registered trademark.
Copyright 2001

That's a gutsy statement from a slashdot reader, that probably realizes that corporations can lobby for laws like the DMCA, and then prosecute people, and prompt raids to confiscate and arrest people who have DVD's that are region-coded for another country. Then there's the poison water and dead ecosystems from oil spills, the Nike sweatshops, the Gap sweatshops, the genetically altered food that isn't labelled because genetics isn't an exact science and corporations afraid that if people knew what was genetically 'enhanced' their profits would suffer. Did I mention that the corporations that make genetically altered foods are in this business because their previous business of making chemical weapons dried up? Then there's corporate welfare. Examples of this include billionaire Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's successful effort to build a $300 million dollar stadium for his billionaire Seattle Seahawks, and have taxpayers foot the bill. Corporate Welfare costs the country at least $150 billion a year, and it goes to companies like GM, IBM, AT&T, GE, and Motorola, to name a few. Drug companies and HMO's lobby on a daily basis to increase profit at the expense of human lives. They profit fine in Canada, despite being required to actually make life saving medicine affordable. You might've heard about elderly people taking buses there to get pills. Tobacco companies planned advertising campaigns to specifically target 11-18 year olds, and when the research on the results came out, when the lawsuits started flying, they bought off congress to bring the backlash to an end.

To say that any of this is the product of a free country and a government not empowered to take away rights is naive. The founders never meant for corporations to have rights. WHY SHOULD THEY? Why should an entity comprised of people who ALL have rights that are absolute have rights of it's own!? It's NOT EVEN A PERSON. And in fact the founders understood that business HAD to be regulated in order to preserve democracy for everyone, from a farmer to a CEO. But greed won out, and now we get all our news and information from corporate elitists. And people have a distorted view of democracy; believing that profiteers somehow have their best interests in mind, 'surely they're not driven by PROFIT and profit alone! Damn that evil government for picking on a poor multinational corporation!' And with attitudes like that none of it will change until corporations ARE the government.

Think of it this way; we all hate an oppressive government. This is America. Echelon, Carnivore, they both deserve to be brought to an end. The thing is, if you have a beef with the government in a democracy, you can run for office and change the government. At least you used to be able to. But ask any politician of any party what it takes to win an election, and they will tell you that these days, the guy with the most money wins. And where does that money come from? Corporations.

Are you saying that Democrats are almost as greedy and corrupted as Republicans? My god, what a revelation.

"Oh, and if you read your links, they gave a vast majority of it to the parties in general, not to individuals ($5k limit, it makes it hard to buy people)."

I would say that $5k is plenty, but that's irrelevant since the limit means nothing. And if the limit could work despite non-federal accounts and pseudo-independent PACs, the contributions would still be limitless because, thanks to those loveable lobbyists, contributions are .

"So, if they They bought whatever / whomever they needed, why did this not happen years earlier, ie: before the first verdict?"

Check the original links, which I'm sure you poured over, given your snide response; Microsoft has only been a corrupting force on Capitol Hill for a little less than 2 years.

I didn't appreciate the judge botching this up either, but obviously you have it all figured out. And you're not the only one who shares that opinion of slashdot. Hell, I would say at least 10% of slashdot readers think that 100% of slashdot readers are mindless anti-MS zealots. Which leads me to believe that around 10% of slashdot readers are morons who have yet to figure out that they're reading slashdot.

Yes, I do.

And I most likely 'conveniently' overlooked money (bribes) from those companies, because they were 'conveniently' not the topic. It's all a giant conspiracy. John Katz is my gay lover.

If you want to look up contributions on any company or organization, you can also go here. But you could've also looked them up on the sites I originally linked. Apparently while I was conspiring to keep you from finding out about other companies and their contributions, I overlooked the fact that I was linking a search engine that can be used to find contributions of any company who's name you enter. Doh!

Exhibit-A, Exhibit-B, Exhibit-C.

