Slashdot Mirror
EFF: 48 Hours to Stop the Broadcast Flag
The Importance of writes "Think the Broadcast Flag is dead? EFF is warning that Hollywood is trying to sneak the broadcast flag into law as an amendment to a massive appropriations bill. 'If what we hear is true, the provision will be introduced before a subcommittee tomorrow and before the full appropriations committee on Thursday. That gives us 48 hours to stop it.' Action Alert here. List of Senator's phone numbers here."
......EFF is warning that Hollywood is trying to sneak the broadcast flag into law as an amendment to a massive appropriations bill. ......
error
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
I didnt figure it was just gonna go away.
i'd write my senators, but i can't find my checkbook.
With the new CRIA law in Canada, and now the broadcast flag in America, it looks like the recording industry 'winning'. It's looks pretty bad for those fighting for digital rights.
This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
Dont know if my news tip will get picked up. These things should not be sneaked in.
You cant sign this if you live in New York, or New Jersey :-/ Cant use my college or home address. This is farking ridiculous!!
Damnit, the bible belt is going to decide wether or not we have a broadcast flag or not, those farkers better not screw up!!(Of course by screwing up I mean doing anything that I don't agree with)
It's not over
Do you have ESP?
Is playing dirty somehow beneath the good guys? Oh, that's what makes them the good guys...
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This shit has got to stop.
First the Real ID Act..
Now this...
When? When will it end?
Try not to let life get in the way of living.
As soon as it's a rider on an appropriations bill like this, the broadcast flag is a foregone conclusion. The committee probably won't even know what they're doing.
The broadcast flag is here to stay, regardless of the EFF's "48 hours" claim.
Why don't all the "special interests" who hate special interests sneaking arbitrary laws into bills get together to outlaw them?
Every bill must have a scope. It must apply to a single budget, or a single government organization, or their subsidiaries. Or it must be a "metabill", which specifies only a collection of bills related in an explicit policy, the exact relationship stated in the metabill.
Of course, Congressmembers should be voting against these big bills, with arbitrary attachments, on the principle of government manageability. But they obviously don't - they're all codependent on letting each other's attachments pass, often regardless of consequences, in exchange for the same favor later on. So we need to force them to stop doing it. Because the mass of laws, their inner complexity and scale, is killing the ability of anyone to participate in our democracy beyond any significant confrontation with the law. When only the lawyers win, we all lose.
--
make install -not war
I didn't think you could legislate on an appropriation bill? Is this for real? Its against the rules of the Senate (rule XVI) http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule16.htm
Only residents of Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, or Wisconsin can sign this.
I'm gonna post this over on the various MythTV communities as well... try to get more support drummed up.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
fuck em. I'll just turn the damn thing off. 64 channels of pure bullshit, the movies suck. Even the cooking shows are turning stupid.
List of Senator's phone numbers here.
Nope, slashdotted to hell. But you can get them from the source.
Let's just compile a list of the names, addresses, phone numbers and pictures of the media giants involved with this shit ...
Then publish it on the web. Readers can take their camcorders and stalk these fuckers down, then brutally beat them and tape it. The upload the video so that everyone can have a good laugh and the rest of these bastards can see what's in store for them.
And you know -these- videos won't have any copy protection.
Is Congress susceptible to the Slashdot effect?
So I'm not worried about it. I don't have any plans to get a Tivo so it doesn't really bother me. Besides, I think you can get around these by making your own Tivo. Maybe we could route just the video signal from the Tivo/device over to out TV capture card? I'd like to say "the people" will stand up for their rights when they want to, but "the people" are just too plain stupid. Kinda like the proles, they could get it done if they'd all rise up together, but they're all lazy, stupid, and shallow.
For updated information on the DSM scandal, check here.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
I'm an Australian so when I first heard about rider bills I honestly didn't beleive it. Then I discovered that Australia also had the problem of rider bills at some stage. We recognised them as a problem and we fixed them. We no longer have rider bills. Does any other democracy on earth still have them? Is it impossible for americans to recognise a problem and fix it without ballsing it up? It just seems you have all these parasites gaming your political process and you do nothing about it. You know how everyone knows that US congressmen take bribes? Well, here in Australia, it's illegal for politicians to take bribes. It's like that in the rest of the world too right? So why can't americans recognise something that's so straight forward and simple (politicans should not be permitted to take bribes) and do something about it?
How we know is more important than what we know.
1. Buy a bunch of these
2. Wait for the inevitable resolution of the amendment.
3. ?????
4. Profit!
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.
You can fax and email appropriation committee members for free at the EFF's action center.
damn those sneaky bastard politicians.. damn them all to hell.
Why isn't anyone clamoring for a law against pork? It has to be one of the baldest rapes of democracy going, but nobody seems to care when it isn't being used to pass a law that they don't like.
That your system of goverment is one of the most corrupt in the world?
How about spreading some democracy in your own back-yard before trying to take over the world.
Instead of a petition, what we really need is the ability to give the Presidential Office back line-item veto power. With that power, the President could happily strike out stupid attachments like these without being accused of holding back "important legislation".
:-(
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court decided that line-item veto power required an amendment (probably correct), so Clinton's strikeout were reversed.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Someone put a rider on the senate rules that allows you to ignore them if you are paid enough under the table. Duh....
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Wow, a bunch of 90 year old get to fuck over digital freedom, not even understanding what they are doing. If this law passes, well fuck, software'll be out two weeks later that unencodes the flag. Still, wow... it better not pass
Is Congress susceptible to the Slashdot effect?
Apparently, it's full of a bunch of media-whoring trolls and flamebait artists.
Senators and Congressmen should be have line-item votes for each bill. That way they could be held accountable for every stupid thing they pass, rather than being able to claim "oh, it was attached to a bill that was necessary, so I didn't have any choice."
By the time this story is an accepted submission, it will be 36+ hours past the deadline. All slashdotters should therefore direct their attention to criticizing the outcome pre-emptively in order to maintain an effective schedule.
See the senators flee in terror as hundreds of thousands of /.'ers shout GET /index.html HTTP/1.1 at them.
Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
BTW, link with more info.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The rider isn't there yet. We've got a strong rumour that it's going to be proposed, but if you kick up enough of a stink at this stage, it can be quietly withdrawn with no-one having to take a stand.
Tell you what, why don't you call your Senator anyway, even if you think this is true? What have you got to lose? If the law goes through, you can tell everyone that you were right. And if it doesn't, you get to say you helped stop the flag against all the odds.
Believe me, I love cynicism as much as the next person, but when it stops you from taking the one tiny step, the single principled stand that might have prevented disaster, you're not a cynic. You're a statistic. And a predictable one at that.
Email is routinely ignored by congressional staffers. Signing a paper petition is a little more useful. A phone call is better still. A written letter is far superiour. Saying what you think in person is better still. The reason for these classifications is that elected officials are getting spammed and information overloaded like everyone else. If you spend more effort getting your particular issue heard, they also feel you will be more likely to remember them on election day. It's fairly valid.
I am highly critical of these online petitions, because people believe that they have done something, and therefore will not follow up their web form tick-off with something more substantive like the communications mentioned above.
I know it's a bit too late to dash of a handwritten letter to your rep in this occasion. But a phone call may be appropriate.
I mean, 12 hours from now it won't be true. Even right now it's not true anymore. Oh my god...time is slipping away from me...help...Calgon! *brrzzt-thud*
BytesTemplar.com
There's always the last resort... revolt. Viva Le Revolution!
In all seriousness though, our constitution has certain articles and bills with in, should "our" government get out of control... perhaps it was time we started to look them over?
See the senators flee in terror as hundreds of thousands of /.'ers email "In Soviet Russia the bill rides you".
(Note... many are confused as they believe this may be a reference to the previous administration.)
I'm just waiting for the government to tick off enough people that they start excercising the right to bare arms ... It's unfortunate, but I'm afraid things will get a lot worse before they get better.
Seriously though, how much do they think the general public will tolerate? I understand that for the majority these things have no effect on their daily lives and are thus of no consequence, but perhaps there should be some sort of campaign by more educated people than myself about all the dirty underhanded dealings our government actually does... I imagine that even the stupid people will realise that this is a bad situation when you say "Hey you know such and such bill? It does this ... and was voted against. So our nice government snuck it in this bill, which is about something else" You don't see these kinds of statements making it on the daily news...
No, I am not an English major. My posts are subject to typos and incorrect grammar. Do not expect perfection.
...on one topic: permitting piggy-backing legislation on unrelated legislation. There were Congress Critters who actually added material to 9/11 bills because they knew it would be passed. If contenders for their offices don't point this stuff out, they deserve to lose and take a job working on a honey wagon: fringe benefit - all you can eat.
The fact the Broadcast Flag has been inserted to another bill is an example of where someone needs to make a phone call to Guido and have him wait on a door step, ring the doorbell, and kneecap someone.
Some are more adept at doing it than others. One good example is a former KKK member. That should provide enough information to forego the necessity of naming them. Some of the network reporters are good at presenting some of the larger garbage ammendments but they never say who actually added the material to the bill.
When writing to your senators, please use soft paper. Best of all, use bathroom tissue. This way you will make it comfortable for senators to "work" through your mails.
Ok, so here we have the FCC mandating that we have to all convert our "old analog" television sets to digital television sets by 2007 or something...
Then we have the "Broadcast Flag" being driven through on a rider, shh... nobody will notice.
And now they can basically control what you can record via your "Dish DVR" or "TiVo" or TV tuner card or whatever other device you want to use, because of Hollywood pressure.
We already see DVDs where you can't bypass the intro commercials to get to the navigational menus, even for DVDs which we bought, which should have paid for the removal of those commercials.
