Slashdot Mirror


Sen. Ted Stevens Introduces "Son of DOPA"

DJCacophony writes "Ted 'series of tubes' Stevens has introduced a bill, going by the interim name S.49, that aims to block access to interactive websites from schools and libraries. The wording of the bill is vague enough to apply to Wikipedia, MySpace (and other social networking sites), and potentially even to blogs. The bill is apparently so similar to the failed Deleting Online Predators Act of last year that it has been termed 'Son of DOPA' by some." Stevens introduced S.49, the text of which is not yet available, on the opening day of the legislative session.

49 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. Jeez... by The+Anarchist+Avenge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dammit Alaska, will y'all do something about that guy sometime soon?

    --
    Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Jeez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Senator Stevens needs his tubes tied.

    2. Re:Jeez... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Dammit Alaska, will y'all do something about that guy sometime soon? I'm sorry to say... not until he keels over on the Senate floor. Up here in Alaska, he's known as "Uncle Ted." He brings obscene amounts of money into this state. The international airport in Anchorage is the "Ted Stevens International Airport." The man is still alive! His eleventh hour ads supporting Lisa Murkowski turned the election around and won her the junior seat in the Senate two term, popular former governor, Tony Knowles. This was the lady who was APPOINTED to the Senate by her FATHER when he was elected governor. Can we say nepotism? Most Alaskans hated her... right up until Uncle Ted endorsed her. In this state at least, the man walks on water (or tubes... or bridges to nowhere). But the people here have no choice. We have a population of around 700,000. We're constantly having to argue with government agencies for them to even have a presence here. To them, it's not worth spending money on services for such a small population spread out over such a large area. (Never mind the billion dollar oil, fishing, mining, and tourism industries.) So we have to have someone who can make our voices heard. Stevens has a lot of clout in Washington, which means Alaska has a lot of clout in Washington, and I doubt we'll give that up until we absolutely have to.

    3. Re:Jeez... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Part of this is due to the committee system in the US government. Committee positions are where the real power lies, and these are awarded by seniority. This means that a state which replaces its senator will automatically have less influence on Capitol Hill, making it in a state's best interest to elect the incumbent unless they are acting against the state's interest.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Jeez... by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Great. Maybe you could talk to uncle ted about being less of an asshat.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    5. Re:Jeez... by element-o.p. · · Score: 2

      The reason he is re-elected is because despite his problems, he brings much more funding to Alaska than any replacement possibly could.

      That's not necessarily a good thing. For example, as I understand, even the residents of Ketchikan don't want the "Bridge to Nowhere (disclaimer: I'm not from Ketchikan, nor have I discussed this with anyone who lives there, so I could be wrong--that's just what I've read in the ADN and other sources). Pork barrel politics are (sometimes) locally good, but (almost always) nationally bad. Stevens' bringing the pork back home just increases the deficit. Furthermore, politics being what it is, if Stevens makes a deal with a senator from somewhere else--or more likely, many senators from many other somewhere elses--so he can fund his pet project, then there's a whole buttload of money being spent on projects that are quite likely very wasteful.

      Additionally, we haven't exactly had a better option. Basically it comes down to the evil you know vs. the evil you don't.

      Here, I agree with you whole-heartedly.

      Don't assume that just because the majority of people vote differently than you do that they're all ignorant... That type of thought leads to far worse governments than ours.

      Yeah, you've probably got a point here, and despite my previous post, I do respect the right of others to disagree with me. I don't necessarily want everyone to agree with me--or vote like I do--all the time. Dissention and free thought is healthy; the concept that you and I may disagree and sometimes you win and sometimes I win is a (tm) Good Thing. But I maintain that Stevens isn't good for Alaska, and he isn't good for the nation. When I see Stevens introducing legislation more and more often that seems to indicate that either he doesn't understand the long-range consequences of his actions or he simply doesn't care, I wish other Alaskans could look past the short-term. But yes, we could do worse than Sen. Stevens. While I'm afraid that terrorism and "think of the children" are becoming the modern version of 1950s' "Red Scare," Sen. Stevens hasn't yet matched the legacy of Sen. McCarthy. I hope he never does.
      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    6. Re:Jeez... by rifter · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dammit Alaska, will y'all do something about that guy sometime soon?

