Slashdot Mirror

The 2011 deficit was $1.299T. The 2011 military budget was unauditable it was so literally out of control, but nearly $1.3T even using the government's (surely undercounting) numbers. Of course cutting the military isn't the only cut, but if it were cut to $400B that would require raising taxes only $400B to balance the budget.

Just making capital gains for people collecting over $250K income the same rate as regular income would raise over $200B of that. A 0.1% financial transaction tax would raise over $100B more. Ensuring that people earning over $1M paid at least 30% taxes, regardless of deductions and loopholes, gets another $35B a year under the Buffett Rule. The remaining $50B or so can be raised by closing loopholes like the scam of borrowing against shares, never selling them until your heirs do when you die. Making "carried interest" by stock traders taxable as income instead of capital gains is another $18B.

That's not many tax changes. They're all already in Congress, including in Obama's budget sent there today, except the financial transaction tax is only proposed at a piddling 0.03%. You can argue about whether any or all of them are worth doing. But it's perfectly clear that cutting defense and raising taxes can produce enough money to balance the budget, and indeed to pay down the debt until the interest no longer generates its own sizeable deficit demanding more debt.

the Santorum is surging.

It isn't "said" at all, when the actual figure is 66%, and I claimed 60 some percent, is it? I also imagine the FTC would have gained much from your insights, and how you 'aren't buying' the accidental thing. I am sure they could have used you during the investigation. I am sure you could explain to them how it was unbelievable that a device designed to record all kinds of telemetry data might accidentally save too much.

Your anecdote about a friend being upset about youtube ad prices was very informative though. I'm just not sure what it was informing us of.

I in no way claimed Google were saints. In fact, Google is an amoral, greedy corporation driven by desire for money. Which makes them exactly the same as any other corporation. I just don't see why they are being vilified for things they aren't doing, or are completely upfront about.

Except that the CPB actually is doing that [thehill.com]. But why distract you Republicans with the actual facts in reality, when you can just say whatever suits the babbleflow from your talkradio puppeteers?

Wow, the Republican puppets have a lot of mod points today.

Indeed. But Republican puppets can't do anything about the CFB actually doing its job protecting consumers:

In the first six months of its existence, the CFPB fielded 13,210 complaints from consumers via its phone line and online submission forms, as well as referrals from other regulators, the report said. Of those complaints, 9,307 were tied to credit cards, with another 2,326 pertaining to mortgages.

On credit cards, billing disputes were the most common complaint, totaling 13.7 percent of responses for that financial product. Under the mortgages category, 38.2 percent of complaints deal with a situation where someone is unable to make their mortgage payment.

[...]

So far, a little over half of the complaints received have been settled between the company and the consumer "with relief." Another 30.6 percent have been settled without a mutually agreed upon remedy, while companies are still reviewing another 11.9 percent.

Except that the CPB actually is doing that [thehill.com]. But why distract you Republicans with the actual facts in reality, when you can just say whatever suits the babbleflow from your talkradio puppeteers?

Wow, the Republican puppets have a lot of mod points today.

Indeed. But Republican puppets can't do anything about the CFB actually doing its job protecting consumers:

In the first six months of its existence, the CFPB fielded 13,210 complaints from consumers via its phone line and online submission forms, as well as referrals from other regulators, the report said. Of those complaints, 9,307 were tied to credit cards, with another 2,326 pertaining to mortgages.

On credit cards, billing disputes were the most common complaint, totaling 13.7 percent of responses for that financial product. Under the mortgages category, 38.2 percent of complaints deal with a situation where someone is unable to make their mortgage payment.

[...]

So far, a little over half of the complaints received have been settled between the company and the consumer "with relief." Another 30.6 percent have been settled without a mutually agreed upon remedy, while companies are still reviewing another 11.9 percent.

Except that the CPB actually is doing that. But why distract you Republicans with the actual facts in reality, when you can just say whatever suits the babbleflow from your talkradio puppeteers?

Wow, the Republican puppets have a lot of mod points today.

Except that the CPB actually is doing that. But why distract you Republicans with the actual facts in reality, when you can just say whatever suits the babbleflow from your talkradio puppeteers?

The stuff about an open Internet is 50%genuine principles, and 50% a pompous rationalization from greedy geeks who want free copies.

Ignoring the 'greedy' part, which is a gratuitous characterisation, yes, emphatically yes. I want free copies. It's called sharing; you might have heard about it.