Next, we'll see television sets being sent a signal that ignores the remote control's "channel" buttons during commercials. You just won't be able to switch away during commercials... you'll be forced to watch them (or power off your TV).
How far are we from a Telescreen here, really? I mean... all they need is a way to peer back in, and a way to stop you from turning off the TV or the volume...
Orwell would be proud.
This not meant to be a flamebait but really, why not just let them have their way? Don't complain, just sit back and watch this circus sideshow.. one way or another they will win, even if it means bribing (Thats what it is, even though the media won't call it that) your elected politicians 15 times over. Bush wants to invade another country, spend another $800 billion, let him.. They want a few more religious whack jobs on the supreme court.. go ahead. Don't complain when politicians lie and it results in thousands of good men and women dying, just let it go by. Make note of it, thats all. Let these people run the country right into the ground.
I for one hope they do. We need another revolution and complaining about tiny infractions like this story is just prolonging the inevitable.
Software:
- Companies make proprietary software
- Then charge a lot
- Have copyright law to prevent copying
- People gripe
- People makes free software.
Movies/Music:- Artists make movies/music
- Companies package and market it
- Then charge a lot
- Have copyright/DMCA law to prevent copying
- People gripe
Why not the next step: People make free movies/music?Not like it'd matter in this case since bush's corporate buddies love this kind of shit.
Line-item veto is a really bad idea, especially considering who's currently holding the pen.
Why should the president have authority to change the bill without it going back to congress? What would stop him from leaving in the stupid attachments and vetoing everything else?
Okay, Congressmen, after you have read the bill, you will be tested on your comprehension of all its contents, as well as its ethical implications. You have 3 days to read it.
In order to proceed to voting on this bill, all congressmen must pass the comprehension test. Failure to achieve a minimum score of %5, without a valid reason (sickness, health, etc), will result in an allowed non-confidence vote, and possible re-election for that riding.
Onced sued by a major company, you only really have two choices: bankruptcy by your lawyer or theirs. The only hope normal people have anymore is defending themselves and jury nullification.
...time to curse the darkness.
Let's say, against all odds, that this campaign from EFF prevents the rider from being introduced or prevents it from being attached to the bill. What does this do? Nothing, really; they'll just do it again and again until eventually they win. Even if we stay vigilant, they only have to get lucky once. The only thing that will stymie them is a Supreme Court smackdown on Constitutional grounds, and that's not in the cards.
It would very quickly send a message to congress: "Stop putting stupid attachments into bills."
My other first post is car post.
In a major media blunder the US Government and major media corporations are denying the resuscitation of the broadcast flag. Despite wide reports, Doug Herzog, President of SpikeTV (the First Network for Men) has confirmed that he along with other media executives have decided to abandon all attempts to push the broadcast flag through congress. In a press release Herzong noted,
"After looking at our summer lineup of movies, and previewing 48 Hours, starring Eddie Murphey and Nick Nolte, it was pretty clear that we wouldn't need a broadcast flag to keep people from recording our programming. I and a few others, hoping to promote our July 4th weekend of 48 Hours of 48 Hours, only on Spike TV also watched Another 48 Hours. After we finished the film, we were confident that we had done the right thing to abandon the broadcast flag and honestly were considering abandoning television altogether."
especially considering who's currently holding the pen.
s/pen/crayon/g
Trolling is a art,
When did slashdot become a political action group? Posting senators numbers? I thought this was a purely a tech/geek-news site. They are doing this more and more, and are starting to instead become another lame lobbying group.
Couldn't someone write a program that you could feed the text of a bill into and it would simplify the language, making it easier to find stuff like this so it could be removed?
Technoli
The so-called Broadcast Flag is an abomination and needs to be rejected by the Senate. It will do nothing to stop large-scale piracy, and will only serve to limit the fair-use rights of American citizens to time shift television programs, save them for later viewing or view tv program's at a family members house. Authorizing the broadcast flag will force innovative consumer electronics companies to ask for Hollywood permission before introducing new products.
Media oligarchies, led by the RIAA & MPAA, tried to sue the VCR out of existence. They sued the first makers of MP3 players. They sued ReplayTV into bankruptcy because they dared to introduce an innovative product without the MPAA's permission. If the broadcast flag and similar legislative tools had been around for the last 25 years, we wouldn't have the VCR, iPods, TiVos or computer DVD recorders. These tools have helped democratize content creation, distribution & consumption by putting citizens/customers in charge of their home-made movies, music, and photographs.
Vote against the Broadcast Flag. It is simply a power grab by media oligopolies intended to criminalize the fair-use of media of Americans of all stripes.
Link to this story everywhere that you can! The mainstream media almost certainly won't carry it because they have a vested interest here. If you have a friend in one of those states, call him/her! Call your senator!
It would very quickly send a message to the executive branch that it can usurp the authority of the legislative branch. Not all attachments are stupid, and it's not for the president to decide which ones are worthy.
(Note... many are confused as they believe this may be a reference to the previous administration.)
We'll I don't see how it could possibly involve the current administration... I didn't see the words "freedom", "democracy", "terrorists", "9-11" or "faith" anywhere in there!
Much sadness the publicknowledge link is down,. damn you slashdotters, I don't think it can handle our bandwidth,.. rawr!
..just because you can, doens't mean you should...
This story needs to be reposted at slashdot peak reading time!
Slashdotters will never prevail over media conglomerates, for one simple reason: the same people who bitch and moan left and right when Congress tries something like this, are the same people who will never donate to campaigns for politicians. Or, if they do, it's not on a scale large enough to matter.
If the Mozilla Foundation donated $10m to John Q. Senator's campaign re-election fund, and the execs of said foundation took the Senator out to a round of golf and dinner at a nice steakhouse, we'd see some results.
I'm still somewhat faithful to our government in that I don't think it's the money doing all the talking -- the money is buying the senator's *attention*, which once had, they can then use the opportunity to share their point of view -- and with no opposing point of view, it's easier to go along with it, then take a stand on an issue there appears to only be one side to.
No one thinks independently of one another. You live in a society in which events and decisions that affect you and others happen far beyond your ability to personally witness. At some point, you must trust someone. Therefore, everyone is capable of being manipulated, and everyone is manipulated to some degree.
Now, would you rather be manipulated by corporations who suck you dry, or Slashdot which, for whatever reason, is manipulating you to seek something that will benefit you (the stopping the Broadcast Flag)?
Would you rather be a Slashbot, or a corporate whore? Hey, it's your pick.
I have been looking at http://thomas.loc.gov/ and haven't found jack regarding any new broadcast flag legislation that is due to hit the floor. I'm not saying that I'm incompetent (I'll leave that for everyone else to say) but I would have guessed that it would be here.
Am I looking in the right location or is this just a scare tactic? I have yet to see a particular bill number (such as HR 2354) listed or even the "short title" (such as "TV Consumer Choice Act") anywhere.
I'm not saying it isn't happening (as I feel it would be in character for the MPAA), just that all I have seen is a vague rumor floating around with no actual facts to support it.
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
It's just an Rider Amdenment.. calm down guys, it's just to revue the bill as a whole so the app. bill won't pass...wow too much West Wing.
go ahead wiki it..
Why should we bother talking to our congressmen? It's a rider. This is the same trap the Real ID bill was in. They can't vote against the appropriation bill to stop the rider (because the group of people who would take their "nay" vote out of context far exceeds those who would appreciate their effort to stop the rider). And it seems to be beyond a congressman's brain power to consider revising the damn bill so there is no rider.
This will be approved and we'll have to get it repealed through the courts vs. expensive MPAA lawyers. It's a role reversal, first it was the entertainment industry fighting to roll back consumer rights, now it will become us fighting uphill to get them back.
Wouldn't it be really great if compromises reached by representitives of different people could be undermined by the president. I was always hoping that the checks and balances could be removed from our system.
As much as they are abused there is a reason many things can be put in a bill. It is so a consecion can be made to the other side and things can keep moving along.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Ahh, so it's "with us, or against us," apparently.
The line-item veto gives the President an insane amount of power that he, as chief executive, has no right to. Anyway, do you really think George Bush or Bill Clinton gives a crap about the broadcast flag? Hardly.
A more realistic (and Constitutional!) solution could be reached if the House and/or Senate would amend their rules to disallow unrelated riders.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Don't have to call...
He's in the same building as me.
I do hope he is around here tomorrow.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
it's not for the president to decide which ones are worthy.
Um, yes it is. If something should be passed, it should be able to stand on its own and not just be a contingency of the primary bill. Think about it this way. If the line item was introduced as its own atomic bill, it could be vetoed. Why should the fact that its not an actual separate bill matter?
Write your Congressional representatives and demand that they take action to stop unrelated riders in legislation, such as the one mentioned in the article. I did.
Congresscritters use mass mailings as an excuse to ignore mail. If you want to be heard, you really should write a personal (not personalized. they'll see through that) letter or call their office. They still won't read or listen, but their staff will and may tally up how many people mention certain things.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I'd like to contact my Senator with something more personal than a form letter and I'd like to know who is introducing it.
If a bill is worthy of becoming a law it's worthy of debate on it's OWN merits.
Decouple attachments that don't directly pertain to the bill, and you'll have fewer bad laws, and less pork spending.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Am I the only one who thinks people should spend more time ousting these guys who are tacking on these "hidden agenda's" to larger bills?
I think if we knew who was doing it, then ran a quick check of all their recent travel and bank accounts there would be some senators in prison in a big hurry. I think every last word in every last bill should be marked with whichever senator proposed it so there's some "accountability". So then when someone like the broadcast flag sneaks in we know who to skin.
