SOPA Hearings Stacked In Favor of Pro-SOPA Lobby

Adrian Lopez writes "Techdirt reports that 'apparently, the folks behind SOPA are really scared to hear from the opposition. We all expected that the Judiciary Committee hearings wouldn't be a fair fight. In Congress, they rarely are fair fights. But most people expected the typical "three in favor, one against" weighted hearings. That's already childish, but it seems that the Judiciary Committee has decided to take the ridiculousness to new heights. We'd already mentioned last week that the Committee had rejected the request of NetCoalition to take part in the hearings. At the time, we'd heard that the hearings were going to be stacked four-to-one in favor of SOPA. However, the latest report coming out of the Committee is that they're so afraid to actually hear about the real opposition that they've lined up five pro-SOPA speakers and only one "against."' Demand Progress is running an online petition against such lopsided representation."

Comments

Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its simple

We are not represented by congress anymore

Its big business, for big business

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[characterZer0]

There are two ways you can get your representative to represent you:

1. Pay him more money than big business does.
2. Make a believable thread to shoot him.

Neither of these are viable options. So you need to get him voted out of office. Thus, the problem is the voters.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Dr_Barnowl]

But voted out of office in exchange for what? Another one of the same.

Ultimately, yes, the problem is the voters. But it's rather like complaining that if the sheep don't like the pen they are herded into, they should get a new sheepdog, when we all know the shepherd is calling the shots.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ultimately our representatives will get away with whatever we allow, thus the onus is really on us. Most people (sadly including myself) just aren't dialed in to the goings on and don't really give a shit.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[jinushaun]

Speak for yourself. My congressman votes my way. The problem is that I don't vote for the other 434 representatives...

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Digital Vomit]

Neither of these are viable options

I'm glad the Founding Fathers did not think the same way.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[jellomizer]

You are implying that there is corruption going on, while there is a more plausible, legal forces that explains why the business get the political ear.

Big Business hires a lot of people who pay a lot of taxes. If they are not happy in your City/State/Country they have the resources to leave and leave a lot of people without jobs and unable to pay for taxes.
The problem will exasperated if business need to pay far more tax. Now a lot of business may be willing to do this without moving or laying off people but what it does is centralize the money flow even further so the business will get more political pull because that is more tax revenue that could leave.

So a Mayor, Senator, Representative, Judge, Governor or President really cannot just ignore what a big business is saying and will need to hear out some of their issues.

Now that the businesses have these peoples ears they can explain things to them so they understand their point of view much better making the decisions much more complex.

Then finally these people contributed to their campaign so they cannot just ignore the business as they owe them a favor.

The core of the problem is that businesses have gotten too big. This is the economical/political version of the Irish Potato famine. Where business diversity has been replaced a small group of large companies. Just like how the Irish were planting very few species of Potato so when a plague that infected the potatoes there wan't enough diversity to handle the loss.
American have gotten wimpy.
In school we are afraid to study Math and Science and all those courses where you cannot BS your way threw, because we are afraid that B in math with hurt you A average, and you will not get into Harvard, or if you are in college you GPA will suffer.
We are afraid to start our own business.
We are afraid to make something new.

In general we are afraid of a lot of things, things that are not really as scary as we make them out to be. But they do take risk and we have became Risk Averse. Thus we go the safest path.
Take those classes that you can get an easy A.
Get a low level job in a big company. Keep quite and out of trouble that way you don't get in trouble.
Buy products from those big name stores because those little shops seem to sketchy.
Complain and moan about a products rise in costs but do not cancel the service. (This part is getting better)

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that by standing for public office, the candidate is showing that they are unsuitable for the job.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[rtfa-troll]

But voted out of office in exchange for what? Another one of the same.

Another one of the same who is afraid to go against your wishes on the particular issue you got the predecessor voted out of office for. This is very important. Remember that the rule of American politics is "do anything the corporations pay you to; as long as it doesn't offend the NRA". This is not because the NRA has huge amounts of money (though they have quite a bit); it's because they credibly and effectively make the threat to vote out whoever offends them. If you aren't voted in then you aren't getting your corporate bribes.

There are a bunch of things to learn from the NRA. Things like:

• Organise; meet; get together.
• Gather money; put it into a fund which is dedicated to your exact issue.
• Be extremely focused
• Physically protest; be seen
• Write actual letters to specific representatives from specific supporters
• Very clearly target specific politicians and ensure that you are seen to get rid of them
• Be fun and interesting to be part of

These things do not come at once and immediately; the NRA was founded in the 1870s and only got to full success in the 1980s, but if you are patient and keep at it you will win.

The idea that we can do nothing is planted in our minds in an attempt to stop us from doing anything. It's true that most people will still ignore you, but that doesn't matter. Most Americans aren't part of the NRA and they are still the effective rulers of the country for the particular issue they care about.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

You thought your government represented you?

Think again.

The current distraction is the Tea Partiers, being fed a steady bullshit diet of "OMG GAYS ARE GOING TO FORCE YOUR KID TO GET GAY MARRIED" and "OMG THE GUVMINT IS GONNA TAKE YOUR GUNZ AND YOUR MUNNY IF OBAMA IS ELECTED AGAIN" through the Beck/Rush/Fox noise machine.

You think that the standard idiots even NOTICE that a congressional hearing is stacked one way or another? These are the cud-chewing moron crowd who think that watching C-Span is "boring" and to be avoided at all costs. These are the ones who think they know what the constitution says despite never having read it or done even the most rudimentary study on it - they think "god" is in there somewhere, they think a bunch of other things are in it that aren't, and let's face it, it's scary when all the Onion has to do is profile one of these boobs and you'd totally think that was a news story if you didn't see the word "Onion" up top.

But don't worry. They're happy to take their daily brainwashing from Rush and the local hate-radio purveyors and "vote" accordingly. It's like we're living in oceania - they've even come up with their own version of Newspeak to handle their hate. The Affordable Health Care Act, passed with bipartisan support? Oh yes - "Obamacare Health Control." Pissed off that Obama is black? Don't mention race, just quietly insinuate he's "Kenyan." Oh and for good measure, mention that he "might be a Muslim."

Of course, when they're trying to keep their lies straight, the veil tends to slip. Rush The Druggie regularly refers to the President of the United States as "uppity." In defending Herman "Pervy old man" Cain from the allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior, the right wing noise machine went on some of the worst misogynist screeds we've seen in the past 3 decades - surpassing even their amazing hatred for Hilary Clinton, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. Anyone who really wants the job that much shouldn't be allowed to have it. Arthur C. Clarke wrote a book about a human colony that had this exact rule; leaders were appointed more-or-less randomly, after disqualifying those who really wanted to be the leaders; it was called "Songs of Distant Earth".

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[FictionPimp]

Don't forget to fear monger to your group endlessly like the NRA does. I'm a gun owner, I love my gun rights. I carry daily. I WAS a NRA member. I'm so sick of getting letters about how Obama (or whatever evil you can come up with) is going to take away my guns unless I give the NRA another cash injection.

Obama has bigger issues than guns, and he won't be taking them away during campaign time (which with our media is basically from day one in office). The truth is that gun rights have gotten a lot better in the last 3 years. Their message of constant fear and attack just drove me away.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sycodon]

"The core of the problem is that government has gotten too big"

Fixed.

If the government were not in a position to grant special favors to companies because it is regulating everything in sight, then business would have no use buying off politicians.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[rtfa-troll]

Big Business hires a lot of people who pay a lot of taxes. If they are not happy in your City/State/Country they have the resources to leave and leave a lot of people without jobs and unable to pay for taxes.

The crucial thing to remember here is that the tech industry makes much more money for America than the entertainment industry. It still also employs more people. There has to be something else going on to explain why anti-tech, pro copyright, laws get so much support everywhere (not just in the USA)

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[pburghdoom]

The problem is no matter who we vote in, its the same story. Look at the options right now in the republican primaries, for example... All dbags. Then in the Presidential election it will be one of said dbags versus Obama, how is this the voters fault. They really do not get to pick the candidates, thats all done by the various national committees. We are stuck with whoever they give us. Then it is simply picking the lessor of two evils. What a system.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Grishnakh]

In school we are afraid to study Math and Science and all those courses where you cannot BS your way threw,

How about English classes? ;-)

I don't think the aversion to science and math classes has anything to do with fear, for most students. It's about 1) interest, 2) laziness, and 3) reward. Why bother working hard and taking the harder math and science classes when you can skate through with the minimum? It's not like these science-and-math-averse students are instead taking all the hardest English or Social Studies classes they can find. American kids just aren't interested in these things; it's not part of our culture. Instead, they all want to become famous singers or athletes, because those are the professions that are idolized in this culture. At the college level, it's all about taking the classes necessary for your major, and science and advanced math classes aren't necessary for a degree in business, finance, pre-law, or marketing. These are the things college kids want to major in these days, because these are the professions that are well-rewarded in our culture, and which have the highest respect (outside of singers and athletes) among the general population. No one respects engineers much in this country, but when people meet a lawyer they practically bow down to them and kiss their feet. Kids see this and so gravitate toward these types of profession. The only exception as far as science prerequisites is pre-med, but even here it seems like most of the new doctors are people from non-American (and non-Western) cultures; it's a lot easier and faster to get an MBA or a finance degree than to become a doctor, so that's what kids go for.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[CrimsonAvenger]

The truth is that gun rights have gotten a lot better in the last 3 years.

Just curious. How much of that improvement has happened because of Obama, and how much because of legal actions by the NRA?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single thing that Obama (or Congress) has done to improve gun rights recently.

Obama has bigger issues than guns, and he won't be taking them away during campaign time

Do remember that campaign time ends for Obama the day after the next election, whether he wins or loses....

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the economical/political version of the Irish Potato famine. Where business diversity has been replaced a small group of large companies. Just like how the Irish were planting very few species of Potato so when a plague that infected the potatoes there wan't enough diversity to handle the loss.

That really is a terrible analogy. Firstly, there were MORE species of potato being planted before the famine than there are today. Irish people no longer trusted blue, yellow, orange etc. potatoes after the blight, so they stuck to white ones from then on. Secondly, the Irish famine was not caused only by potato blight. It was caused by a dishonest adherence by the authorities to the dogma that "the markets must be free". Charles Trevelyan insisted that trade must not be interfered with, and allowed massive quantities of food to be exported from Ireland while people starved. The free market might fix such things if it was indeed free, but the Irish people of the time had had their land and all their possessions stolen from them, and were forced to toil in the fields that were once theirs, producing the food that was exported while they themselves starved.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[thomasw_lrd]

The real answer to this is to stop thinking Nationally. Start buying everything locally. Cancel all accounts with any bank that is in more than one state. Find the smallest bank you can locally, and re-open all accounts there. Stop shopping at Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Kroger, Olive Garden, Chili's, so on and so forth. The American people have allowed businesses to be too big to fail. We have given them all of our money, and allowed them to buy our Congress people. It won't happen in our generation, but if everybody would start thinking like this, and start acting upon it. We could go back to the Mom and Pop era of the '50s. If we do, then suddenly our congress people will have to listen to us again, there won't be any businesses large enough to buy them.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sproot]

So did Thomas More in the sixteenth century and Plato in about 400BC, it's not a new thing.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[TheGratefulNet]

voting is not the key.

suppose you have a broken motor (its shorted inside, say) and it keeps blowing fuses. first fuse, you replace it. fuse blows again. damn. replace it again.

at some point, you realize that replacing fuses on a broken motor, while giving you some more 'time', is not a real solution. its not the fuse, its the motor, itself.

voting is a revolving doorway. while someone might be good (a brand new fuse) for a short while, its 100% guaranteed that OUR CURRENT SYSTEM will 'short him out' and he'll go bad. 100% guaranteed. its our system, not the fuses; er, I mean people.

"but I'll put a stronger fuse (person) in!"

sorry, this is not the way to fix it. when the motor is fundamentally broken, you replace the motor.

I hope some people get this... ..before the upstream breaker has to fail.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, then he'll go on vacation again.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRA operates like most special interest groups (life member here)... they harp on the same thing, over and over. They research and detail for us what everyones real record is on "gun control", and send us those lists in American Rifleman so we know the score come voting time. And yes, they ask for money, because it takes money to win. Often that comes in the way of memberships.

Most important, we've got the second amendment in our back pocket and every single one of us votes when we think there's anything remotely related to our right to keep and bear arms.

So yeah, if you care about something. I mean, really care, not pithy slashdot-post-care, you can do all this. No bullshit, no waste, no worthless stunts... just keep your eye on the prize and do what groups do to win.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Bert64]

Without the media you stand no chance of being elected, and since the media is controlled by big business they will never allow an unfavourable candidate to get elected.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Tokolosh]

Agreed. Anything else is a futile attempt to fix the symptoms, not the underlying cause.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/lobbyists-too-powerful-because-government-is-too-powerful

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[morgauxo]

Which is why we need that metaphorical plague. Sorry, it sucks but sometimes I wonder if another great depression wouldn't do us some good.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[mcgrew]

How about English classes? ;-)

Or just getting off the interilliteratenet and reading a book now and then? The kind of thing you pointed out sometimes amuses me and sometimes annoys me. Substituting "loose" for "lose" is one that annoys me; if you loose your mind, wonderful things happen. If you lose your mind, terrible things happen. One letter changes the meaning of the sentence completely.

If someone doesn't know the difference between through and threw or there, their, and they're, that simply indicates to me that they're not well educated and I should dismiss everything they say. Listening to the ignorant is pretty foolish, and misusing apostrophes and homophones shows incredible ignorance.

I don't think the aversion to science and math classes has anything to do with fear, for most students. It's about 1) interest, 2) laziness, and 3) reward.

I think it's about incompetent teachers. A bad teacher can make the most interesting subject in the world deadly dull and horribly boring. And face it, presented by a good instructor, math and the sciences are fascinating. The way they're presented in the US public school system they're (as the kids would say) "dumb and boring". The kids are almost right, their teacher is the one who's dumb and boring, not the subject matter.