Wow, here I am living in a country that was founded on communism! I had no idea! I mean, it was our forefathers that wrote corporate law, and understood the need to protect democracy against the plutocratic nature of capitalism. If I remember correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin (he owned a newspaper business, you know) who commented that an unregulated business could amass huge amounts of money, and without restrictions on rights and ownership, it could corrupt our government -- burying it in greed, and it would own the very medium through which people could ever hear about their crimes.

What a nutcase! Damn communist, that's what he was.

Wow, here I am living in a country that was founded on communism! I had no idea! I mean, it was our forefathers that wrote corporate law, and understood the need to protect democracy against the plutocratic nature of capitalism. If I remember correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin (he owned a newspaper business, you know) who commented that an unregulated business could amass huge amounts of money, and without restrictions on rights and ownership, it could corrupt our government -- burying it in greed, and it would own the very medium through which people could ever hear about their crimes.

What a nutcase! Damn communist, that's what he was.

Wow, here I am living in a country that was founded on communism! I had no idea! I mean, it was our forefathers that wrote corporate law, and understood the need to protect democracy against the plutocratic nature of capitalism. If I remember correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin (he owned a newspaper business, you know) who commented that an unregulated business could amass huge amounts of money, and without restrictions on rights and ownership, it could corrupt our government -- burying it in greed, and it would own the very medium through which people could ever hear about their crimes.

What a nutcase! Damn communist, that's what he was.

Wow, here I am living in a country that was founded on communism! I had no idea! I mean, it was our forefathers that wrote corporate law, and understood the need to protect democracy against the plutocratic nature of capitalism. If I remember correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin (he owned a newspaper business, you know) who commented that an unregulated business could amass huge amounts of money, and without restrictions on rights and ownership, it could corrupt our government -- burying it in greed, and it would own the very medium through which people could ever hear about their crimes.

What a nutcase! Damn communist, that's what he was.

Wow, here I am living in a country that was founded on communism! I had no idea! I mean, it was our forefathers that wrote corporate law, and understood the need to protect democracy against the plutocratic nature of capitalism. If I remember correctly, it was Benjamin Franklin (he owned a newspaper business, you know) who commented that an unregulated business could amass huge amounts of money, and without restrictions on rights and ownership, it could corrupt our government -- burying it in greed, and it would own the very medium through which people could ever hear about their crimes.

What a nutcase! Damn communist, that's what he was.

AOL Time Warner accounts for around 1/5 of all media in the country. It's a big deal because in places like my hometown, Time Warner is the ONLY cable provider -- meaning they control EVERYTHING that EVERYONE SEES on TV. I live in Charlotte, NC, population 600,000. But TW-Cable goes beyond Charlotte, and serves most of the 6 million people who live within a 100 mile radius. It's a big deal because people don't hear about things like this if Time Warner doesn't WANT them to. And it's a big deal because they can manipulate people into complacent lazy asses who would defend Time Warner over the rights of their own family and friends. Are there any good reasons to oppose diversity of choice?? And for god sakes, make up your mind. Maybe you just like to argue.

This is my problem with the Libertarian party, and you've summed it up nicely. They understand what's right and what's wrong, but they're so misguided by anti-government rhetoric that they blind themselves to any possibility that a greedy, money-making machine, might be as big a problem as an oppressive government. Corporations are made up of people with rights like you and I, but the 'fascist government' you despise gave the corporation itself, the rights of an individual. A soulless machine with profit as it's only priority, has the same constitutional rights as a person with morals and ethics. These 'benefits' are bought and paid for, but despite the fact that they're sold by a corrupt government (that I imagine you agree is a problem), liberals can't see beyond a starry-eyed dream of 'capitalism in a free market'. At least, not long enough to admit that Corporate America is just as problematic. The founding fathers wrote corporate law for a reason, and it became unenforceable when corporations won the rights of a person. We can't restrict people from owning more than one home or business, we can't restrict their free speech, or their right to support an elected official with their hard-earned money. So now we can't Viacom/Infinity from owning half the radio stations in the country; now laws that regulate how many they can own are being misconstrued and shot down as 'unconstitutional'. We can't keep corporations from burying our government in bribes, because the money they spend is protected by the freaking 1st amendment! And when they use their mass-media ownership to give the entire country breaking news on crib safety instead of corporate welfare, there's nothing we can do but pile up on the couch and kiss democracy good-bye -- because corporate america is the American dream! A pristine ideal of profit in the free world! Besides, who cares about a little plutocaracy? If we don't watch dateline tonight our babies might die!!