What people who bitch about piracy never adequately explain, when they're busy deriding the so-called pirates, is why according to this report at least, widespread copying is actually making things better for said writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers. Even the content distributors (who are the ones we're really talking about when we mention SOPA/PIPA/ACTA) are profiting more than they ever have, deriving more 65% of their revenues from technologies they swore would kill them.

Sharing is a public good; everyone from Jesus to Hobbes to RMS[*] has espoused this principle. And you know what kind of person is most likely to share? The ones with the least. I live in a Least Developed Country, and the generousity shown here makes society in North America look absolutely sick.

And yet here we have the so-called content owners, who insist on transfer of authorship before they'll even consider distributing your material, telling me I can't have a working Internet because I wanted someone else to listen to a song? Imprisoning people just because they want to help me share? Fuck that.

And before you dare call me selfish or a thief, and before you accuse me of taking crumbs from the mouth of the poor, starving artist: I get paid to write, code and take photos, and yet I still manage to give almost all of that output away. If I can do it, then so can others. The plain fact is that others are thriving in this gift economy. The only ones who aren't are those complacent, sclerotic few who think that artificial scarcity is valid economics. Well, as far as I'm concerned, they can go rot.

-----------------
[*] Okay, visually that's not much of a gamut, but you get my point...

Don't forget that everyone agrees that writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers and other creators ought to be compensated. Unfortunately, that compensation is rapidly changing.

Unfortunately? Think again. According to this report at least, widespread copying is actually making things better for said writers/musicians/artists/designers/videographers. Even the content distributors (who are the ones we're really talking about when we mention SOPA/PIPA/ACTA) are profiting more than they ever have, deriving more 65% of their revenues from technologies they swore would kill them.

45 minutes of previously unknown audio tape discovered this week:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/207343-newly-discovered-jfk-assassination-tapes-made-public

This work for you? http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found

Yes, yes some are: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found

When employees strike against an employer, it causes the employer hardship. When consumers strike against companies (a "boycott"), it causes the companies hardship. In this case, a boycott of air travel would harm the airlines, which would in turn lobby Congress. That's where the action is.

There are already some Congressmen, like Blackburn (R-Tenn), who oppose the TSA, but they've been restrained so far to nibbling at the edges of the TSA (cf. last year's HR 3608). Pitting the airlines' lobbyists against the TSA would be helpful. On the other hand, this runs a risk: airlines might try to get a bailout from Congress instead to cover their losses with no policy change. Whether or not that would work for them would depend on how feisty the anti-bailout Congressmen feel, and, for all the bluster about fiscal prudence, their bark is rarely matched by anything but their fawning to corporate interests.

The first thing to remember is the TSA are not officers of the law. This isn't my opinion, this is something making its way thought the senate at the moment:

"Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), the lead sponsor of the Stop TSA's Reach in Policy (STRIP) Act, said that TSA has essentially allowed its airport screeners to play dress-up by giving them metal badges and police-like uniforms in recent years. But she said many airport screeners have no "officer" qualifications, and should have this title removed." source

They've had the ability to abuse rights, previously, because they've had you in confined situations where you've already had certain rights removed. The two most obvious examples being:

You'd like to get on that plane you've already paid a lot of money to travel on? Then, whether you like what we're doing or not, you have to pass through us to get to it. Plus, you've already entered in to a secure screening area. Declining our searches and simply choosing to leave means you violate the security protections and are subject to a $10,000 fine.

You're not on US soil. Until you've passed through customs, you're in magical land where we deny you're actually on US soil and as such have zero consititutional rights. We'd like your phone and laptop to take a copy of all data on it? You have no fourth amendment here, hand it over.

Yes, it's true that the government has basically torn up the constitution in the last few weeks. They can no detain anyone, forgeign or American, indefinitiely, without access to a lawyer, without charging them, without judicial review, just because they say that they're a terrorist threat. They do have a safeguard however: once a year, you're allowed to ask them if they'd like to keep doing it.

The thing is, big brother as that is, it's massively overkill for someone politely telling a TSA goon that the fourth amendment does still apply on the streets of the US and, unless they can provide a legitimate reason for your search and seizure, you will be polite but you will not comply with unreasonable requests from minimally trained screeners who, by the senate's own definition, don't have the qualifications or training to call themselves legitimate officers. If they disappeared every politely spoken person who passively resisted, their jails would rapidly fill and every news channel would run sensational headlines about it. The street goons are going to try to hype their authority a little, they'll most likely call a police officer over to back them up who does have a little more legitimate authority, but you're not going to end up in a secret prison.