I fear that the only way our government will right itself is the way our forefathers predicted... revolution. This isn't tin-hat shit, this is a legitimate, sane person's concern. The downward spiral we are heading on can't end peacefully that's for sure.
I saw it on tonights Simpson's rerun: "Paperclip, Do your stuff."
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
If any one american attempted to educate themselves on EVERYTHING that goes on in a given day within the government, it would be a full-time job... at best. And between you and me I doubt they'd be able to do it even as a full-time job unless they're some kind of sick freak who can envelope terabytes of data to their brains and retain it all daily. (doubtful).
The point of these "damn websites" telling us "what to do" is that you take a GROUP of people, all doing their part to police a little bit at a time. Then someone cries wolf, points out the reasoning behind it, and then we all can jump on the problem.
I am open to suggestions on how you think that an average person should stay "educated" on every bill, and every last word in those bills without a "FUCKING WEBSITE" instructing them on it's contents though. Please do enlighten us.
If this amendment is added to an appropriations bill, it is technically against the rules of the House. That is, it is out of order to add legislation to an appropriations bill. It takes 1 congressman to raise a point of order and if the body does not agree with the chair's decision, they vote on it.
In the most recent congress, I've only seen these points of order raised against Democratic legislation. It would be interesting to see if a Democrat (or Republican) would voice opposition to such an amendment, only to be shot down via the chair or by vote.
line-item veto has very real risks
1. Party X proposes legislation, concerns raised by party Y.
2. Safeguards added to legislation to satisfy party Y
3. Congress passes legislation
4. Party X president snips out safeguards and passes the rest
5. ???
6. Police state!!!!
There is something far more important than campaign contributions that you do control: votes. Those contributions are used to buy ads on TV and radio. Great as far as it goes, but there is no easy way to translate them into votes which is what they want.
People out on the street talking to strangers is far more effective than commercials, and it is something you can do. So find out how your representatives voted on the issue. Then decide if there is someone who is likely to be better running. (Consider third parties too!) Then every night knock on as bunch of doors in the neighborhood (with gerrymandering you need to be careful to keep in the right district...) and talk to your neighbors. If you are a good speaker and have the facts you could personally be enough to change the election.
Consider doing this as part of the campaign. That is join a party and go to all the meetings. Generally only 10-20 people attend in any area, and these are the people who make the decisions. Join with them, and you have a lot of power. The politicians will come to you (mostly for your help in getting elected), which is a perfect chance to talk to them about issues!
Remember votes count, nothing else. Money is just a proxy for votes, but it isn't a perfect proxy, nor even very good.
I don't disagree with what you said, but you seem to have missed my point. If you can pick and choose which parts of a bill to accept, then you have the power to effectively rewrite it. That power is reserved for the congress. The potential for abuse is immense.
Congress is so in the pocket of the big companies, it doesn't seem like we voters even matter any more. I voted Republican and generally support them, and they won. But it still feels like "we" lost the election. That's because "we" don't matter. "They" will always win, but "they" have the money. Party is irrelevant. The courts run the country, the state legislatures are irrelevant and Congress is just the public relations arm of the big corporations.
Isn't that a cheerful comment on the state of our nation?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
There's a reason Tivo's and VCRs are so popular. It's to time shift. People have other things to do with their lives than sit around and watch TV. The networks are just shooting themselves in the foot. Network evening news broadcasts are getting creamed because of cable news (which is essentially timeshifted news). The same will occur to their precious copyrighted content. Less people will watch, and advertising revnues/rates will go down.
Don't write your congresscritters because A FUCKING WEBSITE told you to!
I doubt anyone would actually make the effort to write to their congressman unless they already knew about and cared about the issue.
It won't affect me one iota.
I guess you're never going to buy an HDTV and other TV equipment then.
(1) The Broadcast Flag effectively mandates increased hardware costs.
(2) The Broadcast Flag mandates decreasted functionality of products.
(3) The Broadcast Flag effectively mandates increased development costs.
(4) The Broadcast Flag thoroughly STRANGLES efforts to introduce any new products and technologies. Innovation will be illegal/nonfunctional unless it first gets regulatory approval. The prior documented approval process explicitly went through the movies studios and other industry bodies that would resist or reject any change or disruption to the status quo.
If this really isn't going to affect you, fine. But I didn't know the Amish spent much time posting on the internet.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I understand that for many the only hope of having a naked person in your bedroom, or any person outside of your immediate family, is the television, but that is no reason to waste time on this issue. It will not go away, and you will continue to loop the latest teen idol as they take off their clothes.
What we are seeing here is a result of televisions main purpose, to deliver viewers to advertisers. With the VCR, and Tivo, and the net, fewer people are watching the ads. This makes TV increasingly irrelevant. To make matters worse, the increase image quality really has nothing to do with bringing viewers to the advertisers, yet cost money. Furthermore, as advertising wanes, DVD sales are becoming more important. The increased picture quality might reduce DVD sales.
But given the general illiteracy and obesity of the American public, there is no better way to reach viewers than TV. Even the net requires to much interaction, and broadcast over the net is not yet practical. So TV cannot go away. So what we are going to see is what we are seeing now. People actively not buying the more expensive sets. People not buying the conversion unit because the useless extra hardware makes it too expensive. And ultimately no conversion happening because there are not enough eyeballs to make it worthwhile.
In the end, the free market may very well save us. In this case the consumer has the ultimate power because without the consumer, the advertisers have no reason to pay for the TV. And how few viewers are going to be worthwhile.
Or we could just chuck the whole TV thing and go read a book, or, if we want to watch sports, go to the local college.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I have been subscribing to ten-dollar minimum cable for some time. After deprogamming the Jesus channels and Home Shopping Network channels from the remote, I have ten channels left. I can surf my dial in under one minute and then shut the box off!
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
Better, I think, to set things up such that a bill or desired legislation pertains to one (and only one) subject. That eliminates the major reason line-item-veto is needed. (Not why the executive branch wants it, but why they need it.)
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Well, typically, I see people bring up this supposed difference more for educational purposes. (You know, to call attention to the very fact you're mentioning... that classically, it used to mean something different.) Sort of nitpicking to get people thinking about the details of what their govt. is and isn't....
> ". .
>"All opposed?"
>(chorus of nays)
> "Motion fails."
> That's why.
First, elect one ethical Congressdrone - granted, an impossibility - but wouldn't it be cool if...
"Next motion on the table: (defeated-sounding sigh) Rep. That-Annoying-Sonofabitch's bill to removing rider bills and an additional $1B in funding for the capture - dead, not alive - of OBL"
"If the line item was introduced as its own atomic bill, it could be vetoed. Why should the fact that its not an actual separate bill matter?"
Because it's not what congress intended. The items are parts of a whole and need to be kept that way.
If you wrote a contract, would you allow the other party to alter it *after* you had signed it? Of course not. You work out the details beforehand. It's not hard to imagine scenarios where the president could veto critical items and sign just the bad parts.
That's of course the most obvious (to us) answer, but I might as well throw another one because with the language you're using you probably have heard of the large numbers of stupid people here.
I'd have to say the real problem is no matter what someone is caught at, if he/she has a high profile government job, there will be no punishment. Bill Clinton got away with Grand Purgery, he even admitted that he lied before a court afterwards, and he's still touring the country selling books, making $40k/night on speeches, etc.
Yeah, there's a lot of corrupt politicians... who more to inspire them than "The Leader of the Free World" though? Maybe it was better when Nixon got impeached and pressured out of office for doing nothing.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Of course, that requires a President that's not a corprate jerkoff.
On the other hand, line item veto is a real threat to the speration of powers.. And that's something we have enough problems with.
what we really need is the ability to give the Presidential Office back line-item veto power
Score:3, Insightful
This should be Score:5, Funny! I absolutely burst out laughing when I read it. It took me a full minute before I could manage focus enough to read beyond that first sentence.
Bush veto the broadcast flag? Woohoo! I guess that would be right between vetoing a Defense of Marriage item and trimming troubling new police powers out of Patriot Act II Revenge of the Sith.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
...Bread and Circuses...
or is that Guns and Reality Shows? I always get those things confused.
Um, yes it is.
I suggest you re-read the Constitution, buddy.
If you want line-item, get 38 states to agree.
All I can do is vote for whoever's running against each of them as a protest next time around, but I won't waste my breath expressing my concerns anymore.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Lets see, we have copy protection for computer games and applications, Macrovision and CSS for DVDs, stuff like SafeAudio for CDs and now a Broadcast Flag coming in for TV.
The DMCA provision forbidding the cracking of copy protection provisions for all these items means that your fair use rights are not wasted legislation and a piece of history. The final nail in the coffin.
Well that's all well and good, but that's the Slashbot take on this issue. I'm sorry but I don't take the groupthink around here at face value. Perhaps you (and Slashdot) are right, but I resent articles like this that tell me what I should think.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
That's where your mom comes in: she's a different generation and (on average) a different gender. This surprises the staffer, and they'll add a +2 to whatever your mom says.
She can use one of the standard talking points, or mention how she wants her techie child to continue being employed. And, if she has grandkids, then variations of "Nothing, but nothing gets in the way of my showing off hi-def videos of my grandkids to my friends" could be useful. Plus, sad to say, the staffers are more likely to believe her when she says that she votes (or contributes to campaigns) because (on average) its true.
Fair enough, and a vaild thing to do. If you do do this, I suggest you point that out. It will help resolve some confusion up-front.
If you haven't figured it out yet, every time you buy a product you are voting with your dollars.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Hey fuckrod, got any arguments in favor of the broadcast flag? If not, please die of cancer at your earliest convenience. Thanks.