I escaped that trap by having a great first grade teacher. By the time the deadly dull science teacher tried to ruin a fascinating subject, I'd already read about it by an interesting teacher like Asimov among others, who wrote some excellent nonfiction.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[morgauxo]

Yes, but in a democracy the system is ultimately the people. The system is broken because the people are broken. They don't care about issues like this.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[morgauxo]

That's exactly what the people who elect the other 434 think.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[TheGratefulNet]

kids, think of this when you dress in the morning and head into work for your long 10 or 12 hour days.

you empower the big corps to continue to fuck people over. you have your 'morning anger' here on slash, you say some strong words online but then get dressed, go into work and put up with ALL that mr bossman forces on you. you are a pawn and a slave and you ENABLE The Man to do what he's doing. you're all part of the system even if you are not able to see it.

we all need to work and get income but you don't need to be do HAPPY about serving The Man. do your jobs but don't work overtime. don't go the extra mile. don't give up your personal time. don't just jump when the boss says so.

little by little, we need to detach from the corps. take some of our power back. SOME of it. a little at a time. its the way to make this work. slow boiling the frog works.

take a stand. refuse that extra couple of hours stay. tell the boss that you have your own life and that you don't exist for him or his corporation.

slowly, pull power BACK from the mega corps.

its a start. we NEED a start. else, the more they all own you, the more they fully control you.

strip the mega corps of their extreme and unfair power and maybe we'll get some balance back.

at the very least, REALIZE you are being bought and sold and eventually thrown away (when you are too old or some new cheaper person takes your job). treat the companies with suspicion. don't advertise for them. don't wear their logos. don't make things easier for them to own and control us!

take back your life. its YOUR life, not the company's.

learn to say no to your boss and mean it.

its a start, at least.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I've never seen anyone more brainwashed.

They research and detail for us what everyones real record is on "gun control", and send us those lists in American Rifleman so we know the score come voting time.

Except that they don't actually do so. They lie or play statistics games with the real record instead. Hell, the NRA even lies about its own record.

Most important, we've got the second amendment in our back pocket and every single one of us votes when we think there's anything remotely related to our right to keep and bear arms.

Oh for the love of... no, you freaked-out morons are too busy screaming "second amendment" to pay attention to the rest of the constitution.

A gun is a weapon. It can be used to kill. The NRA is against the registering of firearms, period. We register CARS via license plate in order to make them trackable (hopefully) in the event of an accident/injury/death. Why should guns be any different?

Oh, but no. For you, the "right to keep and bear arms" means "I get to walk into a grocery store with an assault rifle and an extended clip full of hollow-point rounds in case I spot a deer that I want to shoot later that day." What, is there some 30-point buck with a sniper rifle and bulletproof vest sitting out in the woods during hunting season, screaming "I'm ready fo' yo ass"?

I mean, really. The first amendment - far more fundamental to your civil rights than the 2nd - has limitations called time, place, manner. You can't randomly shout "fire" in a crowded theater (though it's sometimes funny to walk into the local firehouse and shout "theater" to see how many of the local firemen get the joke), because it'd cause a panic that is likely to result in injury. Likewise, your "right to own guns" is clearly limitable in terms of what guns are and aren't acceptable, and the government's right to register who owns them is unassailable except for uneducated idiots... come to think of it, the NRA thrives on them.

Nobody is coming to "take away ur gunz." They might - I repeat, MIGHT - pass a law requiring the registration of such guns. It might even include "gun fingerprinting" (ballistic markings) records such that the gun used in a crime can be more easily identified, much in the same way that cars are trackable by license plates.

But don't worry. I'm sure by tomorrow you'll have forgotten anything you read here when the NRA's next "that muzlim nigger wantz to take away ur gunz" memo comes in.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Grishnakh]

If someone doesn't know the difference between through and threw or there, their, and they're,

I wonder if he was using a speech-to-text converter.

I think it's about incompetent teachers. A bad teacher can make the most interesting subject in the world deadly dull and horribly boring.

I'm sorry, I don't really buy the boring teachers bit. Sure, it can make a difference for some kids, but how many kids go to college and get an MBA or go into law school because they were inspired by one of the elementary school teachers to go that route? They go that route because 1) those things are highly respected in this society and 2) those professions generally pay well, for very little work. They happily go into these professions even though their public school english teachers were every bit as bad and boring as the math and science teachers, if not worse. How many TV shows do you see about engineers? None. How many TV shows do you see about lawyers? Tons of them. Lawyers are revered and worshiped in this country, so college-bound kids frequently choose that path. Engineers, OTOH, don't get any TV shows, and their profession isn't all that great either; as soon as their company has a bad quarter or whatever, they're out the door. When their skills become "obsolete", they're out the door. You don't see this with lawyers, MBAs, finance people, etc.

Plus, there's tons of examples of kids who did well in science and math, were interested in them, and chose a career in accounting or management instead, simply because they pay much better and have better career longevity. Science careers are particularly bad in this country, far far worse than engineering; good like trying to make a living as a high-energy physicist without moving to Switzerland. The only career path most scientists have is to become university professors then constantly worry about not getting tenure because they didn't publish enough.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[whargoul]

That's the exact reason I dropped them as well and they STILL continue to call me and send me stuff to get me back.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Attila Dimedici]

The thing is significant elements of the tech industry, also, makes money from copyright and favors these expansions of copyright laws (Microsoft, as one example).

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The core of the problem is that government has gotten too big" Fixed.

Oh fuck you.

The core problem is not that government has gotten too big. The core problem is that businesses have become bigger than government, big enough to engage in regulatory capture and rent-seeking behaviors.

This is something that's happened time and again. The British East India company essentially took over the British government for far too long, leading to the ruin of Britain as a nation for some time. In the early 1900s, we needed a major slew of trust-busting activities BY the government because of abusive companies like Standard Oil and Nortnern Securities who had engaged in regulatory capture and were exerting unfair monopoly controls, slowly taking over more and more sectors of the economy.

Sound familiar? Strike any parallels at all to the incredibly abusive megacorporations of today that gobble up sectors at an alarming rate? Or did you notice - for instance, that of the "fast food chains" in the US, more than 50% of them are actually owned by ONE company, "Yum Brands", which is itself owned by Pepsi - which also owns Lay's potato chips, Ruffles, Lipton, Doritos, "Quaker" brand, and on and on...

Still think there's any real competition left in the bullshit "free market" the Republicans worship so much? Might as well melt your coins down to a golden calf right now, buddy. There's not a real christian left on the "religious right", they're worshiping greed instead.

We need STRONGER government and another major round of trust-busting. Not weaker government like the Retardicans keep shouting. They're all either fucking clueless, brainwashed Rushtards or their goal is complete regulatory capture of government and rule by their aristocrat masters.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Moryath]

I don't know who modded this down as "troll", but I think the parent comment here deserves a second look. There's some solid information there.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[flaming error]

Another one of the same who is afraid to go against your wishes on the particular issue you got the predecessor voted out of office for

Uniting masses only works if there's just one issue to unite on.

What we need now is to scrap this entire branch of the source code and go back to the original spec, the constitution.

Few want that, though. It would force either amending the constitution, or killing all the federal programs and even entire executive departments that have zero constitutional basis. Good luck convincing boomers that social security isn't in the constitution.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Moryath]

... Damn I wish I had some mod points to give you. This comment is AMAZING. Well stated - I've often been at odds with some of my friends who insist that one "brand" of something is better than another - especially when you look at some of the food products, where 4 different "brands" literally come right from the same factory.

Similar link over here for those who don't want to listen to a recorded audio feed.

Oh and don't forget this one - it may be a Cracked.com article, but it's actually a great read.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Grishnakh]

Just curious. How much of that improvement has happened because of Obama, and how much because of legal actions by the NRA?

I think it's more because, in the recent past, any politician who had a platform of curtailing gun rights ended up losing in the elections: just look at Al Gore in 2000. If he hadn't talked about enacting more gun restrictions, he probably would have won.

Just curious. How much of that improvement has happened because of Obama, and how much because of legal actions by the NRA?

I can think of one (maybe not "recent", but definitely within Obama's term and signed by Obama): during Bush's term, it was illegal to carry a loaded firearm in National Parks (except with special permits, etc.). Now, it's perfectly legal, subject to the regular laws of the state that Park is located in. So under Bush, if you had a concealed-carry permit and carried a concealed handgun for protection, you were required to leave that gun in your car, locked up and unloaded, as soon as you drove into a National Park in your own state. Never mind that being out in the wilderness isn't exactly the best place to not have a gun, as there's zero police around for dozens of miles or more, and you never know when you'll stumble across some dangerous wildlife or some armed Mexican cartel members growing marijuana. Shortly after Obama took office, he signed some Republican-led bill that fixed this; now, if you're able to legally carry a gun in your state, this right doesn't go away when you drive into a National Park in your state.

It's one of only two things I can think of offhand that Obama did which are real improvements, and this one he didn't really want to do anyway (it was tacked onto some other stuff he wanted). The other one is the credit card reform legislation, and the law which drastically limits what merchants have to pay for debit card transactions.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Grishnakh]

Not only that, but he'll use Air Force One for it, at a cost of $182,000 per flight hour.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[grahamm]

You are implying that there is corruption going on, while there is a more plausible, legal forces that explains why the business get the political ear.

Big Business hires a lot of people who pay a lot of taxes. If they are not happy in your City/State/Country they have the resources to leave and leave a lot of people without jobs and unable to pay for taxes.

I do not know about the USA, but in the UK although big business employs lots of people, the majority of people are employed by small/medium sized companies. While individually each of these does not contribute as much as the large corporations, taken together the small/medium companies contribute more to the economy than big business.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Grishnakh]

Except that I haven't heard of a rifle that uses a "clip" since World War I.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Dragonslicer]

So instead of corporations bribing politicians, they would be allowed to do whatever they want anyway. I don't see a significant difference.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. They could just throw people off the internet directly without any of that pesky government interference.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't see this. If the federal government does not handle something, it falls to the state. All that means is that instead of one larger sum, it will take a lot of smaller sums to pass the same changes. The government may have their hands in too many pies, but blaming the institution for the practitioner's actions is not the way to go.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[berbo]

Agreed. This comment:

If the government were not in a position to grant special favors to companies because it is regulating everything in sight, then business would have no use buying off politicians.

cuts two ways: businesses would not need to buy off politicians because they would control us directly.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[blahplusplus]

"Neither of these are viable options. So you need to get him voted out of office. Thus, the problem is the voters."

Sorry but the problem is not the voters so much as the system was designed according to the enlightenments view of man and it is scientifically wrong, see here:

http://bit.ly/dYaWUc

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

The crucial thing to remember here is that the tech industry makes much more money for America than the entertainment industry. It still also employs more people. There has to be something else going on to explain why anti-tech, pro copyright, laws get so much support everywhere (not just in the USA)

MAFIAA: "Here's a million bucks, Senator. After you've voted for our bill, come back to our afterparty and snort a line of cocaine from between a Hollywood starlet's tits."
Tech: "Here's a million bucks, Senator. After you've voted for our bill, umm... Well, we've got this can of Red Bull and Steve Ballmer's got pretty big moobs?"

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[advocate_one]

it was broken when politicians discovered they could use public money to "buy" votes by means of subsidies, "pork" projects and other methods of dispersing public money to their voter base...

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[NeutronCowboy]

What, you want him to fly coach? And where the fuck were you when every other president went on vacation via Air Force One?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[dkleinsc]

And if anyone doubts this for a minute, let me toss some examples out there:
1. Asking Dennis Kucinich about UFOs instead of health care in 2007.
2. The "Howard Dean Scream" of 2003, which was mostly the result of sound editing, not at all representative of Dean's candidacy, and replayed constantly.
3. Treating Ron Paul as a joke no matter how well he does in polls or how important his points are or how many cheers he gets in a debate, while treating Michelle Bachmann as a serious candidate.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[mr1911]

A gun is a weapon. It can be used to kill. The NRA is against the registering of firearms, period. We register CARS via license plate in order to make them trackable (hopefully) in the event of an accident/injury/death. Why should guns be any different?

Two points:
1) Cars kill more people than guns do.
2) The right to keep and bear cars is not a constitutionally recognized right.

If you believe governments register guns to help solve crime, you are sadly mistaken. That is the talking point, and some of your friendly government agents might even believe that. The point of gun registration is to subsequently remove guns from citizens' hands. History indicates this is often followed by those citizens losing far more of their rights, if not their lives.

Oh, but no. For you, the "right to keep and bear arms" means "I get to walk into a grocery store with an assault rifle and an extended clip full of hollow-point rounds in case I spot a deer that I want to shoot later that day." What, is there some 30-point buck with a sniper rifle and bulletproof vest sitting out in the woods during hunting season, screaming "I'm ready fo' yo ass"?

The Second Amendment is about hunting as the First Amendment is about singing folk songs. The First Amendment was included specifically to prevent the government from squelching the people from saying unfavorable things about the government. The Second Amendment was and is for when the government ignores the rest of the Constitution.

Your rights are limited to the point that they do not infringe of the rights of others. The example of shouting "fire" in a crowed theater is how the grownups explain it to those on the short bus that cannot grasp the magnitude of what our freedoms mean and require. You seem completely ignorant that all of the rights you take for granted today were provided to you by and armed citizenry.

Put your helmet back on before you hurt yourself.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[ZeroSumHappiness]

Which is the same as any other organization whose income is based on donations or memberships. I get mailings to my new address in a different state from the NPR station that served me before. I got membership renewal forms from a club I was part of for two years after my last engagement with them.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Moryath]

Really? It seems to be pretty standard.

Or are you one of the people who insists on using the term "magazine" nonstop instead? Because in normal speak (unless you're in the presence of gun nuts who have a chip on their shoulder), the term "clip" is common parlance for "detachable magazine."

Of course, computer nerds often get upset when someone who doesn't know any better (and really, if you've never taken one apart, why would you know the difference?) refers to their PC's tower case as "the hard drive", so maybe you're just like one of the two types - gun nerds or computer nerds - being overly precise.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[characterZer0]

That is quite possibly the worst car analogy I have ever read.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

That National Parks conceal carry "allowance" was a rider on the 2nd bill that you mentioned.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

yer screwed down there. In Canada, we have a prime minister who adores dubya, so we're screwed up here too.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[AngryDeuce]

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The truth is that gun rights have gotten a lot better in the last 3 years."

you mean like this?

"Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights"

thanks NRA!

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[mr1911]

Because in normal speak (unless you're in the presence of gun nuts who have a chip on their shoulder), the term "clip" is common parlance for "detachable magazine."

Using a term incorrectly but frequently does not make it correct.

Similarly, using an incorrect term with an authoritative tone while citing additional instances of the term being incorrectly used does not make you an expert on the any subject other than trolling.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

The core of the problem is collusion between big business and big government.

FTFY

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Moryath]

No, I'm pointing out that it's an understandable mistake for anyone who isn't a die-hard gun nut.

The "clip" is generally an internal part of the removable magazine. Without the "clip", you don't have the reloading capacity.

Most videogames refer to the "clip size" of a weapon. So it's not surprising that on Slashdot, you'd find someone referring to "clips." Hell, even in the media, the term "clip" is used pretty frequently.