So, my take? Stay very polite. Don't get heated. Don't get angry. Simply express that you recognize they are not law enforcement officers, they are essentially an extra type of security guard at this location and that you are happy to comply with reasonable requests that any other security guard makes. If they make unreasonable requests, you will simply leave that location. (If it's a venue, leave, write the management company about how their new security made for a hostile environment and how you'll be encouraging friends not to return until better training or their replacement is arranged - if it's a subway entrance, walk the extra couple of blocks and, again, contact the transportation authority and government to tell them how you were happy to abide by legal requests but their overstepping should not be allowed.)

Politeness, walking away, then slowly burying the decision makers with the weight of the bad decisions usually works far better than shouting and screaming, overstepping in to something you can legitimately get arrested for, then just making their point for them.

Also... The more people politely passively resisting, the harder the abuses become to maintain. I just spent the last week flying. At every scanner, I requested a pat down and was very polite about it. I al

Lolol - I just googled this to find more info, and got this article. It makes me cringe even more than the original comment, by trying to explain why it's stupid:

Like other islands, Guam is attached to the sea floor, which makes it extremely unlikely that it will tip over, even if there are lots and lots of people on it.

What. The. Fuck.

Or it could be that a two month extension is impractical simply because of the expense of implementing it.

Payroll systems are not to be trifled with. You don't just go in, start jacking things around and then deploy the changes.

Fucking with payroll is a Big Deal.

that the quoted David A. Balto is an anti-trust attorney, and from his statements likely working for a generic drug manufacturer(s). He argued for the ATT/T-Mobile merger, so one can tell he's not particular about which side he argues.

Have you been living under a rock? How about these, for starters:

TSO molesting children when off-duty
Another TSO molesting children
TSO rapist
TSO fired after sexual assault while in uniform and off-duty


Okay, you specifically said "rape", and I took a few liberties with the term, as well as limiting my replies to (mostly) TSA agents. Nevertheless, I'm sure you get the picture.

But, perhaps more importantly, the end bill, and specifically the removal of the public option, was the result of several compromises with actual, real, elected Republicans.

That is simply not true. http://benefitmatrix.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=154:health-care-reform&catid=41:top-headlines
"After a revolt by a conservative group of "Blue Dog'' Democrats that led to more exemptions for businesses, the plan was adopted by three committees without Republican support."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/59839-pelosi-nixes-deal-with-blue-dogs-on-healthcare
"Democrats are to discuss the public option at a caucus meeting Thursday. That discussion will include replacing the public option with nonprofit "cooperatives" that would compete with private insurers but would not be run by the government"

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mike_Ross_(politician)#The_Blue_Dogs_and_health_care
"Because many Blue Dogs, especially Ross, had serious concerns about the bill's potential harmful affects on rural doctors and rural hospitals, the group forced House leadership to accept that the government would negotiate rates with health care providers instead of using Medicare rates in any so-called public option."
"After Congress' August recess, Ross announced that he could not support a bill with a Public Option.[14] In a letter to constituents, he claimed that "An overwhelming number of you oppose a government-run health insurance option, and it is your feedback that has led me to oppose the public option as well."

Although Republicans opposed the public option, they were a nonfactor in any changes made to the bill. Those changes were made to appease blue dog democrats

Fourth, you idiot, the OWS protestors are not protesting the bailout. They're protesting the behavior of the banks who got the bailouts and then refused to loan anyone any money and handed the cash out to the presidents. They're protesting the fact that institutes exist that cannot be allowed to fail.

"Cannot be allowed to fail"? If there WAS NO BAILOUT, they WOULD HAVE FAILED. That means they are protesting the bailout. If you're going to give the banks a shit ton of free money with no strings attached, what do you expect? It's no different than any other government handout. Hell, the vast majority of Americans took their "tax stimulus" and shoved it into savings as well instead of spending it. How is this different? The government simply passed a shitty bill with no stipulations and people are directing their ire in the wrong direction.

Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Roemer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363-406.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/141453-scientists-put-aside-politics-and-focus-on-climate-science

http://www.servirglobal.net/tabid/409/Article/497/nasa-to-focus-more-on-studying-climate-change.aspx

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-03/local/me-29585_1_animal-science-curriculum

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/29/yale-to-greens-abandon-climate-change-focus-on-energy/

3) Employees With No Social Security Coverage The final category of workers includes those who are not subject to any voluntary or mandatory social security coverage at all. This can only occur where the workers are covered by a qualifying public retirement system. Employers of these workers will not withhold social security taxes or show any 'social security wages' on Form W-2.

I must have been thinking of Medicare, since Medicare switched to "no opt-out" in the 1980s. From page 5-16:

Prior to April 1, 1986, the only way for state and local government employees to be covered for Medicare was by voluntary Section 218 Agreements between the states and the Federal government. This changed with the enactment of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985, which mandated that almost all state and local employees hired or rehired after March 31, 1986 must be covered for Medicare, and pay Medicare taxes regardless of their membership in a retirement system.

I still think opt-out is impossible for private sector workers at least for now. There are, however, a few specific types of income which are exempt; gory details in a table starting on page 30 of http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf.

please give me the link where they gave a specific reason other than "because that's the way we wanted it". you want to know what i read straight from gosling about this very subject? How about look at this interview with Gosling himself.

And i quote: "There are some things that I kind of feel torn about, like operator overloading. I left out operator overloading as a fairly personal choice because I had seen too many people abuse it in C++" - In other words no operator overloading because he himself decided not to based on him decided what should and could be considered safe. If you don't want people messing things up there are a lot more things you could remove from the language outside of pointers and operator overloading.

What about...

1. Releasing of methane into the air that is done at every well site---methane is a known Greenhouse Gas--trapping 21x more heat than CO2.
2. All of the exhaust from the myriad of diesel generators that run day and night; powering the drilling rigs and compressor stations?
3. All of the exhaust from the thousands trucks each Gas company has on the road? Chesapeake energy has at least 5,000 on the road in PA alone.

Natural Gas might burn cleaner, but the extraction is just as dirty; if not more so. Read the Cornell Study.

You will care when interest rates rise for everyone from the local bonds building your schools to state bonds building roads and bridges because those levels of gov't are dependent on federal funds, that is taxes paid by state residents and laundered through the federal government and returned at varying ratios with strings attached. It may even effect the interest rate on your home mortgage if it's not fixed.

The ratings agencies have warned the feds for months. They wanted to see $4 trillion in cuts and only one plan offered that. It was the one called "Cut, Cap & Balance" and passed by the Republican-led House first with some Democrats joining in. The Democrat-controlled Senate voted immediately to table the bill. It never even got a debate.

The White House belittled the plan as "Duck, Dodge & Dismantle" when all the cuts talked about are reductions in automatic increases. Since the Budget Act of 1974, the federal government depends on "baseline budgeting" and today that means a guarantee that budgets will rise 7.5% over the prior year every year. We should be using "zero-based budgeting" where departments must justify every budget dollar.

We know from debt commissions and other studies, there are billions--maybe $100-200 billion according to the non-partisan GAO--in overlapping and duplicative spending but we have Democrats screaming nothing should be touched and anyone who wants spending reform is a "terrorist" (Vice Pres. Biden) or wants to "destroy" government (Minority Leader Pelosi). This is NOT helpful.

Republicans offered their long term reform ideas months ago in the form of the so-called "Ryan plan." Democrats offered criticism all year but no formal counter proposal. There was nothing in writing that could be "scored" by the CBO and Obama's budget received ZERO votes in the Senate. Senator Majority Leader Reid said it would be foolish for his congressional Democrats to offer a budget. That body hasn't passed a budget period in 829 days. Way to avoid responsibility and accountability!

Instead the president's party and its allies used the GOP proposal in divisive, misleading campaign ads. One even showed a doppelgänger of Congressman Ryan pushing an wheelchair-bound elderly woman over a cliff when the plan itself doesn't effect existing benefits for anyone 55 or older. Again, NOT helpful. (Hey, what happened to the "new tone" of "civility" after the Tuscan shooting?)

The president talks about "millionaires and billionaires" when the actual tax changes would effect, not those super rich alone, but persons making $200,000 or couples at $250,000. Small business people filing as S-corps or a cops and teachers in some high cost of living areas like NYC. Taxation needs fundamental reform not just higher rates on easy political targets who are also the most able to avoid taxation. Just as Ireland about Bono.