      It's not in their best interest. I mean, he's the king of pork (which means he has brought record breaking Federal dollars to the state), and he's on some important committees. He's been in Congress for a long time, has connections, and therefore Gets Things Done. Alaska has a very low population and therefore only 2 Senators and 1 Representative. But it is a very important state and there are a lot of issues which directly affect Alaska which are basically going to be decided by the government. 90% of the state is federal land, and the main economic drivers are oil and fishing. Fishing isn't doing that great and I don't think it ever brought in the kind of money the oil does. In any case both industries are heavily regulated and the land use required for both is likely to be regulated by virtue of the aforementioned fact that the majority of the land in the state is federal land (that is, parks, reserves, etc in addition to government/military installations/bases).

      If they get a new dog in the race they have to start all over and go back to the unenviable position of having no say over choices that directly affect their lives and their livelihood.

  2. Not Online? by pi_rules · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's right here (PDF).

    Do the Slashdot editors not know how to find stuff on Al Gore's Tubes of Internets?

  3. Once again... by AltGrendel · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...he engaged his mouth before using his brain.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Once again... by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The brain he uses to fill his bank account while trying to ram this crud down our throats.

      --
      What?
  4. Obligatory... by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, because the bandwidth from all these interweb pages is clogging the tubes. I mean, just yesterday, my staff sent me an internet...

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  5. Think of the (poorly educated) children by Megajim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well we wouldn't want anyone actually LEARNING but using the Internet, would we? I particularly find it offensive when non-porn, sexually-related material is blocked from the very people who could use that information the most.

    1. Re:Think of the (poorly educated) children by morsdeus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about people who can't afford to have a computer at home? You've applied regressive censorship - only the poor are prevented from accessing certain information.

    2. Re:Think of the (poorly educated) children by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What have you learned from MySpace that has any value in an educational environment?

      I learned:

      • introductory Web site design and examples of what not to do.
      • the sociology of cliques
      • the psychology of conformism and subcultures

      Besides, this is only for schools and libraries.

      Federal funding means responsibility to act constitutionally, including upholding free speech/expression for adults. The government judging that posting to MySpace is less valuable than posting to Slashdot, or some purely educational forum, is an unconstitutional act. The government should never be making these decisions, individuals should. It is called freedom, even if it is the freedom to waste an hour writing about how cute your poodle is and publishing it.

      The case could be made that there is no valid reason for someone to be accessing MySpace from a library other than wasting time.

      The case could be made that doing anything other than praying to Allah is a waste of time. The case could be made that reading literature instead of car repair manuals is a waste of time. The point is that it is not the government's responsibility or right to make that call, it is the right and responsibility of the individual.

      However, I am assuming that by "schools", he is not including universities and colleges.

      Public schools are one thing. The people there are children who are assigned by our society a subset of rights and responsibilities belonging to other people. In that case it is up to the parent's to decide, possibly through the democratic process of the government, subject to some limitations. In public libraries, however, there is no justification. If people actually went to said libraries and read the constitution as well as the essays of the founding fathers, maybe they'd understand why.

  6. Great Idea! by rlp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hope it passes. After someone adds an amendment stating that it only applies to Alaska.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:Great Idea! by gnarlin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hope it passes. After someone adds an amendment stating that it only applies to Alaska.
      Don't you mean Nebraska?
      --
      A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
    2. Re:Great Idea! by rovingeyes · · Score: 2, Funny

      WTF did Nebraska do? Do you even know that one of the original developers of Apache was from Nebraska? No more corn for you!

  7. Look on the bright side by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It will be the end of Flash advertisements, javascript and other "interactive" tools. Heck, I won't have to waste hours and hours learning AJAX for Web 2.0 because I would want my sites to be able to be seen in schools and libraries.

    Wait...my local library has an interactive catalog. Would they have to block themselves? They probably should already turn themselves in. They have a subscription to Playboy and I'm sure there are countless books that have "porn" in them teaching kids about sex.