Now, it's not 100% correct usage. But I'm willing to bet most people here knew what the poster was talking about. The fact that Grishnak said he "[hasn't] heard of a rifle that uses a "clip" since World War I" is pretty silly, since just about every gun - rifle or not - that uses a detachable magazine has a clip as part of the mechanism.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[AddictedToCaffine]

Kinda like jury duty.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Dripdry]

Sure, they can move, but this is a big myth that companies seem to have gotten us to actually believe. They don't just pick up and go. There's disruption to their business upon moving, it's very costly in terms of manpower ad productivity.
They can't run forever. We need to stop being cowards and just stand up to them. Tell them enough is enough.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Truekaiser]

i guess you can blame the voter, but that's kind of like blaming the wife for being beaten in most cases. The ones that are actually to blame for starting the current round of this mess are very old and either are dead or dying, 1940's, and the ones who are responsible for the last round,late 1800's to 1929, are dead. with only brief intervals in between where a *person's vote actually mattered.

the system has been skewed to the point that only the **rich and those the **rich like can run. voting has become a means of them controlling 'you' rather then you controlling 'them' because you still believe it makes you free. and in return you freely defend this system against people who try to point out that your not in control anymore. voting for person B instead of A will not change anything, it's still a crappy car even if it's painted race red instead of puke green. and like most entrenched systems, nature and otherwise, i don't see it changing from within like some happy feeling movie plot either. such systems need to be wiped out before change can happen. for example mammals would never of taken over from the dinosaurs if they were not forced into extinction by external means(asteroid impact) even when the mammals had a better way of raising young which meant more survived. the dinosaurs were too entrenched and the mammals could not get a beach head on any of the ecological niches they occupied.

*: during and before 1800 up to early and mid 1900's women were not allowed to vote, neither were blacks and in many places other minorities. the government, other then the out right corruption similar to toady, was more 'of the people' because the definition of 'people' was smaller.

**: i hate to use such a broad term but in this case it fits, just about every public office position in the country requires a butt load of cash to run for. the president position requiring at least 100 million dollars but the current one sitting in office is setting the bar at about 1 billion. each post in congress or the senate can easily cost a candidate millions, anywhere from 1 to over 100. local state government can be had starting from the governor at about $250,000 to close to a million. still well above a solid 95% to 98% of the population. and the local state congress/senate can be had for about the same amount although the starting rate is in the 10's of thousands, expect it to go up as others try to out buy you. gone are the days where a common person can work his or her way into the system because of the costs of simply running a minimum campaign.

because of this only two groups of people are able to run and obtain public office, and neither of them are interested in the interests of the people who supposedly elected them via voting. those who made fortunes running companies and buying government official's, and those who know the only way to be elected is not to convince the public but to tow the line with those who they beg for money from to run their campaign. that was once done under the table but can now be done legally above the table since money = free speech due the supreme court and legalized not affiliated yet affiliated committees like p.a.c.s and super p.a.c.s.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Moryath]

Two points:
1) Cars kill more people than guns do.

Guns are used as the weapon in far more INTENTIONAL killings than cars are. Lies, Damn Lies, and Twisted Statistics anyone?
Or should we go with "Guns don't kill people: I do."

2) The right to keep and bear cars is not a constitutionally recognized right.

Not specifically as such. However, the right to freedom of movement is. Within such, the right to purchase a vehicle is present; the right to OPERATE a vehicle is limited by (a) each state's individual registration requirements and safety inspection requirements (varying from state to state) and (b) the privilege, after passing a driver's test and registering for a driver's license, to operate a vehicle once one has proven that one understands the requirements of safe driving and obedience to traffic laws. This can be taken away should someone be proven incapable of driving safely; HOWEVER, even in circumstances when someone's normal driving privileges are taken away due to abuse (too many accidents, drunk driving convictions, etc), most states allow a legal framework of "limited driving" rights (a restricted license) if someone, say, cannot get to their workplace from their home without the use of a vehicle. Only those physically INCAPABLE - due to senility, blindness, or other physical factors - are barred completely from driving as to allow them into traffic would constitute far too great a danger to them and others sharing the road with them.

The Second Amendment is about hunting as the First Amendment is about singing folk songs.

Actually, no. The mention of a "militia" in the Second Amendment required two things: #1 you REGISTERED as a member of the local militia, #2 you TRAINED as a member of the local militia. You had an organizational structure.

Meanwhile, the "right to keep and bear arms" also included local laws. For instance, law in several of the original 13 states required each able-bodied man to shoot or kill by other means (generally, traps) a certain number of "pest animals" (birds that fed on crops and predator animals that hunted livestock) each year. Hunting was, to much of the population then, a "necessary part of life" in a way that it simply isn't today.

Your rights are limited to the point that they do not infringe of the rights of others. The example of shouting "fire" in a crowed theater is how the grownups explain it to those on the short bus that cannot grasp the magnitude of what our freedoms mean and require. You seem completely ignorant that all of the rights you take for granted today were provided to you by and armed citizenry. Put your helmet back on before you hurt yourself.

I would say it's you who should put your tinfoil bat back on before the eeevil mind control beams get you. Because seriously, the inanity that comes out of the NRA crowd these days - proving they have done no research, no independent analysis, and probably were the ones sleeping through 3rd grade history too - is just incredible. You can support the reasonable right to bear arms, while simultaneously agreeing that weapons of this sort should be registered, and not come off as a complete loon, but I've yet to meet the NRA type who isn't a raving, tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[cobrausn]

But if the job of the institution is to deal with the practitioner's actions without succumbing to pressure, then it is appropriate to blame the institution as well as the practitioner. But the problem is, one of them has complete authority over the other if they choose to. It's kindof like blaming drug dealers for getting too powerful when they start buying off the cops for protection. The problem isn't entirely the drug dealers, although there are ways of dealing with them, the problem is the dirty cops. You don't make the dirty cops more powerful, as they're likely to just start doing a better job of protecting the drug dealers.

Also, we all know that people are fallible. You will never not make a government 'powerful' enough that people won't just do what is in their best interest. The point of limiting federal authority and maximizing state authority is that there are more points of failure - odds are, eventually, someone with a backbone and a genuine interest in protecting the people of their state will get elected, and then 'they' won't get what 'they' want everywhere. Also, I bet state senators would be offended you think if you only offered them 1/50th of what you would pay a federal senator to buy them off. :-)

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck convincing any sane person that "if its not in the constitution, its not the job of government" is a valid argument.

Good luck convincing anyone who has spent their lifetime paying into a mandatory retirement system that guaranteed them benefits backed by the good faith of the government they cannot have WHAT THAY PAID FOR. Social Security is NOT an entitlement. It is a product that those paying in purchased because they were forced to by law. Everyone who paid in is entitled to get out the promised benefit. Social security IS NOT insolvent. Look at the facts , and not the fear mongering propaganda.

Funny how short sighted people refuse to see any advantage to anything that does not directly and immediately benefit themselves. MBA's, Executive class of Corporate America, Libertarians, I AM TALKING TO YOU!

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmm... the NRA is an industry front group. They have huge amounts of money from firearms manufacturers.

This is why they got a special exemption passed that they would not have to disclose their donors and still allow them to contribute to political campaigns.

In an effort to skirt the law about special laws, the wording of the law that granted this exemption used other attributes that only matched a single other organization, AARP.

The NRA is a great example of corrupt corporate influence in politics... not such a good example, the way you are trying to use it.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Amorymeltzer]

Great book, one of my favorites. Not what I expected someone to reference, though. In Songs, the trick is that everyone has pretty much the same upbringing, education and opportunity-wise. There's no one that is more suited or capable of doing the job than anyone else, so it can be completely random.

I think that Hitchhiker's Guide is a much more appropriate source. There, they recognize that the only people who want to be leaders (i.e. President of the Galaxy) are precisely those who are least fit to do so. Thus they create the obvious solution: Elect really showy Presidents who have no power actual power to distract people from the secret guy hidden away somewhere who makes all the important decisions.

Much more like reality.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Fulminata]

That's like saying that the thief wouldn't rob you if you simply gave them all your stuff to begin with!

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so sure that's a credible threat.

To begin with, voters can be motivated by innumerable issues, and politicians can adeptly play on this fact to drum up support from people with strong stances against them on a few issues by having a good record on others.

Secondly, it's difficult to get mad about technical policy issues, and even more difficult to get them to stay that way; a politician would likely think they could wait out any animus they incur from this matter.

Thirdly, politicians receive literally hundreds if not thousands of correspondence a day from dedicated, industrial pressure groups. Mass mailing/phone-banking are the corner-stone of lobbying campaigns these days and without the infrastructure to compete, your real, heart-felt letter of opposition to this bill will simply be lost in the shuffle.

Fourth, due to the centralization of campaign funding in the hands of the national parties, politicians don't really see themselves as either representatives of their districts, or as being beholden to the same. Instead, they are far more concerned with staying in the good-graces of the party leadership and bureaucracy which give them committee appointments -and fund pay for their tv and radio ads- based on how much money they can contribute to the Party war-chest. This, in turn, necessitates an obeisance to industry lobbies, meaning that any given pol is more likely to consider the interests of big-dollar contributors, the Party, and industries supportive of the Party before they consider what their constituents actually want.

Fifth, even if you do get them kicked out of office, they'll just get a high-paying job with the same people who are currently buying their support on this legislation due to the nepotism and revolving-door nature of politics and lobbying these days.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Toonol]

They modded it down because, despite any informative content, the poster was an ass and his tone that of an insulting troll. If he had said the same thing, but in a grown-up fashion, he would have that +5.

How you communicate is part of what you're communicating.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Toonol]

No. Government is invariably corruptable. A strong corrupt government is worse than a weak corrupt government.

The key would be to make it impossible for the government to favor one business over another. Nobody is giving me millions of dollars to prevent a competitor from starting up; if congress was as impotent at granting favors as I am, there would be no bribery.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Toonol]

You're really a Republican, posting to make the Democrats look worse, right?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[FictionPimp]

It's not that he is passing laws to improve gun rights. It's that he is not going after gun rights. States like mine are passing laws making carrying a firearm and use of a firearm easier. Our gun rights are expanding, the only thing the federal government needs to do is sit back and let the states decide what is ok for them and stop using the term "assault rifle".

If I was going to do anything, it would be to ease restrictions on importing/buying automatic weapons for civilian sale. There are a few "full auto" firearms I would like to own for recreational shooting that are too cost prohibitive for me to acquire at this time (Due to the restrictions limiting us to weapons made before 1986). I am ok with the restrictions required to purchase these firearms, it's just that the date restriction makes it hard to find and afford them.

On to the NRA. What I see from the NRA in their letters to me from their president is just pure fear mongering. The last letter I received said something along the lines of "Let me tell you my greatest fear for the freedom and safety of the US is that Obama will be reelected president.". Really? His greatest fear is Obama being reelected? He goes to tell me the ONLY WAY I can protect my right to own a firearm is to send them money. Another letter talks about the fabled United Nations Small Arms Treaty which will take away all our guns (gasp!). Only it's completely untrue. Hell even snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp) has an article on it showing it's a big fat NRA lie.

Here is another example

“[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone,” LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. “In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.”

“But it’s a big fat stinking lie!” the NRA leader exclaimed. “It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country.”

“Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled,” La Pierre declared.

So they actually think the fact Obama is not trying to take our guns is proof he is trying to take our guns! The fact is beyond that, the NRA frequently is not protecting the gun ownership rights I care about, and instead focusing its efforts on legalizing hunting of endangered wolves and other such nonsense.

I would support the NRA if they would simply lobby congress to keep laws sane, inform us of real attempts to take away our rights and urge voting action, and sponsor and support safe and educational events to introduce people into the wonderful sports involved with firearms. That is why I am keeping my money in my wallet for now. Screw the NRA.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's assuming voting even works. Who is to say those aren't bought too?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[mr1911]

Guns are used as the weapon in far more INTENTIONAL killings than cars are.

Citation needed.

Cars are exceptionally difficult to use as a defensive weapon. It is rare that an individual successfully defends themselves from a disparity of force situation with a Volvo.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Twisted Statistics anyone?

Your approach, defined.

Not specifically as such. However, the right to freedom of movement

That doesn't mean what you think it means. Freedom of movement guarantee you a driver's license. It means that if you choose to visit/relocate from Boston to Dallas, you are free to do so without having to ask the government for permission.

Actually, no. The mention of a "militia" in the Second Amendment required two things: #1 you REGISTERED as a member of the local militia, #2 you TRAINED as a member of the local militia. You had an organizational structure.

Incorrect. During the period which the term "militia" was used, the militia was all able bodied men in a defined age range. Well regulated, again in the language of the period, meant each man was to show up armed and with sufficient gunpowder and ammunition. There was no membership card, and there was no training requirement.

Hunting was, to much of the population then, a "necessary part of life" in a way that it simply isn't today.

Exactly why the framers of the Constitution would have found it as absurd for the Second Amendment to apply to hunting as you would find it to have a constitutional right to go to Wal-Mart.

I would say it's you who should put your tinfoil bat back on before the eeevil mind control beams get you. Because seriously, the inanity that comes out of the NRA crowd these days - proving they have done no research, no independent analysis, and probably were the ones sleeping through 3rd grade history too - is just incredible. You can support the reasonable right to bear arms, while simultaneously agreeing that weapons of this sort should be registered, and not come off as a complete loon, but I've yet to meet the NRA type who isn't a raving, tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist.

Rant much? The only mention of the NRA, thoughts of a conspiracy theory, or indication of lunacy is from you.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[yuhong]

I once suggested a similar idea:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3161455

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Svartalf]

The truth is that gun rights have gotten a lot better in the last 3 years.

It has nothing to do with Obama's activities. DO keep in mind that Operation "Fast and Furious" was staged mainly to make an incident to make your gun rights a LOT worse than they are now . The NRA does, unfortunately, have a point here if you were actually paying attention to the people in Obama's Administration and in the House and Senate that are aligned with the Administration's wishes and leadership. But then, with the way you responded, I wonder if you really were paying attention.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[mr1911]

The "clip" is generally an internal part of the removable magazine. Without the "clip", you don't have the reloading capacity.

Again, incorrect. A clip holds the rounds together. A magazine contains the rounds. There is no clip in a magazine.

Most videogames refer to the "clip size" of a weapon.

If this is your source of education on the subject, it is clear why you have such a lack of understanding.

just about every gun - rifle or not - that uses a detachable magazine has a clip as part of the mechanism.

Once again, repeating an incorrect statement will not make it suddenly become correct.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars are exceptionally difficult to use as a defensive weapon. It is rare that an individual successfully defends themselves from a disparity of force situation with a Volvo.