For anyone reading here who doesn't know and feels guilty a

What the hell are you talking about? Your statements are nonsense.

The TARP program is over; it ended October 2010.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/122247-tarp-ends-officially-as-lawmakers-continue-battle-over-bailouts

The reasons the Federal Deficit is so much bigger than before is:

1. We are fighting 4 wars. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia)
2. At the same time we made massive tax cuts.
3. The economy is in the tank thereby reducing tax revenues even further.

Except that Texas chickened out and backed off. The TSA threated to designate the entire state of Texas a "no-fly zone".

However, it would seem that a few legislators actually used their brains and thought about that for a moment, and decided to push the issue and call the government's bluff.

I mean, seriously. Who actually believes that the feds would actually BAN all flights in and out of Texas?

Please...

If you're going to relay that anecdote you might want to point out that the individual was a journalist and made the comment on live TV while he was acting in an official capacity. This wasn't a matter of some random individual calling the President a dick on his or her free time.

And it was the right thing to do, journalists are not supposed to express personal views with company resources, they're supposed to be trying to be as impartial as possible.
Journalist apologizes for strongly worded criticism of Obama

ok, that is a long comment and I may have misread it, but I'm going to try to do it justice. First of all, I wasn't trying to weaken your position at all, my main rhetorical technique is to try to get at the truth (although I'm not above trolling with others, I usually try to avoid obscuring with them).

I am not saying there is no corruption in the US, certainly there is, I was merely commenting on the fact that Perot didn't lose because of a conspiracy, just as no conspiracy caused Alan Keyes to lose in the 2008. Alan Keyes was just a bad candidate. Furthermore, if you hold up Perot as your main evidence of conspiracy, it is likely you are seeing conspiracy where there is none.

Conspiracy in the US often happens in the open, if you know where to look, for example, this guy, waving his check around begging congress to do what he paid them to do.

Now, I'm not really sure what cell phones have to do with Ross Perot, but consider this explanation for the high cost of texting. Cell phone companies generally hate each other, and if they can do something to get more customers, they will. However, in practice, unlimited texting has not gotten cell phone companies more customers. I would have to do more research to find out for certain that this is true, but it is a reasonable explanation.

Now, I know it is true that both parties take steps to keep third parties from growing. I just don't see those steps as being the primary reason the US only has two parties. If a third party could gain support of a significant number of people, reps/dems couldn't keep them out.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/166599-pelosis-net-worth-rises-62-percent- . No, it reminds me of the story of the normal American, crazy views or not, and the crazy liberal who spent tax payer money like it was her own. http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/01/pelosi-blows-3-million-on-copenhagenbooze-and-private-jet/ . This isnt about political view, its about who is abusing their power.

> So some bored kid modifies a standard off the shelf virus to go specifically after a given file on your computer, that is in effect worthless ...

I'm not referring to people stealing, please ref...

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/11/06/06/1410217/Bitcoin-Used-For-the-Narcotics-Trade
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/164865-senators-tell-doj-to-shut-down-online-drug-market

> The primary value of gold is its unique physical properties which are both visually pleasing to most people and very useful in many different processes and industries.

The primary value of gold comes from people desiring to posses it. What they do with it afterwards is inconsequential. A HUGE majority of the gold supply is in the form of reserves held by governments and banks. Another large portion is at the bottom of the ocean from sunken Spanish ships. My point was, which was probably not well conveyed, is that the utility of gold is incredibly low, compared to most other commodities, yet it has extreme value because humans value it!

>4 is not 'a very large group'. By that same measure however, there is 'a very large group' of idiots who send their bank account info to Nigerian spammers to. Actually, its the same group.

Ref above... It has the attention of the US Senate now, and it is a very active component of black market transactions.

>Really? Again trying to ascribe value to something because someone wants to grief you over it? Do you think a gay man is valuable JUST because some idiot homophobe beats him up? Your logic is just dumb.

  Ref above...

>Damnit, I got trolled. I didn't realize you were one of those idiots who think taxes are oppression

Taxation is a form of repression. The value exchanged for that repression is something that is real/vital and needed for the functioning of a government. Citizen X produces wealth and the government taxes that wealth. Citizen X's purchasing power has been repressed, though, his value for taxes may exceed the value lost of purchasing power. Again ignorance, there is a difference of a repressive act, taxation, vs a repressive system. The difference is quite significant. I am assuming that you use oppression interchangeably with repression, there are subtle but quite significant differences.