Well, I think it's about time that we create legislation to ban sneaking in legislation as amendments to completely unrelated bills. How are we going to get it in? Sneak it in with some DMCA type bills. Heheheh, the irony....
The Plan:
1)Convince Gates that these laws are bad for Microsoft
2)Gates bribes these laws away
3)The people are happy
They can't stop analog-to-analog recordings. Basically you get as good an output as you can on a tv screen, and then place a camera before it to record it and digitize it back. Voila. To stop this kind of thing they'd have to forbid cameras altogether, meaning you would not be able to record your kids, weddings or your family at all. Good luck to that. Ultimately it comes down to consumers behaving, just like with tax-confessions, with the IRS coming to get you if you're dishonest. All these content-protection technologies are only like fences that can be jumped easily, especially when no-one's watching.
Or you could just not record stuff. Do you want to put a camera in front of your TV? The quality would be horrendous. Don't get me wrong, I already wrote my senator about this. I'm not in favor of the broadcast flag, and I've been ranting about it to my family since I originally heard of it. But the analog hole is not very wide. Are you going to set up a timer on that camera to record your favorite shows?
Error 404 - Sig Not Found
"Damnit, the bible belt is going to decide wether or not we have a broadcast flag or not, those farkers better not screw up!!(Of course by screwing up I mean doing anything that I don't agree with)"
I live in the bible belt, of course I'm the only one who cares about shit like this in my entire group of people I know.
Most people I talk to say "thats boring politics stuff" and the only people who really vote on voting day is the republicans. Thats why Texas is a republican state! TA DA!
Anyways, I tried calling 3 of those numbers and it said residential calls are not accepted on this voicemail system -- and then it would disconnect. I stopped calling more because I'm already going to pay $24 in long distance fee's for just these 3. (All long distance is 6 dollars for first minute.)
Oh well.... not like it'd be listened to anyway. They're having the meeting at 9am tomarrow (who checks their office messages RIGHT before an important meeting)
As every other american who won't speak on something important because it doesn't "affect them" I won't care myself either.
I don't watch TV at all. However, I understand -- if this is passed it is just another one of my rights being taken away from me.
It's not true. Donations are allowed at the local level.
Here is a page talking about how donations must be disclosed. How can you disclose donations if you say they are illegal?
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html
Furthermore, apparently you also have lobbies and lobbyists. Which also is another way money influences the system.
It doesn't sound like our systems are all that different, honestly. I think maybe you just suffer from an overly negative impression of how the US system works.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Isn't this the same bill the federal budget cuts for public broadcasting are on? I submitted a story about that today. Unfortunately, I doubt it'll be in in time. Basically, the approp. bill proposed 9 Jun offers cuts in federal budget up to 45% for public broadcasting, and its subcommittee proposed COMPLETE cuts in the future. Linky: http://www.kwmu.org/cpbcuts.html
Commodore!!! Haven't typed ,8,1 in FOREVER lol. Thanks for the trip down memory lane :)
A.A
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
The publicly transmited airwaves are controlled by the FCC everyone knows that. The government can make laws stipulating the way its coded.
So why don't we trash this system? Sending a signal, even digital can get corrupted or have a bad quality.
Why don't we create a social internet entertainment platform (iep).
Hey Ma' I'm gona go watch some iep!
I thought everybody should know that you may have just slashdotted the United States Senate Appropriations Committee.
As of 10PM PST, six hours after news first leaked out, we've reached over 4550 messages sent to the 26 senators on the appropriations committee. The median number of emails and faxes per senator is 64; the average is 150.
Patty Murray (D-WA) received over 300 from her constituents on the Broadcast Flag. Kay Hutchison (R-TX) has received over 500 mails warning her of the controversial rider. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) has over a thousand faxes sitting in her inbox telling her not to accept any Broadcast Flag amendment.
And that's not including the telephone calls, which are still continuing.
Hollywood's first chance to slip in an amendment will be at 2PM EST Tuesday, in the Commerce, Justice and Science. Their next opportunity will be the full committeee mark-up at 2PM EST Thursday.
We need to keep the pressure up, but I think it's fair to say that so far this rider is not slipping by unnoticed through the halls of Congress.
If you're in the states below, please call your senator.
COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND SCIENCE SUB-COMMITTEE AND FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ALABAMA Senator Richard Shelby (202) 224-5744
ALASKA Senator Ted Stevens (202) 224-3004
HAWAII Senator Daniel Inouye (202) 224-3934
IOWA Senator Tom Harkin (202) 224-3254
KANSAS Senator Sam Brownback (202) 224-6521
KENTUCKY Senator Mitch McConnell (202) 224-2541
MARYLAND Senator Barbara Mikulski (202) 224-4654
MISSOURI Senator Christopher Bond (202) 224-5721
NEW HAMPSHIRE Senator Judd Gregg (202) 224-3324
NEW MEXICO Senator Pete Domenici (202) 224-6621
NORTH DAKOTA Senator Byron Dorgan (202) 224-2551
TEXAS Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (202) 224-5922
VERMONT Senator Patrick Leahy (202) 224-4242
WASHINGTON Senator Patty Murray (202) 224-2621
WISCONSIN Senator Herb Kohl (202) 224-5653
FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
MISSISSIPPI Thad Cochran (202) 224-5054
PENNSYLVANIA Arlen Specter (202) 224-4254
MONTANA Conrad Burns (202) 224-2644
UTAH Robert F. Bennett (202) 224-5444
IDAHO Larry Craig (202) 224-2752
OHIO Mike DeWine (202) 224-2315
COLORADO Wayne Allard (202) 224-5941
WEST VIRGINIA Robert C. Byrd (202) 224-3954
NEVADA Harry Reid (202) 224-3542
CALIFORNIA Dianne Feinstein (202) 224-3841
ILLINOIS Richard J. Durbin (202) 224-2152
SOUTH DAKOTA Tim Johnson (202) 224-5842
LOUISIANA Mary L. Landrieu (202) 224-5824
A TYPICAL CALL
"Hello, Senator _________'s office"
"Hi, I'm a constituent. I'm registering my opposition to
the broadcast flag amendment being introduced in the
Senate Commerce Justice and Science Appropriations
subcommittee mark-up on Tuesday, and in full committee on
Thursday."
(*** You can give your own reasons for opposing the flag
here. Here's a sample: ***)
"The Broadcast Flag cripples any device capable of
receiving over-the-air digital broadcasts. It give
Hollywood movie studios a permanent veto over how members
of the American public use our televisions. It forces
American innovators to beg the FCC for permission before
adding new features to TV. "
"This is an important issue which will affect all
Americans, and should not be inserted at the last moment,
with almost no debate."
"Please oppose the broadcast flag amendment. My name and
address are ___________________."
"Thank you for your time."
in a nation where no-one takes the sciences, but a lawyer is glamorised (along with other law enforcement agencies like the police, CSI etc), you end up with a nation of lawyers.
I would agree that the legal profession is overly glamorized at the cost of many peoples otherwise happy carreer paths, but really scientists are starting to take the lead - frankly CSI does glamorize law enforcement but it also does quite a good job of glamorizing science! The guys in the lab in that show are cool, and the science is always presented quite interestingly and the main characters always are quite smart about things like basic physics.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The EFF action center at least also faxes letters in, so that's worthwhile.
Since there's really no time for Snail Mail, I aim to make a call tomorrow as well. Even though I've already got my grandfathered HDTV tuner card, and can laugh at the rest of the people who have to suffer the results if such a thing comes to pass.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I myself have a grandfathered HDTV tuner car, so I should not care either.
Yet I wrote a letter and plan to call every day. Why? Because letting this one thing slide will lead to a world you do not wan tto be in, and that composite port you rely on could be gone sooner than you think.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You don't respect Representative Richard Boucher?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
When writing of calling the senators, rather than just saying how much you dislike the thought of turning over more power to the FCC there's another point you can make that should pull at the heart-strings.
Remind them of a world of working people working wierd hours - late nights at the mall, night shifts, and the like. These are the forgotten people that all make our lives a little asier that are going to be most screwed by this evil broadcast flag. Not the people of Slashdot who can collectivley hack around most laws, but the bread and butter of each senators voting district who just do thier jobs and don't need the government coming in to tell them what can and cannot be recorded.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If all you anti-**AA and anti-broadcast flag folks are correct in the notion that the relatively unhindered movement of media actually benefits artists, actors, recording companies and movie studios, then these Draconian measures should have a detrimental effect on both the producers and gatekeepers.
I, on the other hand, couldn't care any less about some silly Broadcast flag. As for the EFF assertion that it... "Limits Fair Use: As the May 11, 2005 Congressional Research Service report noted, the flag will prevent important fair uses, like the ability of teachers to engage in distance learning..." Yawn. The day that teachers can't play video because of some stupid broadcast flag is the day that students start to learn something worthwhile, because the teacher can't opt out of teaching by turning on some stupid "educational" show.
And as far as art goes, I will continue to vote with my wallet. I will vote not to see the latest Tom Cruise blockbuster, because it does not add to my well being or increase my enjoyment out of life and I don't approve of the prominence that he brings a stupid UFO cult. That's right, I'm prejudiced, sue me.
Furthermore, I vote not to buy most CDs because I'd rather download from some of the vast empire of highly innovative independent music coming from artists who don't have corporations manipulating overused harmony hooks on their behalf... Though I must admit, from time to time I watch with mild amusement (and arousal?) at the latest pair of tits that Viacom parades across MTV.
As for the rest of you, enjoy decrypting a digital clip of the latest piece of hollywood fart humor to be targetted at you by the corporations. At least you'll have something to talk about with your friends.
So, that "4% of the total tax revenue" is made up of how much of their expendable income? I'd hasten to guess... ALL OF IT.