Well duh, Volvo's not American. A real American car would have built in guns and missiles. The American Dream should've been a house, a wife, two and a half kids, a dog, and a Batmobile

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that but they should compare Obama's time on vacation to GWB's.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[An ominous Cow art]

Yeah. One of the things I vaguely remember getting out of my "Plato and the Beginnings of Philosophy" class in college was something to the effect that 'the best leader is the best qualified person who wants the job the least'. Or something like that.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

I more or less agree with your post except for the bit about Yum! Brands. KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut do not constitute 50% of American fast food chains. Even when they still owned Long John Silver and A&W, your comment still would have been on the "crazy talk" end of hyperbole. You didn't need to grossly exaggerate reality to bolster your point. It was good to begin with.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Want somebody in charge that doesn't really want to be in charge and isn't capable of being in charge? Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura

Arthur C. Clarke got it wrong on this one. Sorry.

The bottom line is that democracy is the worst political system you can have - except for all the other ones.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[TheGratefulNet]

in a proper system of society (I hate to use the word government) the rules are setup assuming that people will want to collect power and abuse it. if you architect that IN, ahead of time (we tried, 200+ yrs ago, but we actually failed over time to maintain it) you can work around mankind's faults.

the system assumes that good people will do good things. that's 100% false and we all know it. what DOES work is 'power corrupts'. if you design a system knowing that fact, life can be much better for everyone; and much fairer.

our system is broken and built on false assumptions. we need to admit that, create a new one and live with that for a while. its what mankind does. sooner or later, this one will fall (rome fell) and I hope the next one builds on the knowledge that this model DID NOT WORK in a larger scale. smaller scale, maybe; but not at our current (national) size.

tiny tweaks don't get us the change we deserve. tiny tweaks, however, minimize the upset to the one-percenters. and so tiny tweaks is all we'll ever (willingly) get.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

what you said. Sorry, I'm also AC and can't mod up.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[TheGratefulNet]

maybe it was a palindrome?

now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[FictionPimp]

Feel free to read my reply above and comment.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

When did we last have a Democracy?

I thought we were a Constitutional Republic that has been transformed into a Corporate Republic, also known as a Plutocracy.

Call it what you want, but it's a fucking sham, and you and I both know it!

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sycodon]

This is a great example actually. You want laws that prevent providers from throwing people off the internet. But how did they get into a position to throw people off the internet? Government regulated and granted them a monopoly in providing service to your home.

If you wanted to start an ISP in your city to provide internet access via some fancy new delivery method, guess what?...Time Warner, Comcast, etc, would be standing there waving an agreement they have with the city saying you can't.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sycodon]

So your problem is that you don't think there is enough diversification in the junk food industry?

I think you should listen to less Alex Jones.

Oh, BTW, fuck you.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sycodon]

For all the jabbering /. does about the world not being black and white, it certainly does enough of that characterization itself.
Calls to reduce regulation are not calls to eliminate all regulation.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The core of the problem is that government has gotten too big"

Fixed.

If the government were not in a position to grant special favors to companies because it is regulating everything in sight, then business would have no use buying off politicians.

Most regulations come about as a reaction to severe abuses by industry, not from the whimsy of government officials looking to control something. We got the clean air act and clean water acts as a reaction to the results of unregulated businesses polluting. We have superfund sites dotting the country because of unregulated businesses dumping toxins wherever it was cheapest to do so. There are similar reasons we have labor and food laws.
If there are failings in these laws it is that they make them too complex with too many loopholes. That is a direct result of industry lobbying. For instance, we don't need thousands of words on arsenic levels in drinking water, we just need to say you can't dump arsenic.
The, small decentralized federal government has been tried twice in this country and it failed both times. Had we stuck with the weak government we had under the Articles of Confederation the US, at least the eastern states, would probably have ended up back under the British Crown. The Southwest would belong to Spain or Mexico, who knows who would control the center of the country and Sarah Palin's yard would be in Russia. The Confederacy tried it and ultimately failed when they could not require states to provide more help when it was most needed.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Random BedHead Ed]

The NRA started as an advocacy organization, and one of the most successful in modern times. Unfortunately during their campaigns against (mostly Democrat-sponsored) gun control legislation, they lost track of the fact that they were supposed to be against gun control, not against Democrats generally.

They have still not returned to their original mission, so they're basically just partisan shills now.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[mcgrew]

How many TV shows do you see about engineers?

Lets see, Star trek and... um... How many TV shows do you see about MBAs? I can't think of any. Cops? Tons of shows about cops.

As to pay, if we paid our teachers better maybe we'd get better teachers. All but three public school teachers I had were abysmal (graduated high school in 1970), but I never had a single bad college instructor. OK, there was that one economics class I dropped on the first day because the professor was obviously retarded, but only the one. Maybe pay and prestige has something to do with the lack of good teachers?

My daughters' teachers in the 90s were every bit as bad as the ones I had when I was a kid.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Random BedHead Ed]

If you believe governments register guns to help solve crime, you are sadly mistaken. That is the talking point, and some of your friendly government agents might even believe that. The point of gun registration is to subsequently remove guns from citizens' hands. History indicates this is often followed by those citizens losing far more of their rights, if not their lives.

It's kinda cute that you called someone else "brainwashed." (Or did the rest of us miss the mass gun registration, collection and previous-owner-killing event you refer to in "history?")

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Fned]

Nobody is giving me millions of dollars to prevent a competitor from starting up;

There would be, if you had millions of customers.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Moryath]

It has nothing to do with Obama's activities. DO keep in mind that Operation "Fast and Furious" was staged mainly to make an incident to make your gun rights a LOT worse than they are now .

Quick, put your tinfoil hat back on, the mind control satellite is about to come overhead!

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Rakarra]

The truth is that gun rights have gotten a lot better in the last 3 years.

Just curious. How much of that improvement has happened because of Obama, and how much because of legal actions by the NRA?

Ooooo, I'm not sure I like the sound of that. It sounds like you're saying if something bad happens, it's the President's fault, if something good happens, it's only because of pressure from lobbyists.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Bob The Cowboy]

There would be no need to bribe anyone - they could do whatever they wanted anyway. The ability to 'grant favors' is intrinsically tied to the capability to punish or prevent.

See also, Somalia.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

But voted out of office in exchange for what? Another one of the same.

There are plenty of people who are not 'the same'. You, me, and characterZer0, for example. Anyone else who acknowledges how corrupt the System is, and hates it.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[HiThere]

Regulatory capture doesn't require that the companies be even comparable in size or power to the government. All requires is loose ethics laws, and that the companies be wealthy in comparison to the individual people doing the regulating.

Regulators should be forbidden from accepting ANY favors or recompense either while they are regulating the companies OR AFTERWARD. That requirement should be extended to all members of their immediate family. This would, if strictly enforced, make regulatory capture 90% more difficult. And penalties for breaking this rule should apply not only to the individual regulators, but also the the companies AND TO THE EXECUTIVES OF THE COMPANIES. (If they are corporations, make that "and members of the boards of directors".)

The problem is that responsibilities are not enforced commensurate with powers granted. (A difficult problem, admittedly. E.g., would it be proper to award district attorneys a percentage of the penalties for enforcing this proposed regulation? Why and why not?)

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

A gun is a weapon. It can be used to kill. The NRA is against the registering of firearms, period. We register CARS via license plate in order to make them trackable (hopefully) in the event of an accident/injury/death. Why should guns be any different?

A knife is a weapon. It can be used to kill. The NKA is against the registering of knives, period. We register CARS via license plate in order to make them trackable (hopefully) in the event of an accident/injury/death. Why should knives be any different?

Nobody is coming to "take away ur gunz." They might - I repeat, MIGHT - pass a law requiring the registration of such guns.

In order to take your guns, they need to know who has them. A registration list would be perfect.

It might even include "gun fingerprinting" (ballistic markings) records such that the gun used in a crime can be more easily identified, much in the same way that cars are trackable by license plates.

Yeah, because criminals will commit crimes with their own gun, traceable to them. Are you retarded?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

"The core of the problem is that government has gotten too big"

Fixed.

No, you didn't fix shit, asshole.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, no. The mention of a "militia" in the Second Amendment required two things: #1 you REGISTERED as a member of the local militia, #2 you TRAINED as a member of the local militia. You had an organizational structure.

Um, NO.

Firstly, the definition of "militia" includes: "every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)".

Second, the Second Amendment says "the Right of the People to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia". The "well regulated" (ie: properly functioning) Militia is mentioned as a reason for the individual Right to keep and bear arms- after all, it's hard to have a working militia if no one has guns or knows how to use them.

Hunting was, to much of the population then, a "necessary part of life" in a way that it simply isn't today.

What with TV, radio, and the Internet, not too many people read the newspaper anymore. Thus, the freedom of the PRESS shouldn't exist anymore, right?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Or did the rest of us miss the mass gun registration, collection and previous-owner-killing event you refer to in "history?")

New Zealand has had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated. (The Registration of Firearms: A Compendium of Available Fact From Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, 1998)

On 10 May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them (with some monetary compensation). All such firearms are to be confiscated and destroyed after a 12-month amnesty program. Roughly 600,000 of an estimated 4 million Australian guns have been surrendered to authorities and destroyed.

"Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule...The handgun ban by no means has satiated the anti-gun appetite in Great Britain." (All the Way Down the Slippery Slope: Gun Prohibition in England and Some Lessons for Civil Liberties in America", Hamline Law Review, 1999)

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

More recently, California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal. (California Penal Code, Chapter 2.3, Roberti-Ross Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 section 12281(f) )

/ the more you know

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Rakarra]

I don't know who modded this down as "troll", but I think the parent comment here deserves a second look. There's some solid information there.

The parent made some good points, but also threw in a number of needless insults for the grandparent poster. That warrants a downmod, along with all other posts that do similar.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Rakarra]

Unfortunately, he got modded to 5 anyway.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[mr1911]

It's kinda cute that you called someone else "brainwashed." (Or did the rest of us miss the mass gun registration, collection and previous-owner-killing event you refer to in "history?")

I did not ever call anyone brainwashed. The term used was "sadly mistaken".

Much like your challenge of citing of missing mass gun registration, collection and previous-owner killing events is sadly ignorant. Any population that has suffered has been disarmed. History is full of examples. You only missed it a) you are ignorant of the topic but choose to debate it anyway, b) because you are so entrenched in your position that you refuse to see the facts, or c) you are trolling.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'"
--George Carlin

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[HiThere]

What are you suggesting they do? Be specific.

FWIW, I've tried campaigning at the local level. The candidate won. I was immediately sold to another candidate in a deal to shift the district boundaries. The appalling thing is, that candidate is still one of the better council members. The one that is now my representative is a slimy wheeler-dealer who ignores any comment I make. And is president of the council.

(My wife continues to make excuses for the boundary shifting deal. Maybe there is something to them, but *I* was sold out, and I don't forgive that quickly. The "wheeler-dealer" is in a safe district, as with boundary adjustments he is essentially guaranteed re-election.)

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anguirel]

Once again, repeating an incorrect statement will not make it suddenly become correct.

Actually, it might. Terminology and definitions change based on usage. If enough people use the word incorrectly, it may become the correct usage by default and definition, known as semantic change.

See also: computer mouses, affect/effect, prove, epic

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anguirel]

Two points:
1) Cars kill more people than guns do.
2) The right to keep and bear cars is not a constitutionally recognized right.

If cars kill more people than guns, wouldn't that make them a better armament than a gun, and therefore subject to the Second Amendment?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[HiThere]

My Representative usually votes in a way I deem at least defensible. I can't say that about either Senator. One of them occasionally votes in a reasonable manner, but not on copyright or patent law. The other ... you could generally pick the correct way to vote by watching their vote and choosing the alternative.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

In order to get elected the replacement will have taken just as many bribes as the first guy.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[residieu]

So what office are you running for?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not so much that people don't care about issues, it's just that they don't care much for other people.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sorak]

Really? It seems to be pretty standard.

Or are you one of the people who insists on using the term "magazine" nonstop instead? Because in normal speak (unless you're in the presence of gun nuts who have a chip on their shoulder), the term "clip" is common parlance for "detachable magazine."

Of course, computer nerds often get upset when someone who doesn't know any better (and really, if you've never taken one apart, why would you know the difference?) refers to their PC's tower case as "the hard drive", so maybe you're just like one of the two types - gun nerds or computer nerds - being overly precise.

I also had a teacher who got onto me about referring to a windows folder as a "directory". He said "you don't go to Mexico and ask for water. Yes, it's the same thing, but they call it something different".

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

This organization appears to have a clue and a reasonable plan:

http://www.goooh.com

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Dr_Barnowl]

They also have a planet that elects a government of alien lizards, who they hate.

"Why do they vote for the lizards, then?"

"Well, if they didn't the wrong lizard might get into power..."

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[flaming error]

> Good luck convincing any sane person that "if its not
> in the constitution, its not the job of government" is a
> valid argument.
May I try to start with you? I'd like to convince you only that "if its not in the constitution, its not the job of the federal government". Individual states are far more free to govern as much or as little as they like:

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

> they cannot have WHAT THAY PAID FOR
I don't know of anybody who wants to deny SS contributors their benefits. The program doesn't have to end - it just requires a constitutional amendment authorizing the practice, as was done for income tax. And if there is no amendment, that doesn't necessarily mean participants can't get their money back, nor that their home state can't pick up the ball and continue the program.

For the record, II am not necessarily opposed to social security. I picked it as an example precisely because it is popular and affects us all.

All I want is a federal government that obeys the law. Until we have that, little else really matters.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading the NTA magazine in the 1960's. A typical issue would have an article or tow on this or that gun. And a 'human interest' article, often about families, much as taking Jr. out for his first shoot. An of course the column about people who shot a burglar or robber.

They would also frequent have articles on gun safety and responsible gun ownership. I don't think gun safety and responsible ownership are no longer part of the NRA mission. But since the NRA became more politicized around the 1980s and 1990s, whenever read or hear anything about the NRA or coming from the NRA, those topics just don't show up on the radar screen.

Partly due, I think, to he fact that no one on either side or any side (there may be more than two sides to an issue) get much more *charge* out of other issues.

Oh, I read recently where gun ownership is up, even among Democrats!

I'm sure that is such a good thing....is the sense if as a Nation we continue to drift toward more an more animosity toward people who don't share out politics.

Not anonymous coward, too lazy to register

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[baerm]

... Thus, the problem is the voters.

I would actually re-phrase it as the problem is the voters are human. By that I mean, people are easily swayed by massive and often fraudulent advertising.

If you want to run for any office, the first thing you are going to be asked is how much money do you have. The best way to fix the problem that comes to my mind is to get money out of politics: Do not allow campaign contributions, do not allow massive advertising campaigns. Big money (large corps and the less than 1%) would have a much harder time working the US government as oligarchs without the massive amounts of money legally paid for elections. Without getting money out of politics, any gain will be a short term one. A huge grass roots campaign (OWA multiplied by x) may win short term gains. But as long as money is king in our politics, there will be lobbyist working 24/7 to push any gains back, while the rest of us are trying to live our lives.