  8. They Want to Take Away the Power to Publish... by eno2001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...under the guise of protecting children. Bloody typical. The fact that anyone can walk into a public library and post their uncensored views of the government, politicians, policy, business, etc... is "dangerous". This is why the internet is destined to become just another medium like television where you only consume and are limited in what you can produce and how many hearts and minds you can reach. Unless you fight things like Son of DOPA. This is the typical approach in many segments today. Take something that you REALLY want to enforce on people that they would likely balk at if they really understood it, then attach it to some "noble cause". Make sure that the noble cause is something that makes it easy to paint the opposition as "pro-evil". And you win.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:They Want to Take Away the Power to Publish... by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullseye.

      We get web censorship by explaining that we are protecting our children from the evils of pornography, and in their defense, no measure can be too extreme, so we'll ban sites at the schools and the libraries, and leave the potential open for banning them in homes.

      You balk at this idea? What are you, some kind of pervert who wants kids to have open and free access to porn?

      We get personal tracking by explaining that we are protecting our children from the dangers of child molesters, and to prevent that, no measure can be too extreme, so we'll put GPS collars on convicted child molesters and other sex offenders, and leave the option available for putting them on everyone.

      What? You don't like this? Why are you standing up for perverts, anyway?

      We are good. Un-we, then, are un-good. Mini-love will see they become un-persons. This is plus good.

      <irony=0%> (Oh, for crying out loud, did I forget the <irony=100%> tag again?)

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
  9. Expect later this year from Ted "tubes" Stevens by mobby_6kl · · Score: 3, Funny

    Return of the son of Deleting Online Predators Act.

    Nice to see the feds aren't immune to the same bullshit stunts Illinois and Georgia tried to pull.

  10. You know it's an election year... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...when politicians come up with laws restricting... well, anything.

    I just wonder why there's so much support for laws restricting freedom in the land of the free. Or was that rewritten and nobody told me?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:You know it's an election year... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > I just wonder why there's so much support for laws restricting freedom in the land of the free. Or was that rewritten and nobody told me?

      It got rewritten and nobody told you.

      Republicans are the party of Big Daddy Government: their platform is to put cameras in your bedroom to make sure you're not having sex the wrong way, because pornography is a national epidemic.

      Democrats are the party of Big Mommy Government: their platform is to put cameras in your kitchen to make sure you're not eating the wrong kinds of food, because obesity is a national epidemic.

      Once upon a time, Americans valued "freedom to" over "freedom from". The past 40 years of "every life is precious" and "you are a unique and valuable snowflake" rhetoric has changed that; as a nation, we've pretty much decided we'd rather be safe than free. Kinda sucks for us oldthinkers who unbellyfeel amsoc, but that's our problem, not New America's.

    2. Re:You know it's an election year... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know it's an election year... when politicians come up with laws restricting... well, anything.

      When do politicians ever come up with laws that don't restrict things? When was the last time a politician ran on the platform of repealing all our stupid, useless, counterproductive laws? Americans do not value freedom very much anymore. It is no longer an important cultural value. Most people see the government and laws as a battleground where they try to force other people to conform to doing things their way rather than the way the other party wants. Very few people want to take a stand in favor of personal choice.

      Ever talk to a die hard "pro choice" advocate? They say it is every woman's right to make choices for herself, not have them forced upon her by others. I agree. My opinion might be that abortion is unethical, but it is not up to me to make that choice and force others to agree with me; it is up to each individual to choose. The problem is most of the people I talk to are a lot less in favor of the right to own a firearm or the right to hunt some non-endangered animal, or in some cases the right to eat meat. It is sick and sad that someone can have a "pro choice" bumper sticker, but not even think about the fact that they don't advocate personal freedom to choose in general, just personal freedom to make one particular choice, while they advocate taking other choices away from people. Is it any wonder so many children these days don't even think freedom of speech is an important right?