The taxes on someone making minimum wage are a MUCH bigger burden to them than are the taxes on someone making $100k+/yr (even if they are in a higher bracket).
So... don't even start to say anything like "poor people should be thankful they're only paying 4%" (which is what you implied). They're only paying 4% because that's all they've got!
I'm not sure this is a general comment, or in reference to the Broadcast Flag rider in particular, so I'll just come out and ask: Which Senator Is Trying To Add The Broadcast Flag Rider?
Did the word get passed around because there is some buzz on the Hill, or is someone on the record as the author? I've been up and down www.senate.gov for an hour, but haven't spotted anything yet.
Aw shit, Byrd's on the committee... I'll bet it's him.
Luke, help me take this mask off
a opposed to
1. Party X proposes legislation, Party Y is too chickenshit to speak up
2. Legislation Passes
3. Police State
4. Revolution
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Most of you are part of a vast empire of drones whose consumption of mass media is rotting your brain -- not unlike the damage caused by using methamphetamine every day for 10 years. Aside from eating, sleeping working, and going to school, you spend your supposed free time consuming junk food for your brain. So in the interests of slowly weening you off this mass media cult(ure), I present some workable alternatives. Sure, your friends and family will hate you when you can no longer mimick the latest Adam Sandler baby talk, but rest assured, they're just a bunch of junkies who only liked you because you were their monkey boy in the first place.
1. Go outside. It's sunny. Unless you live in Seattle.
2. Turn on PBS. Sure, it's boring, but you can fantasize about the large breasted woman pleading with you to help save WSTD.
3. Use the intarweb. You know, they have it for computers now.
4. Play with your kids. They hate you, but you did father them. If you don't have kids, make some.
5. Refer to last part of previous point -- even if you already have kids.
6. Get a girlfriend. They're all squishy and stuff. I highly recommend it. Make sure the wife doesn't find out.
7. Produce your own movie. If Kevin Costner can get paid to pretend that he can pretend, then I doubt you can do much worse.
8. Play sports. Well, that might be a stretch seeing as you have developed into a plump little couch potato during your addiction phase, but rest assured there's a position for you on the baseball diamond... like designated backstop.
Whether or not that's true is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand (which is whether line-item veto is a good idea or not)
250 million clueless morons voting = nothing changes.
All your base are belong to Google.
German, English, who cares, they are both foreign languages (except that German is easier to learn).
English makes no sense, it is supposedly a Germanic language yet most of its words are not English native, but of Romance origin, hard to learn, spell and remember. In contrast, most German words are familiar, easy to learn and remember, true Germanic words.
and it said residential calls are not accepted on this voicemail system
Does this mean that U.S. Senators don't need to take calls from US residents ?
Could someone explain how this works ? Is this normal in the states ?
I think I would be a bit concerned if our politicians wouldn't even pretend to listen.
Dude, today Seattle was sunny and topped 80 degrees. Did you know they have weather reports on teh intarweb now?
But they don't have the main characters play it dumb while some dweeby guy in a lab coat explains all the technical details.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
was previously played out on the simpsons, it turns out in that
episode they got on senator drunk in drinking contest with homer,
another one abstained from voting because they had some dirt
on him, and something else...
at the end of it krusty got his bill through and Springfield got
something else they did not need.
too little too late...
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
Clue #2: Using the FBI and IRS to harass his political enemies.
Clue #3: Withholding evidence supoenaed by Congress.
Clue #4: Use of CIA and Army intellegence agents for domestic spying.
Clue #5: Armed intervention in Cambodia w/o running it by Congress.
Clue #6: (Plausably) Signing off on the Watergate break in.
Clue #7: Covering up his staffs' involvement in #6.
Hokay, let's compare this to Mr. Clinton, who...
Was set up by a multi-millionare who paid at least 40 people to perjure themselves, and as a result, lied in court about fingering Monica.
Hell brother, I don't know what I was thinking. You're right, Slick Willie was a frickin' Enemy Of The Republic.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Times are tough. On times like this I feel lucky for the fact I live far away from the US.
If you read the U.S. Constitution, the President has the authority to sign or veto any bill passed by Congress. It is exactly the President's authority to decide what passes and what does not. Congress has, however, figured out that they can get what they want (e.g., spending Federal money in their state, which will help them win reelection) by attaching it indivisibly to other items that the President wants.
The states will never pass a line-item veto bill, since for the majority of states, they make out like bandits. Their senators won't vote yes on anything unless there is a kickback to their state. So things like farming and steel manufacturing get Federal subsidies. Those would go away if a line-item veto ammendment were to pass.
States like New York and California would definately pass a line item veto, since they send far more Federal tax money to Washington D.C. than the Federal government spends there. However, those states are in the minority. It's a vicious cycle that will only get worse.
My other first post is car post.
Do you have Microsoft Windows? Of'course you don't; you have uh...me--uhm...gah!
I gotta hand it to you Germans; when Tard handed a raw flesh-patty to a German, you had the stroke of brilliance to throw it on a fire and thorougly cook it first.
We can thank Germans for raw hamburger meat being cooked; aye!
Now stop chearing; We can thank Germans for the success of McDonalds, tripple chins, sag-ass enveloping seats when sitting down, and sauerkraut. Le boo!
I've sent e-mails/online feedback to both my US Representative (Cox, R-CA) and one of my Senators (Feinstein) on occasion. I got replies to both and while I wasn't horribly impressed by Feinstein's reply it did indicate that it was read since the reply was on-topic. Congressman Cox replyed via USPS, instead of e-mail, and I was impressed with his reply. Were the e-mails worth my time? Maybe, but I was doing my duty as a citizen and it was more worth my time than some other duties (like going to jury duty and never even going into the jurybox to be asked about being on a jury). At worst though, they still weren't counterproductive.
I must agree with the phone call suggestion here for one reason, it's immediate. Something like this with a 48-hour deadline does not afford one the luxury to send an e-mail which doesn't need to be read for a week.
Instead of writing senators who don't care what you think, boycott the companies that support this, buy from the companies who are on your side, and buy stock in Tivo. Politics and economics are related and just writing your senator is as useless as running outside and screaming and rioting. You accomplish nothing by just making noise, you can only influence policy through economics and spending habits. Buy a Tivo and let Tivo buy their own politicians.l
Indiana does not have a senator on the appropriations committee; Iowa has Tom Harkin. An AC claims that the form rejects Indiana addresses.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
The US senators will of course take calls from normal citizens. The going rate starts at $1000 per call and goes up from there.
"Isn't this the same bill the federal budget cuts for public broadcasting are on?"
Thanks for the link. Frightening as it may be. I long for the day when pushed media content is in the minority, and people get their news in an open forum like this one for the most part. He who controls the media controls the past, present, and future as far as most people are concerned. Public broadcasting is an essential part of the current spectrum of news sources. Until the commons that the Internet brings is universal, we need them very very much.
C|N>K
:P
Holy hell, that may have been the funniest post I've ever read. Thank you for that. Wish I still had some mod points left over.
Problem is it's possible to put a signal that the camera could dectect, but not the human eye (or at least not noticeable by most persons), into the vido stream such that it simply refuses to record it.
You don't notice macrovision on most vhs (analog) tapes, yet when copy-ing with another vhs machine the copy shows the effects in many cases. My AIW video card supports tv-in and can detect macrovision (wich it promply 'honors' by scrambling the video output).
This kinda of crap needs to be fought, only way to slow it down.
Mycroft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Here is a suggested email in case you need help getting started. Also many senator's web sites request that for urgent issues you call since it can take some time for email to get processed.
Honorable (Your Senator Here)
Please do not vote in favor of any act or bill that contains provisions to restrict what Americans are able to watch on TV. Americans have the right to make home recordings for their own personal use, and they already pay a tax on every single piece of blank media sold in the United States to compensate for unauthorized recordings. To enact a bill containing a so-called "Broadcast flag" is inappropriate and unfairly deprives the honest, honorable american people who voted for you their rights.
The courts have already spoken on this issue, declaring that the FCC does not have authority over material once it has been broadcast. The courts were very clear in their opinion that to do so would be clearly outside the scope of the FCC's charter.
Furthermore to slide the provision into a bill with no public notice, no ability to debate the merits of the proposal, and in such a way that circumvents the usual public discourse is just SLIMY.
The american people are FED UP with SLIMY POLITICIANS who play dirty, underhanded political tricks for the benefit of a privledged few. Its time that the United States government returned to its constitutional roots, you know, that bit about government being OF the people, BY, the people, and FOR the people-- and not just the corporate elite with megabucks to contribute to political campaigns.
Thank you for your time, and I hope you will vote 'NAY' on all issues that include a "Broadcast Flag", and in favor of preserving the rights of the American people.
Sincerely
(Your Name Here)
If you read the U.S. Constitution, the President has the authority to sign or veto any bill passed by Congress. It is exactly the President's authority to decide what passes and what does not. Congress has, however, figured out that they can get what they want (e.g., spending Federal money in their state, which will help them win reelection) by attaching it indivisibly to other items that the President wants.
Yes. The President has the authority to sign or veto any bill passed by Congress.
Line-item veto is unconstitutional.
The reason you're not going to get 38 states to amend the Constitution to give POTUS line-item is the same reason you're not going to get 38 states to put FMA in it.
I think /. should form a PAC, or rather, a non-PAC 527 to put more pressure on Congress on these sorts of issues. EFF is great and all, but that's giving money so they can file lawsuits and write endless emails that go nowhere and do nothing. One person physically showing up at a congressperson's district office or flyering counts for 10,000 emails or letters.