Of course, the impossible question is how to get money out of a political system controlled by money. Most if not all of the big money interests that control US politics will obviously fight tooth and nail against any such change.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[smagruder]

Or is the problem, the choices... Choices that are largely predetermined by various factors which big business has a lot to do with.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[smagruder]

You're certainly referring to vacation-taking pro George W. Bush.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[smagruder]

Why on Earth does anyone need an automatic weapon?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[snookums]

Thus they create the obvious solution: Elect really showy Presidents who have no power actual power to distract people from the secret guy hidden away somewhere who makes all the important decisions.

Much more like reality.

Have you seen any episodes of Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister? This is exactly how they paint the British government. Politicians come and go, but the civil servants of the various departments remain, and it's they who make the real decisions.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[mr1911]

If cars kill more people than guns, wouldn't that make them a better armament than a gun, and therefore subject to the Second Amendment?

Do you believe the Second Amendment is about killing people?

More babies drown each year than are killed by guns. Perhaps you believe the Second Amendment should protect your bathtub?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[tick-tock-atona]

Zarniwoop pulled some notes out of a pocket.
"Now," he said, "you do rule the Universe, do you?"
"How can I tell?" said the man.
Zarniwoop ticked off a note on the paper.
"How long have you been doing this?"
"Ah," said the man, "this is a question about the past, is it?"
Zarniwoop looked at him in puzzlement. This wasn't exactly what he had been expecting.
"Yes," he said.
"How can I tell," said the man, "that the past isn't a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between my immediate physical sensations and my state of mind?"

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Kalriath]

David Eddings in the Tamuli trilogy said the same thing, but took it further - in this fictional society the person elected to run the republic has all their personal assets seized and placed into the treasury. Thus, the leader's own person wealth is directly tied to the financial success of the republic - if the society loses money so does the leader - and vice versa.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[chrismcb]

Solid information that is bullshit.

The 2nd admendment is important. It isn't about crime, it isn't about the right to shoot bambi. It is about our duty as citizens to overthrow the government if the needed arises.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood has the bimbos. Seriously, as a Congresscritter, would you prefer to wine and dine with a representative of nerd culture and talk about null pointers or witter on about the weather with the latest and hottest little starlet who's just dying to screw your brains out?

AC

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron. Yum brands owns Taco Bell, KFC, Long John Silvers and Pizza Hut. Where the fuck do you get that that is anywhere close to 50% of the fucking fast food market. They are #214 on the fucking fortune 500. Mc Fucking Donalds is ranked fucking 108, you fucking dumb fucking fuck stick.

Government is not the fucking answer. Government is not your fucking friend. I've never, not once, enjoyed having to fucking do anything that involved the fucking government. It is always a fucking nightmare of bullshit, dealing with fucking idiots who don't have a fucking clue. Kind of like reading your fucking fucked up post. And some other fucking idiot wants to give you mod points he doesn't fucking have. Wow, that's almost fucking ironic.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[vaporland]

"Yes Minister" is both hilarious and insightful, but the 1% are doing their best to hollow out the executive levels of the civil service.

How can an ex-Monsanto executive evenhandedly administer food regulations at the Agriculture Department or FDA?

How can former oil and chemical industry executives honestly administer environmental regulations at the EPA?

How can former wood and paper product executives judiciously administer US Forestry Service lands?

They CAN'T. Like a Austrian actor once said, "Killian Is Lying To You".

I've worked for decades with low and mid-level government employees and you know what? The majority are scrupulously honest and hard working. You know what else? They always know when their bosses are corrupt.

It enrages me no end when TParties and FNews bloviators talk about "lazy government employees".

Go live your limited government life in Somalia, it's a deregulated paradise. You can carry your RPG in Starbucks there, no problem.

Except Starbucks doesn't exist in Somalia - it's John Galt's paradise taken to the extreme and very unpleasant for honest business.

Honest regulation is the linchpin of a truly free market. What we have is an plutarchy - and this SOPA ropa-dope is just further proof of same.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[vaporland]

I'm politically liberal, but I'm hoping the Republican candidates keep flaming out one by one until Ron Paul is the last man standing.

I have enough faith in democracy that our checks and balances would allow him to make some of the changes I was expecting from Obama without damaging the republic.

Paul is the only candidate who will do what he is telling us he's going to do.

The rest will either waffle, line their pockets, or both.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[vaporland]

High performance in some areas is mistakenly believed to mitigate shortfalls in other areas, if you catch my drift.

Small penis, free.

Fully automatic Thompson submachine gun, $18,500.

Sense of useless empowerment, priceless.

For everything else, there's Viagra...

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the old money vs. new money dilemma. Entrenched power always seems more legitimate than new power. Plus, the tech industry moves so fast, it is hard for the existing systems, who seek control rather than profit, to know what to do. They see a zero sum game, when it is not.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sjames]

So the idea is to shrink government until it is nothing more than an annoying mosquito as our new corporate overlords do whatever they like whenever they like to whoever they like? That doesn't sound right. In fact, it sounds a bit like Somalia. I KNOW I don't want to live there.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[rtfa-troll]

I think this is a pretty clever comment. I get other people's comments about bimbos, although I don't think it's literally true (the solution then would be obvious; videos of the act); most of the corruption at higher levels happens in such a way that the people being corrupted themselves don't believe it's happening.

On the other hand, there's a big difference between a guy you know, who's been schmoozing you for years and you know, from past experience, has political weight behind him and another guy who you barely recognise and who you have know knowledge of his political power. Old money obviously is more likely to be known and to know.

The obvious answer to this is to have stable lobbying bodies clearly on our side with people who know how to talk to politicians effectively.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sycodon]

Don't be a dick. I did'nt say that and you'd have to go out of your way to interprete it that way.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[FictionPimp]

Why on earth does anyone need a sports car? Why on earth does anyone need to hunt? Why on earth does a single guy need a SUV? Why on earth does anyone need cookies? Why does anyone need a computer case with LED lights? Why on earth does anyone need a 47+ inch TV?

I have a hobby, that hobby is shooting firearms. If you have ever shot a automatic firearm, you would realize it is a lot of fun. But assuming you want a crazy mans answer, another legitimate reason is so you can fight back against your government. I have no worries or desires to fight my government, it's doing a fine job destroying itself. I want a fully automatic firearm so I can go to my gun range and spray bullets downrange at paper targets. It's just as valid as everyone else's ridiculous hobbies and it doesn't hurt anyone.

Killing a lot of people is easy with or without a mp5. In fact, semi-automatic rifles are more dangerous than fully automatic rifles. Why? Simple, accuracy. Making each shot count is a lot easier with my AR-15 than when I fire my friends fully auto sub machine gun. I run out of bullets in a few seconds with his and the control suffers greatly. It's still a lot of fun, but if I had to kill a room full of people, it wouldn't be my choice.

Beyond that, other designs fall under the same restrictions. Short barrel rifles? I can buy a pistol that shoots 5.56 ammo no problem, but a short barrel rifle that fires 5.56 ammo requires that same effort that buying a fully automatic rifle does. Silencers are the same. Why might one want a silencer you ask? Simple, so I can shoot without ear plugs, or just because it's cool.

I know you have been raised to fear 'machine guns', but the fact is they are still legal to buy, they are still easy to acquire illegally, and those of us who want to buy them legally are the last people you need to be afraid of. We are responsible adults who understand and respect firearms. We don't kill people, we don't want to kill people. We have a hobby and we, like everyone else and their hobbys, want to get niche and 'pro' gear.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Mr. Shotgun]

What, is there some 30-point buck with a sniper rifle and bulletproof vest sitting out in the woods during hunting season, screaming "I'm ready fo' yo ass"?

Off topic a bit, but I would seriously approve of this during hunting season. It would make the hunting that much more interesting the next time I go out.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anguirel]

No, it's about the ability to threaten to kill people.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sjames]

Then just how SHOULD I interpret it? Either government has the power to regulate or it does not. If it does not, we become like Somalia.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sycodon]

A made up example of too much regulation:

Government can regulate the color of your car, the color of your upholstery, and set safety requirement.

An example of less regulation:

Government can set safety requirements.

See? Less regulation, no Somalia.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sjames]

Government can set safety requirements.

That still leaves them with enough power to grant special favors. It would take less regulation than that to leave them unable to grant those favors.

If the government has enough self-restraint to keep itself only regulating the essentials, doesn't it already have enough to keep itself from granting special favors?

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Grishnakh]

Not exactly. There's a couple problems with jury duty: 1) it's not that hard to get out of it, and 2) even if you don't try to get out of it, if the attorneys figure out that you're a person who isn't easily swayed by purely emotional and fact-less arguments, they'll have you thrown out of the jury selection. There's also the additional third problem that they always insist that the jurors have no prior knowledge of the case, so if it's a case with any publicity at all, then anyone who watches or reads the news is out. Because of all these factors, we end up with juries that don't represent regular people, but who instead are the dumbest members of society.

A system like what I mentioned before obviously wouldn't work well if smart, logically-thinking people are disqualified, as they are from juries. It has no only disqualify people who actually have a deep desire to get that position (which can be found out with some simple background checks; just ask people from their past if they ever talked about wanting the top leadership positions or having any dreams of political power).

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Grishnakh]

The problem with your first suggestion is that they're allowed to resign. That won't work. Anyone selected for the top leadership positions has to be forced to hold that job for a certain period (maybe a year), unless a committee can find extenuating circumstances that allow him to resign (death in the family, etc.). Otherwise, people who'd make good leaders but hate the politics and all will just quit. These kinds of jobs just aren't very rewarding for the people who would actually be honest and do a decent job; they're rewarding for power-hungry sociopaths, because they crave the power.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Grishnakh]

What are you talking about? I can't find anything there that paints his governorship in a bad light at all.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sycodon]

So then we agree.

Ability to regulate = ability to grant (sell) special favors

Therefore, the less they regulate, the less selling of favors they can do.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sjames]

I certainly DO agree with that part , it's just that the next natural step when they cannot regulate at all (the only way they CAN'T grant favors) is that we become like Somalia. Do you WANT unsafe cars and corporate piracy raping the population?

In other words, I believe lying is bad and I think it's obviously true that dead men tell no tales but I do not believe that exterminating the human race is an acceptable solution to lying.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is one way to look at it.

On the other hand...

Threatening is an intentional, overt act. Possessing the ability to defend one's self is not a threat.

If you feel threatened by my gun, that is a reflection on you.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sycodon]

Where did you see me say they shouldn't regulate at all?
This is starting to feel like a Monty Python skit.

Re:Congress, our representatives?

[sjames]

You want them weak enough that they CAN'T grant favors. That level of weakness only happens when they have NO ability to regulate. The two powers go hand in hand. Therefore, if you want NO ability to grant favors, you will get NO regulation.

Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[Eevee]

Would it really hurt to follow standard practices and explain what the acronym is the first time it's used?

Re:Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot. If you haven't immersed yourself in the intricacies of the battles over filesharing including any pending legislation then, well, we need more people like you :(

Re:Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[ceoyoyo]

Of course. If they did that, the summary might contain information!

Re:Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[Temujin_12]

The reason SOPA isn't defined is it actually stands for Satanic Overlords and Pedophilia Association. No wonder they have a hard time getting people to listen to them.

Re:Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[sycodon]

Unfortunately, they don't even do that in TFA, that I could see.

Re:Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[Grishnakh]

You know, I think this is a good idea: pedophilia is so universally reviled in our culture, and there's so much hysteria about it, that maybe this can be used for good. Any time you make an accusation, it doesn't have to be true, but it sticks in people's minds for a long time if the accusation is of something very heinous. So maybe we need to start accusing various politicians of being pedophiles, so that people associate them with this and vote against them.

For instance, I've heard some very credible reports that Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi are all pedophiles.

Re:Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[billtom]

I've always thought that the opponents of a particular piece of legislation should be the ones who get to name it, rather than the supporters.

Supporters always pick names that sound good but disguise the details.

But if you can get the "I Hate Puppies and Apple Pie" bill passed, then there's probably some good legislation in there.

Re:Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)

[Adrian Lopez]

Would it really hurt to follow standard practices and explain what the acronym is the first time it's used?

Sorry about that. I assumed a tech-savvy crowd like Slashdot would be at least somewhat familiar with the bill in question, but I guess there's so much content on the Internet these days that what once would have been common knowledge online is now lost in the noise. It also doesn't help that SOPA and its counterpart in the Senate are known by two other names: the "E-PARASITE Act" and the "PROTECT IP Act", which no doubt serves to dilute people's attention.

The second link does state that SOPA stands for "Stop Online Piracy Act", but then Slashdotters often don't read anything beyond the summary. I suppose the bright side is that people looking for what SOPA stands for might end up learning more about it through their efforts.

Did anyone expect otherwise?

[SuricouRaven]

Really? We all know the pattern by now. Cynicism is so firmly established, people hardly even bother to campaign when they know they'll be ignored.

Can I make up my own acronyms too?

[jellomizer]

I am sorry if I am unable to keep up with all the acronyms, but really is it too much to at least spell them out fully one just so we can get a gist?

Heck I get confused with BSA (Business Software Alliance) with BSA (Boy Scouts of America) and BoA (Bank of America)
SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) looks a lot like SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol).

If you just write out the Acronym just once you help clarify things much easier.

Re:Can I make up my own acronyms too?

[Dorkmaster Flek]

It's easy to confuse SOPA with SOAP, though. Neither accomplish the goal stated by the acronym. SOPA won't stop online piracy, and SOAP is anything but simple.

Re:Can I make up my own acronyms too?

[rossdee]

About 40 years ago, BSA was a British company that made motorbikes (competing with Triumph and Norton)

Re:Can I make up my own acronyms too?

[TheGratefulNet]

ah!

now I get it.

its all XML's fault.

makes perfect sense, now that its all been exposed.

(stupid sexy flanders)

Re:Can I make up my own acronyms too?

[Anonymous Coward]

And prior to that, they made guns. My father just recently came upon a BSA/Ithaca bolt action rifle in 300 Win Mag.

Re:Can I make up my own acronyms too?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simpler than CORBA. Which isn't saying much but that's where they got the "simple" from.

Re:Can I make up my own acronyms too?

[SleazyRidr]

In the spirit of spelling out Acronyms, you're referring to Birmingham Small Arms. Started out making guns for the English war effort, then decided that motorcycles were more fun. ;)

Re:Can I make up my own acronyms too?

[theshowmecanuck]

They were a specialty bike shop. They made the motorcycles with really long handle bars. For those with small arms. Harrr har bwaaaa ha ha ha ha ha! Thanks I'll be here all week...

They really need to 'clean up their act'

[Anonymous Coward]

SOPA

herp derp

Bad for everyone

[Djehuty3]

I admin a forum with a little over 30k members.