      Freedom in the US died as a cultural value and is dying in our legislature as well. People don't even see it as an issue or concern. They just want to tell other people how to live at gunpoint, whether that is "worship Jeebus" or "don't shoot bunny rabbits."

    3. Re:You know it's an election year... by Knara · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I believe he's talking about the opposite. The "you are a unique and wonderful snowflake" analogy works great... for snowflakes. However, the problem is that the crowd we speak of also subscribes to such ideas as placing more emphasis on self-esteem in education than actually making sure kids learn and can perform what they learn correctly. It's the "all opinions are equally valid" crowd, where we have to make sure not to offend anyone because we all need to get along in HappyFunLand.

      This crowd encourages individualism... so long as the individuals conform to what they have decided individuals should be. It's pretty much the opposite of what people typically mean when someone says "rugged individualism."

    4. Re:You know it's an election year... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's sick and sad when people make straw-man arguments to defend a weak position about generalization of rights and what is a "right".

      Are you sure you understand what a straw man argument is?

      I'm pro-choice, pro-gun, pro-red-meat. (Bet that hurts your head.) But I don't claim my one anecdotal position defines every pro-choice person.

      I'm sorry, would you mind copying the part of my original post where I claimed this example defines every person who is pro-choice? Oh, I didn't say that? Now you know what a straw man argument is.

      the hypothetical pro-choicers pro-animal-rights people you despise have generalized the notion of rights much more broadly than your mind can handle. If you listen to animal rights groups, they believe the same rights we afford humans we should extend to animals.

      I understand what a lot of these people think and their reasoning, but you're missing a vital piece of the pie. There is a difference between having a belief, and trying to enforce actions or restrictions on actions using laws based on the assumption that your belief is correct and everyone else's belief is wrong. Freedom is each person deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong and acting on those beliefs. When I decide I think animals have rights I'm free to act on that. When I get a law passed that means if other people try to act differently because they have different beliefs someone with a gun comes up and throws them in a cage, that is not freedom. The essence of personal freedom is the recognition that other people must be free to make choices I think are wrong and that means not trying to hold a gun to their head and force them to act in some manner.

      And there are even anti-abortion pro-animal-rights supporters, I just hope that fact doesn't make your head explode.

      Sure there are. I have no problem with people who are for abortions or against abortions. I have a problem with people who claim they are for personal choice, when they are actually against personal choice in general, but in favor of abortion of even that particular choice. Perhaps you're not understanding what exactly my objection is. My objection is that people in general seem to think it is okay to restrict the personal freedoms of others to make choices, if the choices those people are making disagree with their opinions.

      I think what you are having trouble understanding is not some kind of hypocrisy, but rather: how does a system resolve two conflicting rights? e.g, the right for you to play your stereo at 3am full-blast vs. the right for me to have a good night's sleep vs. the right for me to put a gun to your forehead if you don't turn it down.

      All laws that are not "legislating morality" are resolving the conflict of rights between individuals. What I object to is laws that do not resolve a conflict of rights, or which enforce one particular right over another based upon a subjective judgement or opinion.

      Do you know if fetuses have a soul? Do you know if souls exist at all? Do you have concrete proof? Do you know if fetuses can think? Do they have functioning brains? Can you prove it? Basing a law on the unproven belief that fetuses have souls, and then restricting another person's actions on the strength of that belief removes that person's freedom to decide for themselves.

      the right for you to play your stereo at 3am full-blast

      This is called freedom of expression.

      the right for me to have a good night's sleep

      What is stopping you from going elsewhere? I don't think this right is recognized by any human right's organization.

      the right for me to put a gun to your forehead if you don't turn it down.

      Do I even need to go into this?

      In any case, thanks for illustrating my point. You seem to value opinions "pro-gun" over choice. I'm not pro-gun or anti-gun. I'm opposed to gun control laws because I think every person should decide for themselves. This is called pro-freedom. The fact that you don't even seem to see this as an issue is exactly what I was addressing.

  11. No t-shirt by dylan_- · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't find a "Ted Stephens blocked my tubes!" t-shirt on Thinkgeek yet.