/vent

I couldn't agree more. Call me sappy, but reading a story like this is a really uplifting thing for me. Everyday it seems that I wake up to a new injustice. A CIPA, a UCITA, a CPRM, a new report on money in politics ignored by M$NBC because they helped put the money there, lives ruined in a drug war, lives taken in a legalized cartel. The frustration builds until it seems hopeless -- and then it's all erased by one day in a story like this one.

Anyway, enough with the mushy stuff, I just hope I'll be first in line.

Oh, and while you're at it, get at the root problem, and join Common Cause.

Stop being such fsking victims. It's lame. Take control of your information.

-glenn

I think it's idiotic on both sides to label the other party 'the bad guys', as if they weren't organizations made up of individuals with different views and morals.

How are Republicans so pristine, when the Hagel amendment was possibly the worst thing that could've ever happened to campaign finance reform? Everyone I see supporting Hagel talked about how it limited soft money, how it was real reform because it also limited other groups and parties -- no one would address the fact that limiting (not banning) soft money, would have had the complete opposite effect of reform, because it would've been written into law that soft money was an acceptable practice, not deserving of complete removal. We're talking about illegal contributions here. A practice that isn't even necessary; that only exists to serve greed; to "legalize bribes and legalize extortion".

How are the Democrats any better, when John Breaux co-wrote the Hagel Amendment?

How is John McCain so evil? When did he try to put groups like the EFF out of the loop? Who does the EFF contribute to, exactly? Maybe you mean the restrictions on TV ads, which require disclosure of the people funding it? Restrictions that only ban an ad when it's aimed at electing 1 person or the other, and even then only when it's within 60 days of the election. Restrictions that have no effect on ads which only list facts or compare stances, without saying "So and so voted to kill babies." Restrictions that, despite that, still raise questions about the right of people to criticize their government, and so they are restrictions that many people (including McCain) didn't support. And when they were passed, people like McCain voted against the non-severability amendment so that when those restrictions are removed as unconstitutional they won't destroy McCain-Feingold.

How can Democrats be so bad with respectable people like Feingold, Joseph Biden, and John Edwards in their ranks?

There's good people, and there's stupid people. Both parties have their share. And I blame the way this slanted article was phrased for ever starting all this nonsense.

I think it's idiotic on both sides to label the other party 'the bad guys', as if they weren't organizations made up of individuals with different views and morals.

How are Republicans so pristine, when the Hagel amendment was possibly the worst thing that could've ever happened to campaign finance reform? Everyone I see supporting Hagel talked about how it limited soft money, how it was real reform because it also limited other groups and parties -- no one would address the fact that limiting (not banning) soft money, would have had the complete opposite effect of reform, because it would've been written into law that soft money was an acceptable practice, not deserving of complete removal. We're talking about illegal contributions here. A practice that isn't even necessary; that only exists to serve greed; to "legalize bribes and legalize extortion".

How are the Democrats any better, when John Breaux co-wrote the Hagel Amendment?