In the past, we've had a former member we've banned file a false DMCA claim against us and successfully take us down. We moved DNS and have been up since; For the record, 1and1 didn't even investigate, whereas our replacement, GoDaddy, kept a note of the circumstances and have notified us when that same person has tried to take us down again.

If this passes, our little forum is fucked. No two ways about it; Somebody will get butthurt about being banned and we'll get taken down, again - but this time, there's a risk of actual criminality behind it.

Don't tell me that this will be carefully used and no false claims will succeed, because we've been on the wrong end of that tale before.

Today, we're participating in the scheme being run by http://americancensorship.org/; If you run a site, regardless of mission, you should too.

Re:Bad for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

So have you posted a message for all of your members to write a letter to their senators and rep detailing thier objections to SOPA? 30,000 letters written on paper will make an impact.

Re:Bad for everyone

[Djehuty3]

Yes I have, as part of the scheme being run by http://americancensorship.org/. We also have a very annoying splashscreen on /index.php, which is viewable at the link if you have javascript enabled, and a big black bar over our logo at the top of every single page.

However, not all of our members are in the US; if I had to guess, maybe 10k are. Of that, how many will actually give enough of a damn to contribute?

Re:Bad for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you shouldn't continue banning people just because you can.

Re:Bad for everyone

[Djehuty3]

I suspect I'm being wound up, but when somebody is being a deliberate arsehole and intentionally disrupting any and all threads and conversations, they need to be removed. We're very lenient on bans, but the function is there for a reason.

Re:Bad for everyone

[AdamJS]

You sound mad and banned.

Re:Bad for everyone

[Toonol]

Why shouldn't he? It's his forum. Anybody posting is there at his pleasure, and none of the posters have in any sense a right to post.

Getting mad at being banned from a forum is like getting mad that somebody didn't give you a gift.

Re:Bad for everyone

[symbolset]

Welcome to offshore hosting.

Re:Bad for everyone

[Djehuty3]

We are offshore; We're hosted in Germany, based in the UK - but our DNS is American, and so are a lot of our members.

It seems very lopsided to me.

[pstorry]

It seems that this is hideously lopsided. One out of the six speakers being openly against the bill is an outrage!

Given how much has no doubt been paid by companies for their representation, that sixth person is a bit of a slap in the face. They should take action immediately, and refuse to pay their representatives.

(More seriously, American politics is becoming a textbook on how not to represent the people.)

Fallen

[Nerdfest]

Between this, warrantless wiretapping, reporters blocked from the teardown of the OWS protest, it seems that the US has reached the tipping point on its way to becoming a fascist.corporatist state. I'm quite surprised that there hasn't been anywhere close to as much outrage as I would have suspected.

Re:Fallen

[jamstar7]

You're forgetting of course the 'free speech zones', far far away from the cameras, ignored by anybody, stuffed with protesters ready to be trucked away to some holding cell.

Re:Fallen

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea how many people believe that something is right just because someone in a suit on the TV says so.

If I were a sociologist, I'd postulate that the American Revolution would have never happened if TV had been around back then.

People just soak up the propaganda like sponges, and they won't get it until until someone takes their house away. Even then they'll just blame gays and vote for the same old clowns, thinking anything will change that way.

Re:Fallen

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the cud-chewers in flyover country even NOTICED what was going on?

Perhaps you missed out on the memo - they don't pay attention to the news, even when the newsmedia is outraged about not being able to report it.

They get their "info" from the hatemongers and racist shitwads on morning and afternoon talk radio. Like this "Dan Patrick" and "Sam Malone" we have on KSEV and KVCE in Texas; they've been slandering the ever-loving hell out of the OWS movement ever since it started. Sam hasn't noticed yet that this isn't the 70s, though he obviously thinks so, since about every 5 minutes he makes some crack about how the OWS should "take a bath" and OWS women should "shave their pits, shave their legs, and go get a job as a waitress or secretary."

Of course, Sam is an open, out-and-out Birther too, who regularly refers to the President of the United States as "that kenyan muslim."

Fucking misogynist, bigoted shitwads. That's what you're dealing with in the right wing these days.

Re:Fallen

[sgt scrub]

it seems that the US has taken another step towards a truly free market society.

FTFY

Re:Fallen

[TheGratefulNet]

america is really 2 (or more) americas.

there's the one you and I live in (if I may be so bold to assume) and then there's that flyover mentality that you mentioned. some call it 'red states' some call it 'pockets of ignorance'.

we are as strongly divided as we were in the civil war times. I'm not entirely sure there ever WAS a true USA central concept here, as the country is just too vast and varied for there to be one thought of The People. The People can't think straight and are told lies by those in power (religion and civil) and become pawns who are echoing the bullshit bleatings of their masters.

problem is, the thinkers are such a minority and it gets worse as time progresses. the dumbing down of america is in full force. control the media and you control their thoughts (hi orwell!).

I have little long-term faith for our country, sad to say. I see where things are going and I see no good side to it at all ;(
the marching morans are carring out the orders of their masters.

sometimes, humanity makes me sick. this is one such time.

Re:Fallen

[Dragonslicer]

america is really 2 (or more) americas.

Generally referred to as "The United States of Canada" and "Jesusland".

Re:Fallen

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been flagged as a troll? Clearly Lamar Smith has /. mod points.

Re:Fallen

[Nerdfest]

I'm a little surprised myself. I think people object to the use of the word fascist, but the blocking of reporters has clearly gone beyond corporatist.

I'm against this

[Anonymous Coward]

and picketing... but I don't know how to show it. - M. Hedburg.

Re:Oh good an online petition

[Moryath]

Actually, the Occupy protesters are more gainfully employed and working than the Tea Tardier crowd are.

Better educated, too. Which is little surprise, since the Tea Tards mostly follow the dictates of Rush, Beck, and Fox News agitators as a faked astroturd movement, while the OWS protesters actually come less from the Democrat aisle and mostly from the true Independent center.

George Carlin had this nailed

[kurt555gs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5dBZDSSky0 - That's it. Sorry.

Re:George Carlin had this nailed

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he said it better here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

Well, it is Google, so it *might* get interesting

[Rogerborg]

Their best gambit might be to stand up, name every company and organisation against SOPA, then say "These proceedings are a farce. Go Cheney yourselves." and walk out. We can but hope.

Vote third party

[betterunixthanunix]

I said this yesterday, and I'll say it again today: the problem is that the "two" parties in power now both have the same agenda. It is time for people to start voting third party.

Re:Vote third party

[morgauxo]

Given the choices I think that may require starting a new one.

Re:Vote third party

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I said this yesterday, and I'll say it again today: the problem is that the "two" parties in power now both have the same agenda. It is time for people to start voting third party.

This sounds great on the surface. But who exactly am I supposed to vote for? I am American by the way. I cannot in any way vote Libertarian. I totally reject the Libertarian Party. I truly believe that libertarianism is a fatally flawed political philosophy that cannot work. I see communism as a more rational political philosophy. That's really bad. The other parties are too small and too narrowly focused for my tastes so there is no real third party option for me.

Re:Vote third party

[Attila Dimedici]

No, it is time for people to stop waiting for the parties to select their candidates for office before getting involved. If you want to change things get involved locally, where you can make the biggest difference. Support candidates at all levels who support making decisions at the lowest level of government possible.

Re:Vote third party

[jader3rd]

My idea to solve the two party issue is to change how we vote. Instead of voting for a person, let's vote on the issues. Each session the jurisdiction comes up with 10 - 20 issues. Say half from the current session and half from issues which will probably arise in the next. The different parties then decide on which ones they'll vote for and pick who their candidate is going to be. All of the parties must have mutually exclusive choices. Then on election day the voters vote for the different issues. The party who's choices align the closest with the peoples wishes win. I think this would blow open the door for third parties, and better reflect the constituents decision.

Re:Vote third party

[Grishnakh]

The Libertarians and the Republicans seem to be merging lately, because Libertarian economic principles are very good for giant corporations.

Social libertarianism is a very sound political philosophy, but usually it gets mixed up with the economic version (which says there should be no regulation on corporations, they should be free to pollute however much they want, etc.) and looks bad by association.

Re:Vote third party

[dkleinsc]

I see communism as a more rational political philosophy. That's really bad. The other parties are too small and too narrowly focused for my tastes so there is no real third party option for me.

There's an official Socialist Party that would possibly represent your views more accurately. You might also check out the Greens if you haven't: They're definitely one of the most established actually left-wing parties out there. There are definitely options other than Democrats, Republicans, or Libertarians.

Re:Vote third party

[blahplusplus]

"I said this yesterday, and I'll say it again today: the problem is that the "two" parties in power now both have the same agenda. It is time for people to start voting third party."

That is not how human beings work, the whole system was designed by enlightenment era thinkers with enlightenment view of human reasoning but it is scientifically wrong, the whole system is now the problem because of mistaken notions about human minds and how they function.

http://bit.ly/dYaWUc

Re:Vote third party

[Xest]

In the UK we had television debates before our elections for the first time last year they were attended by the biggest 3 party leaders.

In a setting where media bias couldn't help people the 3rd place party, the Lib Dems, started to shoot ahead in the opinion polls, at one point polling as the most popular party with a chance of winning.

Enter Murdoch et al. an expensive coordinated slander campaign in his papers and come election day they did no better than they usually do despite the high polls prior to that.

But there was another twist, neither of the other two parties won a majority, and so a coalition was required, the Lib Dems got at least a share of the power as a result of this.

Yet it didn't really matter, because they ended up getting swallowed up by the other party anyway, the times they've tried to pursue their own agenda out come Murdoch's attack dogs again, and so effectively they've just been forced to act as puppets to prop up the Tory administration.

The moral of the story is that a 3rd party is not a panacea, unless you can deal with the deep rooted corruption and media stranglehold on influencing national political leaning then the 3rd party will either get slandered out of existence or swallowed up to become one and the same as the other two anyway.

I've learnt that the only way to win is to not play, I've heard all my life about how important it is to vote, but this is really all part of the same game. It's actually not important to vote at all, by voting for a lost cause you're merely adding legitimacy to the corrupt powers that repeatedly win out because they can come out and say "Hey look, we got the highest share of votes on a turnout of 60%!". Better to let the turnout drop and let them try and claim legitimacy when less than half the population can't even see the point in voting anymore. It's only at this point when their foes on the international stage are laughing in their faces at their claims of democratic legitimacy that they will be embarassed into accepting change. It's only when this facade of legitimacy they've built has crumbled that they can't carry on as they have.

Really, it's the fundamental system that's the problem, and when you vote within that system whoever for you're merely giving the system a vote of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. Both the British and American forms of power designation need a root and branch change to be more proportional and more representational.

Re:Vote third party

[Anonymous Coward]

Point of information: Libertarianism actually says that corporations should be fairly compensating the citizens affected for their polluting activities. Just like I would have to pay you to dump a truckload of fill on your lawn -- and you set the price, PG&E should pay you for the air-full of CO_2 it dumps into everyone's air. Of course, how to get to that price is... indeterminate at best. Libertarianism takes a hard stance that your rights end when someone else's rights begin and that that juncture is where legislation should sit. It's laissez-faire about what you do within your own property and sphere of ownership. So if you own a patch of land, feel free to put all the toxic waste you want there. If that toxic waste leaks into your neighbor's yard, you're in trouble. If you want to own a gun, own one. If you shoot someone with out due cause, you're in trouble. If you want to smoke marijuana, smoke it. If you run over a kid while high, you're in trouble. Libertarianism is not anarchy, corporatism or might-makes-right. It is, however, not forcing you to do anything with your property that you don't want to do.

Re:Vote third party

[cobrausn]

I have a problem in that I'm fairly libertarian at the federal level and not so much at the state level. I'm against increased federal authority because it makes for a single point of failure for a governing system. If you have 50 states doing their own thing each person gets greater representation and one of them might get it right, and when people flock there others might get the message. If you look at American politics in the last, oh, sixty years, it has been all about increased federal authority regardless of party. We're pretty screwed.

Re:Vote third party

[mvdwege]

So there's another solution: shoot the media tycoons, starting with the Murdochs.

And for good measure, shoot their bootlickers in the media industry with them. That's about 75% of all journalists, so that makes a bit of room for people who take up the lesson of the shooting: "Don't fuck around with the public".

I only wish I weren't joking.

Mart

Re:Vote third party

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let the current GOP give libertarianism a bad name.

Don't forget that true libertarianism would be anti-intellectual property, anti-drug control, pro-free speech, etc.

The current GOP isn't moving in a libertarian direction, it's moving in a pseudo-libertarian direction where they cherry-pick libertarian principles that favor large corporations while ignoring those that favor ordinary citizens, small corporations, immigrants, non-conservative-Christians, etc. etc. (or anyone else really).

Look at Ron Paul. He can get a little extreme, but he's definitely libertarian, and he's often at odds with the primary GOP platform.

Also, there's varieties and degrees of libertarianism, just as there are degrees of socialism. You don't have to agree with Ron Paul to identify with libertarian principles.

I tend to think of myself as a "competitivist", where I see the government's role is to ensure the competitive exchange of ideas, services, and goods among its citizens. Lots of times that means adopting libertarian ideals, but sometimes that means using the government as a tool to intervene in a monopolistic, anticompetitive environment--where "monopolistic" means that there are limited goods, ideas, or services, either because there are few private providers, or no private providers.

Re:Vote third party

[syncrotic]

You cannot vote for a third party without weakening your side's position. Fragmenting the liberal vote while the conservative vote is unified has cost the liberal side the electoral victory in the very recent past. You cannot vote for a third party under a first-past-the-post voting scheme. A two-party state is a stable and inevitable endpoint of first-past-the-post voting.

The only answer is electoral reform.

Re:Vote third party

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you own a patch of land, feel free to put all the toxic waste you want there.

The problem with that is you won't own the land forever. Land is not something you can pick up and take with you. Eventually someone else will have to deal with your mess. Therefore is it not unreasonable to put restrictions on what you can do with your land to protect the rights of future owners.

Re:Vote third party

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, stop being willfully dumb and include democrats in there with the corporate hacks, ALL of them(except franken possibly). Remember, glorious leader appointed a RIAA exec.

Re:Vote third party

[Anonymous Coward]

Duverger's Law

Re:Vote third party

[Sloppy]

[reasons you don't like any of the existing parties] there is no real third party option for me.

That's because you haven't formed it yet.

Wouldn't it be funny if instead of politically alone and unique and incompatible with all other Americas, you found out you're mainstream and that a party that matches your opinions could get a third or half of the vote?

The only real barrier to finding out, is that (unlike TP or OWS) some sucker would have to take one for the team, by stepping forth and risking spending a couple years in Washington. It's a shame everyone has such stable employment committments right now. Part of the cost of our booming abundant economy is that everyone is too busy getting rich, so no one has time to think about government.