Here's a beautiful example of how corruption works in the real world:

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/165151-afl-cio-chief-amplifies-warning-to-democrats

This guy whose spent a bunch of money trying to buy off politicians, but in the end, he's left waving his cancelled check in frustration as the politicians go off and do other things. Politicians are willing to be bought, but only as far as the population will let them without taking away their votes. They'd rather have votes than money.

Which is why it's so important to have an informed populace. Politicians can (and some of them will) do whatever they want when the public isn't watching. It is up to us to pay attention.

Strangely, if an image is in a museum its fine.

Is it?

How do we expect to continue increasing oil production when he's not approving permits? The fact is, people are not going to be able to afford heating oil and gas for their home this winter.

Obama administration approves fourth Gulf deepwater drilling permit

Even more strange. Just last month he wanted to amend the constitution and give an iPad or similar device to every kid in school in the country. Wonder what made him change his mind.

I have realized for sometime that the majority of Slashdot users are anti-Republican.

I just want to ask if anyone does not support this Republican's recommendation?

Lawmakers should not be paid if the government shuts down, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday.

I admit, however, that while I'm all for severe cuts to our budget, I disagree with many of the following topics that were brought up by Republicans as possible budget cuts: research, education, Social Security, and Planned Parenthood.

Further, I disagreed with the article's statement below:

The point of this whole exercise is to help the economy.

The reason for the budget cuts is AFAIK NOT to help the economy but to help keep the government running and hopefully force it to run within its means without raising taxes.

The merger will swell ranks of union that backs Democrats. This deal will be approved quickly so money will be available for the 2012 election.

We have excellent congressional newspapers:
http://thehill.com/
http://www.politico.com/
Washington Post.

I agree the competition is important but it doesn't do anybody any good to have competition with one reporter that doesn't have time to follow up.

Hate to break it to you, but the US has lost the moral high ground when it comes to internet freedom.

When was the last time the US Gov blocked / turned off the Internet to deprive the people freedom of speech? Did they block WikiLeaks? No they did not. Your ideological rant is not supported by, you know, actual facts.

I wouldn't use WikiLeaks as an example, since US politicians are calling it treason (protip: you can only be a traitor to your *own* country)

But you should check your news - while other countries turn off the internet within their own borders (which, while abhorrent to us techies, is within their legal rights), the US seized over 80,000 domain names recently - and those sites are blocked not only in the US, but everywhere in the world. Let me repeat that - the United States blocked over 80,000 web sites from being accessed not only inside their borders, but everywhere in the world.

Oh, and by the way, the US government would like the ability to block the internet within their borders as well.

McCain is working on similar legislation. The primary difference is on which frequencies go to auction. I'm not sure which McCain wants to sell. http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/146113-military-airwaves-at-risk-in-public-safety-bill-groups-say

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/143089-fcc-cracks-down-on-cell-phone-a-gps-jamming-devices

and more here
http://www.google.com/search?q=fcc+cell+phone+jammer+letter
http://www.google.com/search?q=fcc+gps+phone+jammer+letter

So if you're a theater owner or office manager and think one of these at $50 is a good bargain, think about $10,000 and two years in jail instead.

Also, notice this article.

That provision has attracted widespread criticism from privacy advocates, who claim it amounts to giving the president a "kill switch" over the Internet. Collins has said the president already has that authority under Section 706 of the Communications Act. Testimony by DHS under secretary Philip Reitinger earlier this month indicates the administration shares that view.

So you see, Obama's position is even worse than that put forth in the bill. This bill would explicitly authorize an internet kill switch. Obama thinks he already has that power, without any further congressional oversight.

That is straight up hard core statism. If you care about freedom at all, oppose Obama.

but while I'm annoyed that Obama hasn't waved his presidential magic wand and made the patriot act go away etc, he hasn't passed patriot act II

I hate to tell you this, but yea, he pretty much did. He has also come up with a "indefinite detention" policy and has ordered assassinations of US citizens for suspicion of terrorist activity.

"All you really have to know about Net Neutrality is that its biggest promoters are George Soros and Google."