How is John McCain so evil? When did he try to put groups like the EFF out of the loop? Who does the EFF contribute to, exactly? Maybe you mean the restrictions on TV ads, which require disclosure of the people funding it? Restrictions that only ban an ad when it's aimed at electing 1 person or the other, and even then only when it's within 60 days of the election. Restrictions that have no effect on ads which only list facts or compare stances, without saying "So and so voted to kill babies." Restrictions that, despite that, still raise questions about the right of people to criticize their government, and so they are restrictions that many people (including McCain) didn't support. And when they were passed, people like McCain voted against the non-severability amendment so that when those restrictions are removed as unconstitutional they won't destroy McCain-Feingold.

How can Democrats be so bad with respectable people like Feingold, Joseph Biden, and John Edwards in their ranks?

There's good people, and there's stupid people. Both parties have their share. And I blame the way this slanted article was phrased for ever starting all this nonsense.

We have to distinguish here between

• 'politics' as a large and fuzzy-edged strand of human activity

• party politics - the mainstream political scene

The latter may well be under threat, but will likely continue to evolve in its characteristic hyper-darwinian way to "meet the challenges" of a "wired world". The threat is real, however, because there are some necessary relations between politics, power and information. With luck, in this limited sense of "politics", Jon Katz may be right.

Cynics have long held that politics is the applied science of lying and there is a grain of truth in that view - in real politics control of information is, if not all, at least a very great deal. Remember the 'science of lying' is a branch of information theory.

From the point of view of the politician, sustaining power is a matter of "getting the electorate to agree" - the news media are partners and sometime adversaries in the delicate game of defining what's important, what's out to lunch and what's irrelevant for the electorate.

It's a read-only client/server model, with very many clients and very few servers. Controlling the agenda effectively ('lying') is easy in this model.

With enhanced communications through computer networks, many other models are possible. Now this is a bit of a truism in the hacker community - and is often taken to mean some form of 'electronic democracy' where the government kindly devolves power through online referenda and focus groups and the like, but I think these other models are likely to be implemented over the (dead or horribly maimed) bodies of the old ones or expire themselves (viz the recent "vote auction" fiasco.)

At this relatively early stage of the game, where everyone is still waking up to what is happening, a lot of chips have still to fall and it's pretty much impossible to guess the specifics of the outcome. But as the information spectrum broadens, as it becomes easier and easier for information sharing, opinion forming and mass action to be co-ordinated by self-selecting groups, it's possible that strategies and models will emerge that actually challenge the power base of the existing poliitical system.

So what would be the napster / gnutella killer app for online activists?

Well, if Freenet delivers then that is probably going to help (the yet to come legal struggle over freenet - for which the recent cases can be seen as limbering up - will be interesting because it will identify those whose vested interests are threatened by it...) but I think by and large we already have the software tools in web media (you're looking at one!). We are still waiting for the concepts and 'forms of life' that will make these effective political tools.

One area that comes to mind is 'active consumerism' - buying according to ethical criteria - which if enacted on a really large scale can certainly have impact. Like the man said: "Get organised."

BTW: Politics is still very important to some people, eg microsoft - enough to spend a few million dollars on anyway. See: this article (based on this report) (just give me the report, already!)

We have to distinguish here between

• 'politics' as a large and fuzzy-edged strand of human activity

• party politics - the mainstream political scene

The latter may well be under threat, but will likely continue to evolve in its characteristic hyper-darwinian way to "meet the challenges" of a "wired world". The threat is real, however, because there are some necessary relations between politics, power and information. With luck, in this limited sense of "politics", Jon Katz may be right.

Cynics have long held that politics is the applied science of lying and there is a grain of truth in that view - in real politics control of information is, if not all, at least a very great deal. Remember the 'science of lying' is a branch of information theory.

From the point of view of the politician, sustaining power is a matter of "getting the electorate to agree" - the news media are partners and sometime adversaries in the delicate game of defining what's important, what's out to lunch and what's irrelevant for the electorate.

It's a read-only client/server model, with very many clients and very few servers. Controlling the agenda effectively ('lying') is easy in this model.