Slashdot could mobilize that kind of pressure, EFF can't.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
The way to do it is to start a centrist party. A party which believes in liberalism but with a dash of social justice thrown in, after all for every right there is a corresponding responsibility[1]. It'll take support from both the left and the right.
[1] Something the founding fathers seem to have forgotten, where's the bill of responsibilities?
Deleted
At the recent general election. Yup, that's right, the government in power is supported by only 36% of the population.
Hold the government accountable. There's a laugh.
Deleted
The committee probably won't even know what they're doing.
That's the way the game is played. Probably won't even be read and a few of the senators will very likely say they never realized the effects of what they were signing -- hoping, I guess, nobody will notice how stupid that makes them sound.
Nobody in good faith is going to stop this practice of tacking poison onto major bills because it is a well-ingrained practice that works for both parties.
I fear I'm being defeatist, and planning for the worst. When I get home, I will use the EFF petition page, for all the good I expect it to do.
So it's time to order either Air2PC or PCHD-3000. Technically, I suspect the Air2PC looks like the better card, but it's out of stock until August. It looks like I might be able to get a PCHD-3000 immediately. The old date was at the end of this month, and I'm really not ready to do anything with this yet, but I do want a "grandfathered" ASTC card.
Does anyone know when this legislation would have the Broadcast Flag taking effect?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Yup... Sneak that flag in and really get consumers on side.
Fortunately I live in a country that stills allows people to record television... does that sound too fucked up or what. Anyway.
Keep on with these rediculous attempts to save dying business models. The consumer and hobbiest like nature will find a way.
Once these restrictions are in place Amercians can expect and very rapid descent into pay per view cablevision! And if you get caught recording its off to gitmo with your economic terrorist ass.
It sound to me like you Merricans could use another revolution! IMHCO (Canadian)
While sneaking in the broadcast flag along with an appropriations bill is screwed up, what really and totally has me outraged is that these jackasses (oh sorry.. elected jackasses) feel that it's "ok" to ramrod their pork and controversial 'protect the public from themselves" legislation through on the coattails of other more worthy bills.
THIS is the kind of bullshit that needs to be stopped. The answer is really clear. Let these people know how you feel about these cheap shot political tricks. If they don't listen, fire them on election day. That's how it's supposed to work, but for some reason nobody bothers to tell these people why they've been fired!
"I didn't vote for you because you're a sneaky bastard and about as palatable as goat piss."
The world according to SComps
Dear Senator Hutchinson,
I write to you today as a concerned citizen and businessperson. As a member of the business community and information technology field, I am dismayed by the impending introduction of the Broadcast Flag attached as a rider to a bill currently moving through the Appropriations Committee. This rider, if passed, shirks comment and voting in the full Senate, circumvents a negative judicial judgment, and puts a tax on one of America's most dynamic and leading industries, while aiding the de-facto monopoly of another.
The Broadcast Flag, if voted into law, would prohibit the sale of any of kind of electronic device with a video playback capability, unless the device had copy-protection standards built-in respecting the Broadcast Flag. My opposition to this bill is four fold:
1. The Broadcast Flag will increase the cost of manufacturing for high-tech businesses here in Texas such as Dell, HP, and AMD.
2. Those increased costs of doing business will be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices; affecting our schools and the less fortunate most by increasing the price of technology for all. The only purpose of this technology is protect an industry that has fought against innovation and enjoyed success despite itself i.e. VCRs.
3. It does not make good economic sense to penalize an industry that contributed over $600 billion to the US economy and is our flagship industry; for Hollywood, which only contributed 6% of that amount.
4. The Broadcast Flag is being introduced through an appropriations bill to shirk comment and public notice and circumvent a negative judicial judgment.
I agree that content providers need to be paid for their work, but penalizing the rest of the economy and trying to do so in a backroom deal is not the way to do it.
I have been an enthusiastic supporter of you Senator, back to your years as state treasurer. However, I will make this issue a key voting point in the next election and if by chance you and others do not stop the Broadcast Flag from becoming law I will be forced to look at your opposition. So I urge you to reject Hollywood's attempt to enforce the Broadcast Flag by penalizing our dynamic electronics industry. Thank you for your continuing leadership in Washington and here in Texas.
Sincerely,
Instead of searching cargo containers for WMDs, checking borders for enemy penetrations, patrolling border waters for terrorists smugglers, guarding sensitive domestic infrastructures like the power grid for sabotage, law enforcement will instead be on the lookout for contraband BF-ignoring electronics and software.
While LE is busy doing that, anti-US terrorists will have more choices and opportunities, thanks to the diversion of resources in an attempt to enforce the broadcast flag. Unless, of course, you really believe that nobody will ever circumvent the BS BF.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
They treat the citizenry with such contempt. Fine, well the citizenry will treat them with contempt in return.
They lost revenue through file sharing?
Tough shit.
Yöu fúckêda üp
This is the key. If it has an onerous protection that benefits only a few...don't participate. Don't buy, don't watch, don't go there. Find some local entertainment and support the artists in your neighborhood. Change your life. Stop being fodder or cogs.
Spread the word. Oh, it will take a generation or two, but you're wasting your breath yammering at the power brokers. If you didn't cough up the cash, after the vote you are meaningless. Don't spend money where it benefits them or the ones who own them.
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
The proposed broadcast flag won't prevent you from watching/recording/editing stuff you shot yourself in HD. That's not to say that it won't likely be abused in that way, but it's not a good argument to throw at a politician - at least if they understand the legislation they're debating.
Good idea though.
Line-Item veto was only supposed to be for appropriations anyway, not for other legislation. The idea was that the President could eliminate pork-barrel spending by vetoing specific items in the appropriations bills. That's all that it could be used for.
Is unfounded! Most Americans who travel to other countries have business to do there! Not just vacation/drunken parties like going to daytona beach! They are there being curteous to the native people and would like to blend in. But because of generalities.. we are treated as the scum of the earth, when doing anything except buying ($$). I have been there many times before being in the military, in the military and since being out of the military. There are good people and there are rotten apples. If you think that only rotten apples go overseas, then you might as well agree with the GP that all yanks (most americans) are crap. just my 2 cents.
"Watch out for my Uberness!" --- Uberlicious
#include
void main(void) {
printf("Screw over general populace.\n");
return;
}
You forgot to make your program read the legalese input so it could translate it appropriately:
#include
void main(void) {
int garbage;
while ((garbage = getc(stdin)) != EOF);
printf("Screw over general populace.\n");
return;
}
Here is what I sent - including a nice sound bite that anyone could use to attack the root of the MPAAs arguments, very simply. As a constituent and a proponent of innovation, I'm registering my opposition to any Broadcast Flag amendment introduced in the Senate Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations subcommittee mark-up on Tuesday, or in full committee on Thursday.
If you read nothing else, I can summarize this letter with one sentence:
"Real American Companies Innovate, not Legislate."
The so-called Broadcast Flag is an abomination and needs to be rejected by the Senate. It will do nothing to stop large-scale piracy, and will only serve to limit the fair-use rights of American citizens to time shift television programs, save them for later viewing or view tv programs at a family member's home. Authorizing the broadcast flag will force innovative consumer electronics companies to ask for Hollywood permission before introducing new products. (Note how quickly the cable industry has approved "Cable Cards" for receiving digital cable, to enable digital-cable-ready TVs - After two years, there is exactly one approved.)
The history here is clear. Large sheet music companies tried to sue the nascent recording industry out of existence. Radio tried to stop TV. Large media companies tried to sue the VCR out of existence. Only after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of fair use did they realize the revenue stream available to them. They sued the first makers of MP3 players. They sued ReplayTV into bankruptcy because they dared to introduce an innovative product without the MPAA's permission. If the broadcast flag and similar legislative tools had been around for the last 100 years, we wouldn't have the record players, tape decks, television, VCR, iPods, TiVos or computer DVD recorders. These tools have helped democratize content creation, distribution & consumption by putting citizens/customers in charge of their home-made movies, music, and photographs. The media revolution IS the story of American Capitalism at it's best.
In addition, if recording off-the-air was forbidden, innovative teachers would have had substantially less material for thier class. Many routinely use clips from broadcast documentaries to enliven thier classes. All this would have to bow to the MPAA's desire to protect their old revenue stream.
Please vote against the Broadcast Flag. It is simply a power grab by the large media companies, intended to protect their current revenue stream, without having to innovate, like every other sucessful American company has to. Send them a message - "Real American Companies Innovate, not Legislate."
1. The broadcast flag is intended for broadcasted content, e.g.: over an antenna. So it really affects only 15% of the market.
2. The broadcast flag will NOT stop you from recording a show. Your VCR, TIVO, PVR, etc will still work. The uproar of not being able to time shift would be too great for them to kill it. (Obviously)
3. The broadcast flag WILL stop you from being able to publish a broadcasted show over the Internet.
4. The TV/Movie industry has methods to stop/track recordings from cable/satellite and their Internet transmissions. In some cases they are not using them, in others they are being developed.
5. The broadcast flag already exists in the content, the legislation is intended to force the hardware to recognize it. Manufacturers can voluntarily act on it now if they choose. But why would you add a feature (raise cost) if you don't have to. Thus the legislation is needed to get the hardware to do what the TV/Movie industry wants.
I don't care if it is implemented or not. Yes, I time shift continuously as my kids are not allowed to watch any night time TV. No, I don't get any TV or Movie content from the Internet. If I missed the show I missed it. I'll pick it up in reruns if it is important to me, which generally it is not.
As for commercial skipping, studies have showed that people that fast forward through commercials have the same retention rate as people that watch them all. Now is this saying that people intelligent enough to program a recording device are smarter than those that can not? I don't know. It's all open to interpretation.