Re:Vote third party

[HiThere]

libertarianism (note the lowercase initial letter) is quite reasonable. The Libertarian party isn't. And isn't libertarian.

I'm not certain that libertarianism is an acceptable political choice, but it is reasonable and defensible. This is not true of Libertarianism.

The government is too large and too intrusive in the lives of citizens is the message of libertarianism. This isn't at all the same as "The government shouldn't interfere with whatever I want to do." But it's headed towards that, even though all sensible people would stop before it got that far.

N.B.: communism (note, again, the lowercase initial letter) is also quite reasonably defensible. And not totally inconsistent with libertarianism...though there are obvious points of conflict. But traditional communism didn't scale. Even a village was larger than it's optimal size.

Question: What is a reasonable social system for a civilization where only 20% of the populace need to work to produce the goods used by the rest of the civilization? Does this change if the number declines to 15%? 10%? 5%? 1%? Nobody?

This is the current problem. If we can solve energy requirements, the percentage of the populace that will need to hold jobs is going to be declining. It has already declined tremendously, even though this is being masked by various societal mechanisms.

Question: What are the implications of the military increasingly deploying robot soldiers?

Re:Vote third party

[scot4875]

Point of information: Libertarianism actually says that corporations should be fairly compensating the citizens affected for their polluting activities. Just like I would have to pay you to dump a truckload of fill on your lawn -- and you set the price, PG&E should pay you for the air-full of CO_2 it dumps into everyone's air.

That sounds nice, except libertarians generally want the government to get out of regulating all of this stuff, which means that if a corporation starts polluting, the only way for citizens to get any compensation is in court. It may not be "might-makes-right" but it's definitely resources-makes-right, which boils down to the exact same thing. You'd need a massive overhaul of the legal system to make it possible for individual citizens to actually get any fair representation in court.

--Jeremy

Re:Vote third party

[Yo_mama]

Too many issues. That's why it's a ful-time gig. Even if there's a lot of bloat in that "full time," the question is how you would choose the issues and how the laws would be written, if only voted on. If you're only voting on issues, who frames the issue?

Re:Vote third party

[betterunixthanunix]

You cannot vote for a third party without weakening your side's position.

The Democrats and the Republicans are largely on the same side for many issues. Which of the two major parties is opposed to the militarization of the police? Which of the two major parties is opposed to the curtailment of our rights? Which of the two major parties is not on the payroll of powerful corporations?

Fragmenting the liberal vote while the conservative vote is unified has cost the liberal side the electoral victory in the very recent past.

What liberal side? The Democrats are on the left compared to the Republicans, but both parties are on the right wing of politics. The parties may occasionally disagree on which corporations will receive handouts and police/military support from the government, but they both agree that corporations should receive such support. The parties may occasionally disagree on which particular forms of speech should be censored, but they agree that censorship should happen. Conservatives conquered American politics a long time ago.

Re:Vote third party

[jader3rd]

Perhaps I need to clarify. I'm not talking about direct democracy. I'm proposing using the issues as a weight for the different representatives. So if issue X is on the ballot for voting for a representative, the voters aren't voting to enact/unenact/reenact the issue, they're using it as a way to find their representative. I realize that being a member of the legislature is a full time gig, I'm not taking that away. I'm proposing that we stop voting for representatives, and start voting for what we want our representatives to do. As for who would pick the 10 - 20 issues? That would probably get delegated to some commitee every election cycle.

Re:Vote third party

[drsmithy]

Point of information: Libertarianism actually says that corporations should be fairly compensating the citizens affected for their polluting activities.

The problem is it only allows them to seek that compensation after the fact, via the legal system.

Re:Vote third party

[chrismcb]

You cannont in any way vote Libertarian, but you can vote "Democratic" or "Republican?"

YOU have to choose who you vote for.

Re:Vote third party

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to pick on the second question, because the topic is interesting to me.

For a first shot answer, I'd like to see something akin to a 30 hour work week. If this were something to be more universally adopted, the potential boost to quality of life could be significant. People often find some kind of meaning in the work they do so they feel like contributors.

I'd take an equivalent pay cut to go from a 40 to a 30 hour week. It'd give me a lot more time w/ the kids and wife, as well as promote participation in my community.

Re:Vote third party

[HiThere]

The problem is that 30 hours is already too long to equitably distribute the work that needs doing. Even though as the work week declines, the amount of work for the Personnel department increases.

Also, the work week needs to divide evenly into the time that the business is open. 40 hours interpreted as 8 hours/day is a 5-day single shift work week. 30 hours is 6/day for 5 days or 5/day for 6 days. The second doesn't work for many jobs, though open for 10 hours with 3 5 hour shifts could work if the business were open for 10 hours / day. (With double coverage during the central, presumably busiest, period.)

But people aren't usually conscious of the expense of hiring a new person. It's not insignificant. So all businesses can be depended upon to fight shorter work weeks even at the same hourly rate. It means you need to manage more people. This is not only expensive, it's more difficult, even if you can find the ones you want.

Another problem is that many people have skills only in certain areas. Cutting the hours of such a person means you need to provide coverage from someone equally skilled. And even that won't suffice. Project specific knowledge needs to be continually transferred between the people working on the project. If you're writing a piece of code, how easy is it to explain to someone what you're planning as the next step of the development? You basically can't. (OTOH, it's not at all clear that reducing the hours that programmers are at work would even slow down development. Much development comes during the time you aren't actually coding, but merely ruminating over how to handle things in the back of your mind.)

So I'm not particularly advocating either for or against a shorter work week. But I *am* aware of it as a real problem, that society appears to be intending to ignore as long as it can.

N.B.: Automation is continually increasing, even without increasing use of computers, which is also happening. Sometimes it's just redesigning jobs to be done more efficiently. This often means that it gets turned into something that could be handled by current automation. (E.g., consider the function of the cashier at a fast food restaurant. Their obvious job could be handled by a user operated menu combined with a cash accepting machine. So what is their secondary job? Can that also be similarly automated?)

My estimate now is that half of the work done at paid jobs is not socially productive except in that it keeps people employed. And even so there's a very large number of people who AREN'T employed. Note that in the 1950's women generally didn't work, and we had a level of social happiness and wealth that averaged higher than today's. This DID discriminate against many women, but is it really that much better if we discriminate against people who are, basically, unlucky? (Being born with poor parents qualifies as unlucky in my book, as does being raised in an environment that discourages learning.)

OTOH, can you really justify college in today's world? It's not at all clear. Most students acquire a crushing level of debt, and then are thrown into a job market that won't pay off that investment. And you can expect that any particular skill set you acquire will be obsolete within five years, and it's quite possible that the entire field will be automated away (or at least closed to new entrants).
P.S.: have you heard about the automated paralegals? They do citation searches for precedent cases that paralegals used to do. Several major legal firms have already cut way back on the hiring of paralegals and new lawyers. That's not upcoming, that's here. They are already saving the firms money, even though they are currently quite limited. And this is just the first generation, so rapid improvement and generalization can be expected. (I think the current version is limited to patent law, but I'm not sure as I've only "heard about" it.)

But the major point is that there aren't any secure options. Except, perhaps, top manageme

Re:Vote third party

[Grishnakh]

Any idiot knows this system doesn't work, because it relies on the court system to settle everything, and also because it's reactive instead of proactive. If someone creates a giant toxic waste spill, there's tons of people affected. How are you going to compensate them? The company will just go bankrupt. Even if you prevent that, the company only has so many assets, so when those are used up, who's going to pay for the clean-up? Who's going to compensate all the people who got sick and died or had giant life-affecting illnesses as a result? How can you even put a price tag on that? What are you going to do, grab the executives and torture them to death on the rack? While I'm all for that, it still doesn't fix the problems they caused or compensate anyone.

This is why you need regulation: to prevent things from getting out of hand proactively.

Finally, by relying on courts, this makes it pro-corporatism. Courts almost always work in favor of those with the most money. How are some poor people affected by toxic waste going to bring a lawsuit when they have no money to hire lawyers, yet the corporation has tons of money in their legal fund? Courts are usually just justice for the rich.

Re:Vote third party

[Grishnakh]

If you bother to read my many other posts on Slashdot over the past several months, you'd see that I frequently include the Democraps in there. It didn't quite fit into this little post.

Ron Paul's against it.

[Khith]

Ron Paul Comes Out Against SOPA; Joins Other Elected Officials Saying No To The Great Firewall Of America

It's good to know that some people in government are unhappy with this. I didn't know Paul's stance on internet issues before, but now I know that he's against crap like this.

Re:Ron Paul's against it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's good to know that some people in government are unhappy with this.

Michelle Bachmann is against it as well:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111014/15221616369/michele-bachmann-comes-out-against-protect-ip.shtml

She's the rep for my district, she's bat-shit crazy, but at least she got something right.

Re:Ron Paul's against it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul's stance can be determined on any issue with the following formula:

Is it covered as an issue that the Federal government has authority over in the Constitution?

If yes, he's for it.

If no, is it pro-abortion or pro-women's rights?

If yes, he's against it.

All else, he's against it.

Re:Ron Paul's against it.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a shame that his stance wasn't obvious. The Ron Paul comments on /. are usually just abhorrent, I can only attribute this to a general misrepresentation of his views by common news sources. Dr. Paul certainly is worth some independent investigation for most here who constantly lambast politicians for their various evil-doing deeds.

This from a software developer by occupation and economist by education, fwiw.

Re:Ron Paul's against it.

[Toonol]

That could be simplified down; your second criteria would be caught by your third.

Re:Ron Paul's against it.

[Fned]

Not really; the Federal government absolutely has the authority to stop state governments from claiming ownership of the bodies of living adult citizens, which is essentially what abortion bans do (along with punishments for possessing recreational drugs, and anti-sodomy laws).

Re:Ron Paul's against it.

[Anonymous Coward]

She's the rep for my district, ...

You have my condolences.

Re:Well, it is Google, so it *might* get interesti

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was google, I would check all the companies that have lots to lose with this bill, name all and say how much cash they bring in. compare all of that with a best case scenario of the whole entertainment industry earning double what they get so far. I am pretty certain that the best way to vote should be clear from that.

/. mirror?

[rickb928]

When did techdirt start mirroring /.?

Re:Oh good an online petition

[CrimsonAvenger]

Let's see, you post as evidence a blog post which, in its first line, says it got its information from another blog post....

The fix is in

[elrous0]

The hearings are just theater.

Re:Oh good an online petition

[sycodon]

BTW, here is your highly educated OCW crowd.

Create an underground backbone.

[sgt scrub]

If you can organize people to be part of a network you can create a free and open web. They will have to do the following.

1) buy a wireless router and allow it to become part of the grid network.
2) refuse to restrict any traffic regardless of how you feel about it.
3) if you can afford it, pay for a vpn connection to one other city that has done the same.

If people are not open to allowing any traffic to flow, then they want to be censored.

AFL-CIO WTF?

[danlip]

Why the hell is AFL-CIO for SOPA? And why are they considered a relevant party to testify? As a matter of fact, why is MasterCard for it? Visa is against it. MPAA is obvious, and Pfizer I can understand (they want to block sites that sell knock-off drugs).

Re:AFL-CIO WTF?

[rkhalloran]

>> Why the hell is AFL-CIO for SOPA?

Cozying up to the MAFIAA: "all this movie piracy is costing your people trade jobs in set building, craft services, etc etc etc". Just as much BS as they're pushing at Congress, but threatening the "little people" that they're losing work.

Re:AFL-CIO WTF?

[awjr]

Pfizer are part of this because Canada and 20 other smaller countries' IP block comes under the SOPA regulation. They can simply close down the legal online Pharmacists in Canada causing untold damage to the poor in the US.

Re:AFL-CIO WTF?

[Rakarra]

Why the hell is AFL-CIO for SOPA? And why are they considered a relevant party to testify? As a matter of fact, why is MasterCard for it? Visa is against it. MPAA is obvious, and Pfizer I can understand (they want to block sites that sell knock-off drugs).

Censorship on behalf of the entertainment media is a very liberal-left sort of thing, and one of the few things that I agree with right-wingers on.

Sounds like a case for the AAAAA

[Anonymous Coward]

The American Association Against Acronym Abuse!

Re-elect No One

[Anonymous Coward]

Ibid.

This is a fallacy they would love you to believe

[rsilvergun]

What your basically saying is: don't bother to vote, your just going to lose anyway. There are two reasons this is B.S.

1. These are career politicians. They will vote however it takes to get elected. If by some miracle we could vote them out, the 'next guy' would understand that his actions could end his career and would behave accordingly.

2. More realistically #1 isn't going to happen. We're too balkanized of a country. The reason to vote then isn't to win, it's to prevent your opponent from winning by a landslide. Landslide victories embolden them to even worse excesses. If they already know you're not going to come out to vote, and that their jobs are secure no matter how awful they act, what's holding them back? The moral of the story is: vote even if you know your going to lose, or you'll lose more than just your vote.

I've never understood American

[devent]

I've never understood Americans.

Your first amendment is the right of free speech. But you have the FCC and they can ban you if you show someone that says words like fuck on the TV. How can a government agency ban a private company if they try and use their most important right as in the Constitution?

Then you have the amendment that they shall no seizure of property without a proper warrant from a judge. But your country searches everything if you try and go on a plane. In not just search the bags, but it strip-search everyone, including children and babies.

The Americans claim to have the best democracy of the world, but you have only two political parties. Then you claim do be the most advanced civilization, but your poverty rate and child-death-rate is one of the highest in the western countries. There are a lot of cases in America that people die because of bad teeth.

And now you don't only have the DMCA law, that ignores the due-process and innocent-until-proven-otherwise rule, but you have soon the SOPA law.

I wouldn't care, but you try and export that anti-democracy laws to us in Europe, too. Just build a big wall around the USA, have your own internet and leave us in peace.

Re:I've never understood American

[Anonymous Coward]

Our Constitution is nearly meaningless, unfortunately, like most of our other law. The will of the Masters is all that matters, and no law or centuries-old document will be allowed to contradict it. They've gotten really brazen about it, too. They're so entrenched and so firmly in control of the process, though, that nobody can find a way out.

Re:I've never understood American

[blahplusplus]

"I've never understood Americans."

It's not just americans and there is a reason why, see below...

http://bit.ly/dYaWUc

Re:I've never understood American

[the eric conspiracy]

The right of free speech is not absolute - for example in cases of libel, slander or perjury, speech is limited and saying some things can have repercussions. I know of no place that is not true. In the US this extends to broadcast TV because when you buy or lease the frequency spectrum you assent to governance by the FCC. Put up your own CC TV system and you can say fuck all you want.