With enhanced communications through computer networks, many other models are possible. Now this is a bit of a truism in the hacker community - and is often taken to mean some form of 'electronic democracy' where the government kindly devolves power through online referenda and focus groups and the like, but I think these other models are likely to be implemented over the (dead or horribly maimed) bodies of the old ones or expire themselves (viz the recent "vote auction" fiasco.)

At this relatively early stage of the game, where everyone is still waking up to what is happening, a lot of chips have still to fall and it's pretty much impossible to guess the specifics of the outcome. But as the information spectrum broadens, as it becomes easier and easier for information sharing, opinion forming and mass action to be co-ordinated by self-selecting groups, it's possible that strategies and models will emerge that actually challenge the power base of the existing poliitical system.

So what would be the napster / gnutella killer app for online activists?

Well, if Freenet delivers then that is probably going to help (the yet to come legal struggle over freenet - for which the recent cases can be seen as limbering up - will be interesting because it will identify those whose vested interests are threatened by it...) but I think by and large we already have the software tools in web media (you're looking at one!). We are still waiting for the concepts and 'forms of life' that will make these effective political tools.

One area that comes to mind is 'active consumerism' - buying according to ethical criteria - which if enacted on a really large scale can certainly have impact. Like the man said: "Get organised."

BTW: Politics is still very important to some people, eg microsoft - enough to spend a few million dollars on anyway. See: this article (based on this report) (just give me the report, already!)

Put congressional voting records online

Did your congressperson vote for campaign finance reform? (Mine voted against it) Some organizations such as the ACLU and Common Cause keep track of a few issues, but normally I must learn the voting record from the candidates themselves before election. That forces me to parse their lies: "During my term, I increased funding for libraries and fought smut on the internet" translates to "I loaned libraries $100 and forced them to install useless $200 filters on their internet machines". If a few more people can go to the source and verify the politician's claims, then the politician won't have a free license to conveniently spin his story for re-election. A database that's searchable by topic would promote integrity in campaign literature and advertising.

Turn off the TV

What did Bush and Gore do with over $100,000,000 of campign money? 30 second commercials with thinly-veiled half-truths that should disgust any critical thinker. Television ads are the major reason why campaigns are so outrageously expensive. If you want third parties to introduce real issues into politics, then don't watch ads. Turn off the TV. That will even the chances for candidates with less money and more ideas. Then the greater influence will be the word-of-mouth from people who have researched the issues, not from a sensationalist appeal to undecided TV watchers.

Vote for a third party

Democrats insist that they are the only way to prevent Republicans from restricting abortion rights. Republicans keep right-wingers in the party by threatening: "if the Democrats gain power, they'll take away your guns." They've made those threats during every election for the past two decades. Don't let fear of the worst party prevent you from voting for the best. Don't worry about the magic of how new supreme court appointees will vote. Supreme Court members have suprised their nominators by voting fairly on the issues, not like the presidents intended. Don't let the Dems/Reps conspire to shut out third parties by restricting debates, by keeping campaign costs high, and by other means (for example, after Nader announced a rally in Flint, MI, then Clinton flew in for a seperate rally at the same time one block away). Vote your ideas!

It's worth reading to learnhow it's done.

There is no more justice,only money.

Why is Slashdot ignoring the reports of Rob Malda and Andover's huge illegal campaign contribution to the Democratic party?

Liar.

If Rob's leftist editorial slant wasn't enough, he and his supporters at Andover had to go and illegally contribute US$134 000 to the coffers of Algore.

Common Cause has a searchable database of soft money contributions. Searches for "Andover", "Slashdot", and "Malda" reveal no contributions to any of the parties.

Mainstream sources (www.wired.com) are already reporting about this lapse in campaign finance.

A search of wired turns up no such articles.

Julius Stine, public policy analyst at the Kennedy School of Government was quoted as saying

A search of Kennedy School's website reveals no such person named "Stine" or "Stein".