You can lose something that is loose, so tighten the loose item so you don't lose it.
If I made a home video and want to share it, will I be able to share it, or will the software needed to put a broadcast flag onto my own media be readily available?
You never expect irony, do you?
Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
@iyfwrestling
You're right, Duverger's Law (spoiler effect) is a feature (bug!) of the system itself, not any inherent flaw in the platforms of the minor parties. If we used Condorcet voting (not the same as IRV), every party could stand on its own merit. There would be no advantage inherent in being an incumbent party, or having the perception of being one of the most popular.
Of course, if everybody voted honestly instead of strategically there wouldn't be a problem either. But since that's awfully hard to do when the system encourages strategic thinking, we ought to change the system so that it encourages honesty. I don't know how we can have truly representative government if the people don't vote how they really think.
Politics isn't one-dimensional, so why do we think two parties can accurately reflect all political views? Politics is n-dimensional, for the n different issues that have become political. A strong multi-party system where everybody has a representative voice would be a big help.
Constitutionally Correct
Now let me rephrase this:
Now repeat after me: I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of Time Warner...
Believe me, I love cynicism as much as the next person
Yeah, right.
Line-item veto is a really bad idea, especially considering who's currently holding the pen.
I don't see how this makes a difference. Anything on his desk has already passed through Congress. He can't add shit.
Why should the president have authority to change the bill without it going back to congress?
Who said anything about changing it? Veto = no, not "No, but we'll do this..."
What would stop him from leaving in the stupid attachments and vetoing everything else
- Housing budget proposal - VETO
- Emergency Relief - VETO
- Death penalty for violating leash laws - APROVE
Somehow, I don't see it happening. And if it does, Congress can always override it. Problem solved.Laziness, check. Impatience, check. Hubris, double check!
Senator Hutchison of Texas has email form on her website. http://hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm
Thad Cochran 202-224-5054
Ted Stevens 202-224-3004
Arlen Specter 202-224-4254
Pete Domenici 202-224-6621
Kit Bond 202-224-5721
Mitch McConnel 202-224-2541
Conrad Burns 202-224-2644
Richard Shelby 202-224-5744
Judd Gregg 202-224-3324
Bob Bennet 202-224-5444
Larry Craig - 202-224-2752
Kay Hutchison 202-224-5922
Mike DeWine 202-224-2315
Sam Brownback 202-224-6521
Wayne Allard 202-224-5941
Robert Byrd 202-224-3954
Daniel Inouye 202-224-3934
Patrick Leahy 202-224-4242
Barbara Mikulski 202-224-4654
Harry Reid 202-224-3542
Herb Kohl 202-224-5653
Patty Murray 202-224-2621
Byron Dorgan 202-224-2551
Diane Feistein 202-224-3841
Richard Durban 202-224-2152
Tim Johnson 202-224-5842
Mary Landrieu 202-224-5824
I called every one of them and voiced my opposition.
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein
I called my senator (Sen. Hutchison) this morning and it was painless. I followed the script at this URL, elaborating a bit on what the broadcast flag is and how it would affect me:
y our_sen.html
;).
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/20/urgent_call_
Oh, and thank you to my employer for paying my long distance charges
I just called the office of Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa) and, while I was obviously unable to speak directly to the Senator (let's face it, people...), the person whom I spoke to on the phone made it seem as if the concerns I brought up, which I grabbed from one of the links posted from TFA, would *actually* be brought to the Senator.
I'm not sure if they actually will, but if the gentleman whom I spoke to is [gasp!] someone who actually does his job and brings things like this up to his boss, we might actually have an ear.
It might have helped that I'm currently an Iowa resident, and based on that my voice is louder to Sen. Harkin, but I strongly urge the rest of you to give your nearest Senator on this committee a call and tell whomever answers the phone what you want. It took 3 minutes, and who knows - we armchair pundits might actually accomplish something by it.
Go do it. Tell us about it. If anything, it'll be good for a laugh on our way to the gulags?
One man's constant is another man's variable.
And that would be bad, because it wouldn't be just the centrist party, it would be the authoritarian party. The problems we're fighting against today -- DMCA, Patriot Act, etc. -- don't fall into the traditional left vs. right spectrum, they fall into the libertarian vs. totalitarian spectrum. Since BOTH the democrats and republicans are authoritarian, if they merged into a "centrist" party we'd be screwed until the libertarians became powerful enough to balance them out.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Whats really funny is that Bush already HAS Line Item Veto as did Clinton.
No President has used it since it was passed.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
An important correction:
#include <stdio>
int main(void) {
while(1) printf("Screw over general populace.\n");
return;
}
4. The TV/Movie industry has methods to stop/track recordings from cable/satellite and their Internet transmissions. In some cases they are not using them, in others they are being developed.
Is this done by magic hand waving? Only in certain circumstances can the CABLE company track recordings. In order to track what is being watched / recorded, you need 2 way communication (Pay-per-view, On Demand, Cable Modems also need 2 way communication). In order to track what is being recorded, the device recording the show, must report back. They can configure the digital cable boxes to log channels watched, etc..., but this is a very uncommon thing. Other then the big three cable companies, not many others have the resources to deal with it either.
I haven't dealt with satellite much, but unless you have a phone cord plugged in, or give the box broadband access via other means, it's not talking back either (2 way communication).
Sorry, I'll put my tin foil hat back on.
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
Well, I just called the offices of both my senators, even though neither is on the appropriations committee. Guess all I can do now is hope... : /
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
...the broadcast flag wouldn't affect you if you STOP WATCHING TV!
It is tuesday morning 9:40 am. Just got off the phone with allards group. They are getting Focus on the Family calling in, in support of this.
I would suspect that they are probably getting people from other states pretending that they are Coloradoans to support this.
Coloradoans, Please Call in and voice your opposition to this. Allard needs a push to do the right and moral thing. And we are most likely fighting an uphill battle.
Do your homework and read which devices need to support the flag. The devices are TVs, VCRs and other recording devices, etc. How is making my TV able to understand the broadcast flag going to change anything? Well, it only makes sense if the point is to prevent the viewing or recording of flagged content.
Do you honestly believe that anyone can stop me from sending an encrypted copy of a TV show with the broadcast flag in it over the Internet to you? Do you believe anyone can stop you from viewing it?
I don't.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
you're right. what we need to do is go from two major parties competing for elections to one huge party and lots of little parties playing in the sand. that will make things so much better.
Have you ever watched CNN? I mean really, calling these people journalists is an insult to every journalist in the world. There may be "reporters" working at CNN, but I can't remember ever seeing a journalist.
I remember the (latest) invasion of Iraq, where CNN showed, for minutes on end, live footage from a tank somewhere in the middle of the night. All you could see was light green blobs on a dark green background, yet they carried that image for minutes. Meanwhile, on another non-commercial news station, they were having a forum discussion on the reasons for the invasion. CNN is as much about journalism and news as MTV is about music.
You're right about them caring if it can raise interest (i.e. ratings), but don't expect them to do any research on the story, or anything else a journalist would do. If you send something to them, do all the research for them. Give them a script they can speak on air. If you just tell them about a story and want them to follow it up... that's just too much work.
No. You're wrong. Where did you get that idea from?
The President of the United States was briefly granted this power in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. It was used once before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan declared it unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
And, everybody who wrote letters and made phone calls--follow up! Let your senator know that:
1. You contacted him earlier
2. You know what he did
3. You are happy or unhappy with his performance
4. And you will remember (3) when you vote on ***** (whenever your senator is up for re-election).
Mine has announced he will *NOT* run in 2006.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Ah, but Durbin made these allegations by flapping his face-meat, not by the subtle click-clack of keys. Godwin's Law lives on the Internet.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
You know, I don't understand why there's not an assassination market for people like Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay.
I mean, Michael Ross killed eight people, right? Lay and Skilling impoverished thousands of people. Why does Ross deserve to die, but not these two scumbags?
Bah; they're captains of industry, right? Real American heroes and so forth. Nearly Secretary of Energy, and all.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I'm in a state not on that list. What can I do? Do I just wait for the bill to make it to the Senate proper? I doubt senators from Texas are going to care what I think, since I wouldn't be voting for them anyway.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Exactly. The line-item veto and eliminating riders accomplish the same thing, except that the former gives power to the government and the latter removes it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I just gave a call to my representative in Illinois, and the woman on the phone was well aware of the Broadcast Flag amendment. Apparently they've already recieved a number of calls... At least we're making a tiny stand, you know?
Out of mod points, damn...
someone give him a little boost
I'm a KS resident so I called Brownback. His intern said they were getting flooded. Good news.
Yup, I've got a Brit friend who took his DVD player to a repair shop here in the US and they just punched a few codes into the remote and voila! Region free DVD viewing.
Even if it requires a $0.47 hardware hack from Radio Shack and is considered illegal - who is going to enforce it? Can they track you somehow? No. It's like stealing cable TV... if you let the Comcast guy into your house he'll see the hack, but if you're dumb enough to do that you deserve to get caught.
Long Live The Media Outlaw Masses!
The democrats have endeared them selves to some very devicive causes. The used to be the "moral" party. That is no longer true. As an example, they should be doing more than just lip service on human rights issues, but I don't see a thing. Although I don't included this in my assesment, I see the prevelence of abortion as a human rights issue, but a pro-life democrat is an endanged species facing quick extintion.
Overall, I think we need more parties to keep the power in check effectively, and neither the democrats or the republicans reflects the view of average americans.
Democrats and Republicans only disagree about how to enslave you
FMA?
My other first post is car post.