    --
    Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  12. States Rights Trashed Again by TonyXL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ever heard of the Tenth Amendment, Ted? Just goes to show that the GOP is no longer the party of smaller constitutional government.

    1. Re:States Rights Trashed Again by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just goes to show that the GOP is no longer the party of smaller ^W constitutional government.
      There. Fixed that for you.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:States Rights Trashed Again by fluxrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When were they the party of smaller constitutional government?

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  13. People Dont read by majortom1981 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This wont be mandatory. The article states that only if you get money from the government would you have to do this. Some Libraries (like the one i work for) dont get money from the government or the state government so it wont apply to us. please read the article before going crazy.

    1. Re:People Dont read by dabraun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious? This is an old standby to get laws passed that would otherwise be considered outside the juristiction of the federal government. Go look up how the 55mph national speed limit was enforced (hint: it didn't apply to ALL roads, just ALL roads in states that wanted funding for interstate highways)

      The federal government collects this money from all the working members of society, then they withold it from anyone who won't accept rules that they are not actually supposed to be able to make. That's generally considered extortion.

    2. Re:People Dont read by vwjeff · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The federal government collects this money from all the working members of society, then they withold it from anyone who won't accept rules that they are not actually supposed to be able to make. That's generally considered extortion. The "national" drinking age is yet another example. No more funding if your state's drinking age is less than 21.

  14. Predators? Well, in that case.. by Grashnak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I understand a lot of child molesters use public washrooms to attack kids in, so we should ban access to public washrooms. Come to think of it, most kids are molested by members of their own families, so clearly we should ban families. Heck, I once heard that a molester drove a volkswagen, so hell, lets ban them too.

    --
    Life needs more saving throws.
  15. Halfway there by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The library here in La Jolla is already halfway there thanks to a little program called CyberSitter. 90% of everything I click on results in "IE cannot display this page" though, sometimes, if I click reload enough times I'm able to recieve enough page text and click stop before CyberSitter receives whatever part of the page it is which causes the page to be dumped.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  16. Poison Placebo by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every time this old crank or any of his fellow Senators wastes time with these fake "child protection" systems that screw adults instead of actually protecting children, they leave children actually exposed to the real threats. And their sneaky smokescreens using children as "human shields" from criticism of their sweeping attacks on American liberty makes it even harder to trust any plan offered to actually protect these people.

    All they do is damage everyone. Delete Stevens and his technocrat cronies.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  17. Job Corps by jrwr00 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm in a Government Program Called Job Corps, I'm in Comp Tech to get my A+ Cert, so i can get a good job, thing is that bill is insane! that would block our main info for computer parts, try finding (in the same place) what the 8086 was and the meaning to DDR2..... Oh well, Proxys around here are so common, i can just use those

  18. If only there were... by TBone · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...some sort of mechanism to have a computer automatically read the contents of a page that was in the Tubes of the Intarweb, and then create indexes on the words contained therein, and then allow users to access those indexes via another page on the Interweb, and look for pages which contain those words.

    I'll be back later, I need to go to the Patent Office.

    --

    This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U

  19. News sites are interactive. by insomniac8400 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Most news sites have polls, blogs, comments, and messageboards. This bill would block students form going to their local newspapers site or the big sites like cnn and msnbc. Politicians are stupid.

  20. block Ted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...i think i will send a letter to my state senator asking he draft a bill blocking Ted Stevens from introducing ANY legislation regarding the Internet.

  21. Re:Sex Trafficking Site Covered By Proposed Law by The+Anarchist+Avenge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nice troll, but I'll bite anyway. The problem isn't that the law targets sites like that, but that its scope is too broad. It would also apparently block access to legitimate sites like Wikipedia and weblogs. This is unacceptable, our government should never be allowed to expand its own powers with the promise that it will only use them for good. Doing so invites tyranny.

    --
    Today's lucky number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  22. Alaska's pork should be reduced in 2007 by stomv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Alaska's pork should be reduced in 2007 for two reasons:

    1. Uncle Ted Stevens is a Republican, and the Dems have the majority in the Senate (49+1+1=51 vs. 49). Therefore, Uncle Ted isn't in the majority, and he can't use his majority status to ram things through appropriations.