To begin with, the article linked is at www.dailykos.com, which is run by Markos Moulitsas. He is American born of a Salvadoran (a country with long standing socialist influences) mother and a Greek (more socialism) father, and grew up both in El Salvador and Chicago. Now I am from Indiana, not all that far from Chicago and know that a Republican in Chicago is regarded a Liberal in Indiana. He backed, and campaigned for Liberal Democrats throughout. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markos_Moulitsas]. He is a Leftist, and his web site reflects that.

The DailyKos article links to an article at thinkprogress.org, from which google tells us that Soros funds Thinkprogress and following the money, behind Net Neutrality, just as Rush alleged. And for that matter, reading the entire list of inter-networked organizations covered at http://discoverthenetworks.org/ finds George Soros deeply involved in funding a vast network of anti USA, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-Business organizations of the progressive Left. That includes the attack on the Chamber of Commerce.
George Soros, a statist Socialist who wants to control the world, is behind “Net Neutrality” [link here]

All of these individuals and organizations are committed Socialists and Progressives. The problem with that here is the USA, is that it is the diametric opposite of the US Constitution, Liberty, Capitalism (which is just people saving their money and investing it), and all else this country stands for. It is nothing new that Socialism has been infiltrating the USA for over 100 years. And it is nothing new that Socialism has never, ever, not one time, worked for an extended period of time. It seems to work, until it runs out of other peoples money. It will then die as it has always in the past, and with a fair share of suffering and violence as the throes of death proceed.

In short, Net Neutrality, especially done by the FCC, is un-Constitutional

The problem of the FCC “regulating” the internet is that they have NO governmental right to do so.

They were denied that right previously in court.

They were denied that right by Congress regardless of how many times it was tried.

Briefy, the Executive branch (President, and *his* FCC) cannot make law. Congress makes law, which when passed must be approved by the President. And that can be revoked in the Courts. The case here is that the President through the FCC is making law.

Obama, long before he was elected President, Obama lamented that the "Constitution is a charter of negative liberties". [audio]. The problem here is that the Constitution in every point, limits government and gives it NO right to do anything TO its citizens. That was done by design of the Founders. Obama laments that because he wants to impose Socialism and wealth re-distribution. These two, Socialism and the US Constitution, are incompatible.

I also cannot understand why people here ca

Because courts say it does not: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/06/tech/main6368331.shtml
Because congress majority says it does not: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/100487-after-republican-letter-over-240-house-members-oppose-fcc-plan

But what does it matter what federal courts and elected representatives say when an unelected five man commission says otherwise with a 3-2 vote, right?

As an example of bias, compare the Fox News article on today's House Judiciary Committee's hearing on Wikileaks to The Hill's coverage.

blow up a train and ... there's no security to speak of.

Direct quote from Janet Napolitano: "I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"

The times, they are a-changin

But there are those that are in power (already elected) who feel the same way. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee wants to classify wikileaks as a terrorist organization.. I believe that this would make contributing money a federal felony. In addition, the Interpol connection has been ratcheted up. Assange is now on the most wanted list.

It's not just Sarah Palin, there are those in power that are clearly using their power on this matter. Kind of scary, actually. (Though not surprising, considering what Assange is doing).

How do we make sure that nobody "controls" the web?

Looks to me that the web is falling under the control of DHS. We all know how much a threat bit-torrent search engines are to national security.

If this would have happened three years ago, Slash would have posted this article three times with 750 comments each talking about how Bush is a tyrant trying to seize and solidify power. Now in 2010, not a peep.

July: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/07/01/ice-seizes-website-domains-part-copyright-crackdown

Nov: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130763-homeland-security-dept-seizes-domain-names-

Dec: ?

And in the UK its the police:

Mid-November: http://libcom.org/news/police-force-shut-down-fitwatchorguk-16112010

Late-November: http://www.techeye.net/internet/uk-police-want-power-to-shut-down-websites

Unfortunately the US government (at least in the US) has pulled ahead in terms of controlling the internet via seizure: July: http://www.gamepolitics.com/2010/07/01/ice-seizes-website-domains-part-copyright-crackdown Nov: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130763-homeland-security-dept-seizes-domain-names- Dec: ? And in the UK its the police: Mid-November: http://libcom.org/news/police-force-shut-down-fitwatchorguk-16112010 Late-November: http://www.techeye.net/internet/uk-police-want-power-to-shut-down-websites