Even if we lose this round, there's always the conference committee.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The irony is that only Presidents want the line-item veto. Congress loves the fact that they can sneak in items to benefit themselves. So Congress would never put it into a bill as an attachment. Also, as someone else pointed out, Bill Clinton already tried to get a line item veto, but the Supreme Court shut it down saying that it needs to be a Constitutional Ammendment in order to be Constitutional.
My other first post is car post.
The FMA is different since it's about a lot less money than the line item veto. FMA would keep things the way they are with regard to gay couples getting tax breaks. It makes sense, since the only reason we give tax breaks to married couples is because they (except for infertile couples) are going to produce children who will hopefully grow up to be good taxpayers. Don't believe any of the misinformation, it's all about money. But money is pretty important, so that's okay.
My other first post is car post.
I wound up faxing.
In Washington, riders aren't unconstitutional.
In the state of Texas, riders on state laws are against the state constitution. This means state courts will declare the "rider" provisions illegal unless they are closely related to the purpose of the original bill.
But only if someone complains and files suit.
Slightly OT:
Some "bad computer people" can do us political harm: Virus mailing to move congresmen against a particular law.
A few years ago something strange happened to my dad's email client, Outlook Express. He had a clean unpublicized address and a rate of about 1 new message per month. Also, he does not speak English. Even if we wanted to, it would have required some googling skills to find our congressman.
Doing a routine mailbox cleanup to destroy spam for dad, I had found his Sent box had a recent message directed to our state's Senator or congressman. It had a carefully crafted message to fight some anti-Financial Aid state proposal and was 'signed' using my dad's full name as found in the OE profile. I never mentioned it to dad thinking it was some random virus attack.
A few weeks later, though, dad received a snail mailed letter from the Congressman [no clue how they found that out though.] Puzzled by the lawyerish-looking document, dad heard my whole story about the unwanted mailout. I made sure in our conversation that the original e-mail was indeed not written by him somehow.
The letter said the Congressman got the email and thanked "dad" for his concern and support, since the congressman's agenda agreed with "dad's" email.
From the looks of it, some renegade local college student had decided to lobby by using a virus spreadinag technique to make the congressman take notice from unsuspecting/potentially unwilling constituents. I would have been mad if this attack had affected a state law against our own political beliefs. The law had already passed with his help, and I never did write back to let the congresman know we had been impersonated.
"Wireless : LAN
All long distance is 6 dollars for first minute
Might give VoIP a plan, or at least get a calling card. You can get cards that are well under a dime a minute with no other fees. Or maybe that's well under $10 for 1 minute and 99 bonus minutes free, I forget.
http://news.com.com/Broadcast+flag+debate+shifts+t o+Capitol+Hill/2100-1028_3-5755804.html
"Even if the Senate votes to adopt the broadcast flag, its final passage in Congress is uncertain. The appropriations bill already approved by the House of Representatives includes no such requirement; key House members such as Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, have been skeptical; and a Congressional Research Service report worries about the broadcast flag's impact on "fair use" rights"
Amen! It's not so much what the goobermint is trying to do with the power, the problem is the fact that it keeps accumulating more and more power! Even if you agree with one administration, another is bound to come along that will misuse it (in your opinion, or mine). The only thing you can do that is fair to everyone is to keep governmental authority to the bare minimum necessary. Repealing the 16th and 17th amendments would be a good start.
Constitutionally Correct
There's more than "both" (two) sides.
Maybe they were responsible enough on their own that they didn't need it detailed out for them? The Bill of Rights isn't for the people so much, it's for the government - to remind it very clearly where it's boundaries are. The powers delegated to Congress define pretty well what its responsibilities are. Individuals usually can't get into too much trouble on their own - shirk your responsibilities and it will come back to haunt you. Government, though, is an untamed beast that will feed and feed and grow and grow as much as it can unless kept on a tight leash under strict watch.
Constitutionally Correct
Lets be clear, the reason you have two large general (authoritarian) parties is the electoral system makes it inevitable.
As the centrist party gains votes and support, the others lose votes/support and the electoral system you have in place at the moment would become unstable, it's happening in the UK at the moment, the government being formed by a minority party, 36% of the vote. It becomes very clear to everyone then that electoral reform becomes a pressing requirement.
If you get the electoral reform right (and this is key) you'll end up with a more european form of democracy. Their electoral systems make large parties unnecessary and they tend to split out into their factions. It also means that the various parties often have to form coalitions to form a government. It makes authoritarian government far far more difficult.
Deleted
This is about how the polititians were treated with respect to their actions. See my other reply to understand... http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153389&thresho ld=0&commentsort=0&tid=129&mode=thread&pid=1287011 1#12881879
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
If it comes from Hollywood, or CNN, or Fox,r AOL, or Hearst, or really anyone with enough of a vested interest to put assert a property right on it you can bet it's 100% sanctified bullshit or else designed to sell you something. Are we all really this starved for entertainment that we have to haggle about the right to copy "Bewitched"?
Our current electorial system only allows two viable parties. If you attempted to institute a "centrist" party it would be counter productive unless/until you can actually seize enough of the vote to become the number one party. Until then you are stealling more votes away from whichever of the two main parties is more reasonable and less extremist. For example the Republican party would rally around the diehard religious right. I'm not sure what (if any) equivalant there is for the Democrats, but t
hey too would attempt to rally around a diehard extreme. Either way you're makign the situation worse untill you can actually win. And people on either side would rather vote for the "lesser of two evils" of one of the radical parties than to throw their vote away on a non-viable centrist party and winding up with the greater of two evils.
The problem is the electorial system. Under our current system you could have an election between Mother Theresa and George Washington and Mahatma Ghandi and Abraham Lincoln and Einstein and Thomas Jefferson and the Pope and Florence Nightengale and Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Benjamin Franklin and JFK and HITLER.... and what would happen? All of the good and reasonable voters would split their votes fairly evenly across the good candidates giving them about 7% each. The 8% dedicated psychos would all vote for Hitler.
We use a "plurality" election system. The highest single candidate wins, no matter what percentage he gets. With a 7% 7% 7 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% vote goes to the 8% candidate. Hitler wins with 8%.
It's much the same with three candidates. Two good and reasonable candidates will split the votes of good and reasonable voters while a worse candidate merely needs to grab 34% of voters off in some radical and emotionally charged direction.
There are much better electorial systems. The best such system is called Condorcet voting, though the better known (but less optimal) system is called Instant Runoff Voting. In each of these systems you get to rank the candidates. In such a system 8% of the voters might rank Hitler first, but everyone else will rank him dead last. Hitler might start out in "first place", but he will quickly get knocked out because he has no broad support. Condorcet voting (and to a lesser extent Instant Runoff voting) ensure a candidate with broad support, ensure that a centrist candidate wins. With these systems you may not get to elect your first choice candidate, but you will probably get your second choice candidate. You can someone who is at least acceptable to almost everyone.
You can read more about it here if you're interested.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Whats really funny is that Bush already HAS Line Item Veto as did Clinton.
No he doesn't.
The Supreme Court struck down the line-item veto as unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision on June 26, 1998.
Even had it not been unconstitutional, the original Line Item Veto law had a built in sunset provision and would have already expired at the end of 2004
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
So you're saying we need to make it worse, so that people will see the need to make it better?
I agree that a multi-party system is better. The way to do this, as I've said elsewhere in the thread, is implement a voting system that encourages honest voting and gives a fair result. Every view (to the extent that is reasonable) should be represented. There are more than two, after all, yet we seem stuck with only two parties.
Here's a list of ideas for voting and representation reform.
The first two I'd place roughly equal and very high in importance, the last two roughly equal but less important.
Constitutionally Correct
"So you're saying we need to make it worse, so that people will see the need to make it better?"
m
Fraid so. The system won't change till people see the problem.
e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4582701.st
A credible 3rd, centrist party which can grab votes from both sides can do that. When one of the parties gets into power with only 34% support, with the opposition of the vast majority of he people 66% something *really* has to be done.
Deleted
Forgot to mention. Even when you've got a credible, centrist 3rd party it's going to take 20 years before you start having an effect. Oh and they have to actually believe in electoral reform, no point electing someone who's going to keep the status quo.
At the moment, there's nothing particularly credible:
http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm
I'd suggest a Liberal party but that seems to have leftist connotations in the US, despite liberalism being anything but left wing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Deleted
You think we don't have accountants?
And no, the money doesn't go into the pocket of the representative. It goes into their campaign fund. They do not have access to this money for their own personal use. Well, until they retire and don't seek reelection, then they can dip into it. Which is ridiculous in my book.
I am not saying the US system is perfect. I just don't see how the Australian system is much better or even different. The main differences are two things.
1. You seem to not like the American political process, whereas you like the Australian one.
2. You seem to understand the Australian political process well, whereas you only know certain aspects of the American one.
You fill in all gaps in your knowledge by applying and misapplying your biases and misunderstandings as appropriate.
In the US right now, the most troublesome contributions are really to parties and purportedly unaligned groups which are not actually unaligned. These are very unregulated, whereas direct donations to candidates are more regulated. For example, Kenny Lay paid for George W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential inauguration parties. Is this kind of thing prohibited in Australia? Who's to say you can't rent a hotel across the street from the seat of government the night of the inauguration and invite people to come over there to celebrate? This is basically what Lay does and we can't stop him.
Now, I'm not saying there aren't problems with the US system, but the kind of safeguards you speak of in Australia not only would not solve our problems, but many are substantially already in place in the US!
As to the give-backs, it does happen. But not often. One Democratic candidate did it in the last US Presidential election. But most money (as I said above) actually goes to the parties, not the candidates and that money is usually kept in a "war chest" and used for another candidate for that party in a similar election. Similar means either a later election for the same post, or for a similar office.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95