    2. The Senate has "eliminated" pork, known as earmarks, for this budget cycle (source). I'm sure it won't be a 100% freeze, but given that the amount of earmarked appropriations skyrocketed under the GOP-led Congress (60% increase in the past five years), it's reasonable to expect that it will be reduced dramatically -- especially to states with two Republican Senators and a Republican Representative, such as Alaska.

    So, with Uncle Ted presumably bringing in less pork for the foreseeable future, will Alaskans react by electing a Dem, or will they re-elect Uncle Ted in the hopes that the GOP recapture the senate and Stevens' seniority becomes valuable locally again?

    1. Re:Alaska's pork should be reduced in 2007 by alexhmit01 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think you're a bit optimistic...

      1. Uncle Ted Stevens is a Republican, and the Dems have the majority in the Senate (49+1+1=51 vs. 49). Therefore, Uncle Ted isn't in the majority, and he can't use his majority status to ram things through appropriations.


      That's probably true on "big" issues, but not appropriations. Also, keep in mind that the Democrats don't really have a majority right now, one of their members is out recovering, so it's 49 + Lieberman (50), vs. 49... and any ties go to the GOP... and it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster (but budgets can't be filibustered).

      The Democratic party isn't REALLY in a position to bully Republican states... and you don't want them too. The last thing we want is to become like parliamentary countries, where parties in the opposition see their "perks" like education for schooling becoming part of coalition politics... look what happened in Israel in this year's budget re: national religious education... NRP is in the opposition, so their budget get walloped... that is NOT good government.

      2. The Senate has "eliminated" pork, known as earmarks, for this budget cycle (source). I'm sure it won't be a 100% freeze, but given that the amount of earmarked appropriations skyrocketed under the GOP-led Congress (60% increase in the past five years), it's reasonable to expect that it will be reduced dramatically -- especially to states with two Republican Senators and a Republican Representative, such as Alaska.


      Not to dismiss the out of control corruption that the GOP brought in over the past 5 years (as a conservative, I was aghast), but I don't really believe that the Democrats freeze is real. Basically, the GOP didn't pass a budget, didn't during a lame duck session, and the Democrats choose to fund the year via continuing resolutions. This has messed up some agencies (NASA in particular), has given Bush an opportunity to crow about the budget (spending increases won't happen because no budget is being passed), and whatever earmarks were in there will stay.

      The K-Street project got a lot of play, but it's important to realize that the Democrats controlled the House for 40 years before the 1994 change, and the Senate for the majority of those years. The Democrats (and most of the GOP) never considered the Republicans anything but an opposition party, and the first few years of the GOP, they still acted like the opposition (that's how silly things like the government shutdown happened). Basically, the Washington establishment had been a Democratic-only land because the growth in government (FDR-onward) had coincided with a nearly permanent Democratic government (in terms of Congress and therefore spending). While we hoped that the GOP would start dismantling the Democrat-built government, the alternative of feeding corruption to their people was the more likely scenario. And as corruption rarely shrinks, all the crap the Democrats built stayed while the GOP built their own.

      I find it unlikely that the Democrats will try to take down GOP pork/corruption, because if they do and the GOP regains power, they will retaliate, and hard.

      The unwritten rule of politics is to never attack your enemy's backers, especially when all they want is to feed at the public trough. Better to pay everyone with OPM than risk getting hurt when you are out of power.

      Otherwise, you could never explain how the entertainment industry wasn't decimated by the 5 years of total GOP control, considering HOW left-wing and democratic the Hollywood/New York crowd is... it's not a bunch of liberal Democrats, this crew borders on the left wing extremist crowd... yet the GOP NEVER attacked them... just like the Democrats will never REALLY attack the Wall Street crowd... too risky... If the Democrats REALLY take shots (excess profits tax on oil, etc.... things that they harped about in opposition but would never do), they risk a GOP response of declaring war on the trial lawyers and entertainment industry... which would cut off their funds.
  23. Re:Guys not too bright by Bassman59 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    adults have full rights and therefore this law would be unconstitutional

    Not really. Libraries may be public but they are still owned and operated by the government. That means it's their call as to what goes on there. It's not violating your rights because you can still access whatever you want anywhere else.