But it's not in their best interests to protect the Constitution, since their constituencies aren't providing them half as much cash as corporate sponsors and PACs. Katz might rail about corporatism and its effect on society, but the more concerning thing (to me, at least) is how you get popular control of government back from corporate/conglomerate interests. The problem in trying is that any candidate who doesn't pander to big money isn't gonna get the media exposure and other such rot (which costs oh-so-much) that it takes to win elections in the States.

I think you're going to find a common theme here - people with a clue are going beat themselves senseless trying to get the unwashed masses (hell, even coworkers and friends) to believe civil liberties online is as important as it is. Even r/t civiil liberties aren't a big concern among most people - just ask the average guy what he thinks of the ACLU, particularly when they're defending the rights of someone unpopular.

Here are some other links to inform all you Slashdotters of the way the world works these days: advertising

Corporate use of DNA

Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States

Corporate control of democracy

These are of course just the beginning of the debate. Recently, Ralph Nader and Phyllis Schafly (a pairing that boggles the mind) have united in an attempt to raise awareness regarding the commercial exploitation of children. There is advertising in this country that is targeted at children age 2!! The idea is to develop brand preferences to insure future profits. This makes me want to vomit.

All the Slashdot posts in the world will NOT CHANGE A THING. Go out and GET ORGANIZED.

> 1 Constituent face to face meeting = 100 Lobby or PAC meetings

Those are some fascinating numbers and I'd like to know who told you that .. probably an elected representative who hopes you actually believe it.

> Your voice does have an impact and just giving up because big bad corporation has more money than me just doesn't hold water.

I think it holds a lot of water and at least I don't really believe most elected representatives really listen to what I have to say. Before pointers to some hard information I'll give you an anecdote from my own experience:
The Michigan Music is World Class Campaign, led by Tom Ness, a local independent magazine publisher (and Green Party candidate for US Senate), was part of the national movement to relegalize low power FM radio stations. In this process, the MMWCC petitioned the Michigan State Legislature to pass a resolution in support of a favorable FCC ruling. The MMWCC presented each and every representive thousands of constituent letters of support, including dozens of community and religious organizations. Many cities (I think up to 45 at last count) in MI passed resolutions in support. Resolutions are non-binding and simply and expression of the constituency the legislature purports to represent. Members of the MMWCC visited EACH and EVERY member of the legislature at least twice face to face. Every member was presented with well put-together packets of information. They didn't even bring the issue to the floor. Why? Four words: Michigan Association of Broadcasters (aka Big Bad [media] corporations with lots of money.) And this is how a group with a simple demand (with incredibly limited adverse consequences -- the only consequence I can think of is less money from the MAB), and an incredible range of constituent support is treated -- how do you think a simple individual's concern will actually affect any decision your "representative" will make?

> Pick up the phone and call to get a meeting. It's that simple.

And they might even meet with you, shake your hand, and nod their head politely, and listen with all seriousness... and then turn to the folks who are slipping $10000+ checks into their campaign funds when it comes time to make decisions on the floor.

For some info online check out:
Common Cause

Also, I recommend Jim Hightower's new book, If the Gods Had Meant Us to Vote, They'd Have Given Us Candidates which is a great read and dishes out some dirt on who gets money from whom and what they get in return.

Campaign contributions buy access to politicians -- even most politicians will admit that. Only 4% of the population in this country donates $$ to campaigns, and most of those are less than $200. Only .05% donate more than $1000. Many federal house races can cost well over $1 million -- who do you think your "representative" pays real attention to? The 99.9% of people who donate less than $1000? In fact, politicians set up special golf outings, retreats, and other opportunities for "face time" that their big donors get to participate in exclusively.

You might say: "Just because they take the money, doesn't mean they do what the people giving them the money say?" Yeah right. If their voting record doesn't match up with a company's interest, the plug is pulled. So if your "representative" is voting in the interest of the 99.9% that don't fill his/her pocket, and those votes happen to contracdict the interest of the money that is filling their pocket .. well, let's just say they don't last very long.