    Even if they somehow blocked a website for everyone it still wouldn't be a violation of your rights but rather the rights of the person running the website being blocked. Even that would be questionable because they aren't actually stopping you from saying something(freedom of speech intact) but they may as well be.

    Dunno what universe you live in, but here in the US, "Owned and operated by the government" MEANS "public."

    And it's called censorship when the government decides what someone can and cannot read/hear/view.

    A private company (like your employer) is well within their rights to block any and all Internet traffic it deems inappropriate, in much the same way they can say, "No porno mags in the bathroom." No, this is not censorship, as it's not the government doing this.

    Of course this leads right into the Net Neutrality debate, as the tubes are owned and operated by private companies who are arguing that they can do anything they want with their property. This differs from the airwaves (broadcast radio and TV), which are actually owned by the public, and an agency operating in the public trust (the FCC) grants a monopoly on the usage (transmission) to whoever can pony up enough dough for a license. The FCC (the government) also retains the right to censor broadcasts (hence big fines for profanity and wardrobe malfunctions).

    So with all of these contradictions, my head is spinning ...

  24. D'Hondt / Jefferson by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2, Informative

    A better method might be the D'Hondt method (a.k.a. Jeffeson's method), I know it is used for committee seats in Denmark. It is hard to understand, rather messy, but rarely questioned, as the results are basically fair.

  25. Re:Define an "Interactive Site" by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Informative

    That's ok, neither did the submitter. The phrase "interactive site" doesn't even appear in the bill.

    `(J) COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING WEBSITES; CHAT ROOMS- Within 120 days after the date of enactment of the Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, the Commission shall by rule define the terms `social networking website' and `chat room' for purposes of this subsection. In determining the definition of a social networking website, the Commission shall take into consideration the extent to which a website--
    `(i) is offered by a commercial entity;
    `(ii) permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
    `(iii) permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
    `(iv) elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
    `(v) enables communication among users.'.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  26. DESESE by oohshiny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd vote for the DESESE (Deleting Senile Senators) act, forcing mandatory retirement for people who behave like this. I mean, the guy is incapable of even reading out a speech prepared for him by his handlers. People like Ted Stevens shouldn't be in politics anymore, they should be in an institution.

  27. Already in effect by piGeek31415 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not sure if this has been said already, but I attend a high school that blocks wikipedia, myspace, gmail, hotmail... the list goes on. Even the teachers can't access these sites. I assumed it was already standard procedure to block pages that might contain something "bad" (what's ironic, however, is the fact that we can get to nazi-propaganda sites...)

    Is it me, or are our tubes a lot stricter than others'?

    /first slashdot post ever

  28. That's at least 20%... by alexhmit01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Uh, 20% of the Democratic Caucus is conservative democrats right now... and Sen. Webb is a Republican, or at least was until he got annoyed with Bush and the Iraq war, and it's unclear where he'll stand after the Iraq war. Dean did an AMAZING job of turning the Democratic Party back into a national party (read Zell Miller's book for how bizarre they got at writing off the South -- don't attack him, he makes a LOT of good points), but it's not a 99.8% string up the Republicans party... if it was, it wouldn't win many elections...

    But the comment you've misreading isn't "punish Bush," it's the "punish Bush states."

    The Daily Kos crew, and other "politics isn't a contact sport, it's a battle to the death sport" wants the Democratic Party to ATTACK government funding goals that help Republican states. You wouldn't be very happy if the Democrats first action was to pull all highway funding, social spending, etc., for the state of Georgia, while leaving it for the rest of the states.

    The implication that Uncle Ted can't deliver the bacon because he's in the minority and all his projects will be cut is probably wrong, and somewhat dangerous. I'd love to see the corruption rooted out of Washington with ALL appropriations, but punishing your opponents and rewarding your friends TOO extremely is just a bad scene.