So anyway, what is the fucking extent of free speech in Europe? Is it part of the constitutions of the various states that make up Europe? Can I go on German TV dressed up funny with a small moustache under my nose and say lets kill all the non-Aryan people?

How the fuck is seizure of property the same thing as search requiring a warrant? In the case of aircraft the situation is that you volunteer for the search if you want to get on the plane. Nobody is forcing you to undergo a search. Just don't go through the check in point. Question for you - in Europe will they let you on a plane without a fucking search? Or do you have to put you bags on the belt and walk through the detector over there too?

I don't who told you that America has only two political parties, but whoever that is you should stop listening to them because they are fucking lying to you. America has many political parties, and occasionally the minor ones influence elections in strange ways. Look up Ralph Nader and Al Gore. Or Ross Perot. Or Theodore Roosevelt and the Bullmoose Party.

As far as socialized medicine and so on, the items you mentioned are open to much debate. For example the ways of measuring infant mortality are not standardized, so you can't compare them directly. But none of these have one fuck's worth of importance with regards to whether or not America is a democracy or the quality of the democracy. In America apparently most people are willing to be responsible for taking care of themselves than relying on some fucking Nanny Government to watch over them cradle to grave and tell them what kind of care they can have, and when.

As far as the best democracy (actually republic - nobody big has an actual democracy), opinions will of course vary depending on how chauvinistic the person is. But America has has had a big one for longer than pretty much anyone else, and all in all we've done pretty well. So we must be doing something fucking right.

Re:I've never understood American

[devent]

Of course the free speech is limited in cases of libel, slander or perjury. But you forget that the FCC is an government agency and as such cannot restrict the free speech. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; So what is the FCC doing forbid TV stations to use certain words with violates the freedom of speech and the freedom of press?

So just explain the case with the FCC to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
In 1934 Congress passed the Communications Act, which abolished the Federal Radio Commission and transferred jurisdiction over radio licensing to a new Federal Communications Commission[...]

So Congress created a law that transferred jurisdiction to the new FCC, which violates the first amendment?

Well, it's the same as with the TSA, another government agency, with violates the "The right of the people to be secure [...] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". The only way I can think of is that everyone enters an airport is declared a terrorist and then the "[...] probable cause, supported by oath [...]" can be used.

In Europe we don't have such strong free speech rights, but we have a much stronger privacy rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
Political Party House of Representatives Senate
Democratic Party 192 51
Republican Party 240 47
Connecticut for Lieberman 0 1
Independent 0 1
Vacant 3 0

You got to be kidding me? That's like I talk about the monopoly in desktops shared by Microsoft and Apple, and you telling me but there are the 1% Linux market share. 2 seats in the Senate by other parties?

We in Europe had just a normal X-ray-scan for the bags and maybe a dog. But than came 9/11 and all of the sudden the security was not good enough. Even in Israel it's just a X-ray-scan for the bags and a dog at the airport. That craziness about terrorism coming all over the ocean from the west.

A state that lets his people die of illnesses that you could only die 100 years ego, is just pathetic. What good is it if only the top percent in a society can afford health care, how is that a democracy?

Re:I've never understood American

[Quila]

How can a government agency ban a private company if they try and use their most important right as in the Constitution?

The airwaves are a limited public resource, and with the use of such a resource comes responsibility. There is no such limit on cable or other such transmission. Also, corporations are not (at least not yet) considered to have absolutely full First Amendment rights the same as an individual. Commercial speech (which a TV broadcast usually constitutes) does not enjoy such full rights.

Then you have the amendment that they shall no seizure of property without a proper warrant from a judge. But your country searches everything if you try and go on a plane.

This is historically supported at the border, and by extension the boarding and arrival from international flights. It's not a Fourth Amdendment search, but a function of customs. However, that the concept is extended to domestic flights I agree is problematic.

The Americans claim to have the best democracy of the world, but you have only two political parties.

That is not dictated by law, just how things turned out. However, since they got power, the party duopoly have enacted laws that do make it harder for any other party to gain traction. The media is complicit, since the last presidential debate to allow a third party candidate was almost 20 years ago.

Then you claim do be the most advanced civilization, but your poverty rate and child-death-rate is one of the highest in the western countries.

It would help if we hadn't been draining our coffers for your defense over the last several decades. You couldn't even clean up the mess in your own backyard, the Balkans, and needed us to come help.

And now you don't only have the DMCA law, that ignores the due-process and innocent-until-proven-otherwise rule

I won't disagree on DMCA; however, the worst part of the DMCA, related to anti-circumvention, only implements a copyright treaty hammered out in Europe -- Geneva to be precise.

What's really bad here is that we had a system where an author is only granted a limited monopoly right to his works by the government, but it's being slowly replaced by the European view that an author has a natural right to his works.

Re:I've never understood American

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe me, this is big business forcing this nonsense. The majority of citizens that know about it are wholly against it.

Re:I've never understood American

[Amouth]

thats an awesome video set

Re:I've never understood American

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear !

Re:I've never understood American

[T Murphy]

your [...] child-death-rate is one of the highest in the western countries

I don't have time to look up the statistics today but a significant part of this disparity is simply a result of the way infant mortality is counted (I think mainly in the way they define "live birth"). If I recall correctly that doesn't make up all of it, but it's been too long since I've looked into it so I don't recall what the explanation is for the remainder (i.e. what it is that America is doing wrong).

I recognize I'm not making a strong point here without citations, I just mean to make the point you might want to look into the topic a bit before making that claim again (although like I said it might not be wrong but it's kinda misleading, you'll be better able to argue with it, unlike me).

Re:I've never understood American

[Fnord666]

I wouldn't care, but you try and export that anti-democracy laws to us in Europe, too. Just build a big wall around the USA, have your own internet and leave us in peace.

Now be nice or we'll take our Internet and go home.

Re:I've never understood American

[smagruder]

If only my fellow Americans could see my country as clearly as you do. I mean it. Thank you.

To add to what you say, we have a country with a lot of people foaming at the mouth at "big government", when big corporate power is what actually controls our "elected from limited choices" government, and through various strings, controls most of the populace. Corporate media feeds their viewpoint into the minds of the American people continuously, with fewer and fewer outlets of independent thought and investigation.

If we don't start fighting back somehow, we're screwed.

Re:I've never understood American

[Anonymous Coward]

*I've never understood American Politicians that suck Corporate Media Cock.

Corrected your title there buddy.

Re:I've never understood American

[smagruder]

I'm always saddened when I see fellow Americans defending some things that are really indefensible. To pretend that the U.S. is somehow a great democracy is not only shocking, it's untrue. The U.S. today is indeed a corporatocracy and there can be no denial of this reality.

Re:I've never understood American

[Ash-Fox]

Your first amendment is the right of free speech. But you have the FCC and they can ban you if you show someone that says words like fuck on the TV. How can a government agency ban a private company if they try and use their most important right as in the Constitution?

You didn't research this too hard, did you? It's free speech against the government. Not freedom to be vulgar on any matter.

--Also a non-American.

Re:I've never understood American

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree with your sentiment. America is a word power in decline, like Spain, England, Germany, Portugal, Japan, China, etc. We have self destructed (corrupted our fundamental values through arrogance and greed), and will go through a period of readjustment and rebuilding. What will be interesting is what happens next.

Re:I've never understood American

[Anonymous Coward]

I really get so sick of my own countrymen expressing "america rocks and the rest of the world sucks" whenever they encounter criticism. The truth is the fundamental rights which make the american style system great are being eroded every day. The right to free speech, the right to privacy, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness are disappearing. Our political system is becoming corporatocracy. Nothing new, many countries have done it before, I just hate when people try and deny it.

Re:I've never understood American

[sorak]

The Americans claim to have the best democracy of the world, but you have only two political parties. Then you claim do be the most advanced civilization, but your poverty rate and child-death-rate is one of the highest in the western countries.

The key to having the best bullshit in the world is not admitting that you have the best bullshit in the world.

Re:I've never understood American

[the eric conspiracy]

What a complete pile of shit. You come on here complaining about FCC regulation of airwave content as being an example of personal rights violation when Europe's free speech guarantees are far weaker.

You complain about US airport searches when Europe does the exact same thing.

You state the US has only two political parties when in fact anyone who goes to vote in the US gets to choose from several parties.

And the feeble attempts to link socialized medicine to democracy? Did you know that various US states have different medical plans depending what their citizens vote in? Some states, like Massachusetts and Vermont have fully socialized care, more so than most other European nations. The democratic process in the US lets people choose what they want, unlike Europe where you get no choice.

You are a complete idiot.

Pro-SOPA / Anti-SOPA

[gumpish]

With no mention of what the initialism stands for, this summary reminds me of the great pro-skub / anti-skub debate.

99% and the 1%

[duranaki]

I can't say I've been occupying anywhere but work, but it seems amazing how many stories I've been seeing lately that strike me as "Congress trying to pass a law to help the 1% at the 99%'s expense". You'd think they'd at least wait until some of this blows over, but I guess they really don't care or feel threatened.

Re:99% and the 1%

[bwcbwc]

Since the police in various cities are shutting down the Occupy * tent cities, maybe its time for Occupy Washington. If you have to move anyway, might as well all move in the same direction.

Draw the line.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time to get organized folks. Start getting together in person and in secret so everything you say can't be recorded. Talk in person about the options to deal with this and the other situations going on within our governments.

Re:Oh good an online petition

[morgauxo]

Isn't that the same kind of stuff you would find if you cleaned out a big city park on any day of any year?

Re:This is a fallacy they would love you to believ

[Moryath]

The reason to vote then isn't to win, it's to prevent your opponent from winning by a landslide. Landslide victories embolden them to even worse excesses.

Really? Dumbya "won" by less than 50% of the vote both times, and claimed he had an election mandate to do what he wanted anyways. Remember his famous crack about "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it" right before he tried to fuck up Social Security in 2005?

Merely getting into office emboldens them to worse excesses. If they don't have a landslide, they just lie and claim they did.

Re:Oh good an online petition

[sycodon]

You're kidding...right? This seems normal to you?

Tacitus would have said :

[Anonymous Coward]

They make censorship, and they call it democracy.

It's quite inevitable.

[AdamJS]

The larger corporate groups will exert their leverage alongside that of the US itself and laws like these will be enacted in most countries, specifically EU countries.
Should that not come to pass, than the alternative (which is already under way, to an extent) will be pursued - extraditing or fining people across the pond who violate US internet laws (you can skip due process as well, because they're 'furners).

At the very least, they will (quite easily) get any website on Earth taken offline should they desire it, with probably no real fuss.

The idea that anyone who uses the internet frequently might think they're not going to be horrendously affected by this is pretty funny.

It should be a fun hearing

[Quila]

I know Conyers (D), Coble (R), Sensenbrenner (R) and Berman (D) and others are basically owned by the entertainment industry so there will be a total kiss-ass fest between them and the industry reps.

Jackson-Lee (D), Congress' most "entertaining" member since the departure of Cynthia McKinney, also is on the MAFIAA's side. We might get to see a supremely ignorant and downright mean tirade directed at the one person testifying against SOPA. If she does go off the deep end again, expect her to find some way to bring race into the issue. Who knows, we could get another gem like "two Vietnams" or

Lofgren (D) is the only one on the committee that know has expressed some apprehension at the vast expansion of copyright. It'll be interesting if she actually tries to put the interests of the people first.

Re:It should be a fun hearing

[Commontwist]

Ah, the Lobby Licker Lackeys at work.

Re:Oh good an online petition

[savanik]

Because obviously people who have worked all their life and finally retired are in no position to call someone else 'lazy'?

Now hang on, later the same infographics say that the Tea Party makes more money per year? How can you make more money while being unemployed?

When all is said and done, though, I think the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street will agree on one basic principle: The people who committed vast amounts of financial fraud should be in jail, and we are not doing enough to find them.

Way to lie with statistics

[Quila]

Looking at your same chart, a much larger percentage of the Occupy protesters are unemployed than Tea Party protesters.

You ignore that there are almost no retirees among the Occupy crowd.

Re:Way to lie with statistics

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of unemployed, racist senile delinquents yelling about a "n***er in the white house" are still unemployed, aren't they?

Re:Way to lie with statistics

[Quila]

But more unwashed loser anti-semites are in the Occupy protests.

People tried to show up to Tea Party rallies with racist signs, but were thrown out. Other than that, you only have unverified claims of racist statements that nobody will put up for despite a $100,000 bounty for evidence.

But at the Occupy protests, anti-Semitic signs and slogans are just fine. Didn't that one Occupy protester say the Zionist Jews need to be run out of the country? Or how about that Occupy protester telling a Jew he's a dumb motherfucker who should go back to Israel? In Chicago they welcome the Palestinians voicing their (of course anti-Semitic) opinion in the protest. And I really liked the "Hitler's Bankers" sign.

But what can you expect from a movement that has received the official support of the American Nazi Party?

allowing candidates?

[manaway]

Haiti allowed Aristide to be elected, in spite of the media and big business. Bolivia allowed Morales to be elected, in spite of the media and big business. If those two countries can elect a people's candidate, the US can. Believing big business "will never allow" something is indoctrination.

Re:allowing candidates?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haiti allowed Aristide to be elected, in spite of the media and big business.

He didn't stay there for too long because of big business.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Controversy_regarding_U.S._involvement

Re:allowing candidates?

[manaway]

He didn't stay there for too long because of big business.

Let's see, in 1991 Aristide was president for 8 months before a CIA-backed coup d'etat. Then for 1.5 years starting in 1995. Then another 4 years starting in 2001, until he was kidnapped by the US in 2004. So he was president for about 6 years total.

Your point is well made though, big business and the US government didn't give up just because a grassroots person got elected. Not giving up appears to be a key to success. Including secretive copyright extensions.

About the only consolation...

[bwcbwc]

in this mess is that if SOPA really ends up being as bad as it is currently, its powerful enough to use AGAINST big media.

Warner Brothers links to a Youtube video? Google should file a SOPA complaint against them. After a few such episodes, file for a site takedown and payment blocking to shut down WBs internet presence. EIther WB pays a heavy price in the market, or Google gets a court precedent weakening SOPA. Same goes for CNBC CNN, Fox or any of the other big media sites.

Even better, when the politicians who vote for this farce post infringing material on their own websites or their campaigns' websites, use the same approach. Sue their campaigns out of existence.

Re:This is a fallacy they would love you to believ

[sangreal66]

GWB received 50.7% of the vote in 2004. Hardly a mandate, but also not "less than 50%"

Horrible idea

[ThatsNotPudding]

Most people considering voting third party skew Liberal / Progressive (ignoring the obvious Koch-funded astroturf group du joir). The only real effect is decreasing the vote count for Democrats and ensuring even more violent, corrupt, ignorant right-wingers are elected.

Unless you are actually hoping this will occur?

House Judiciary Committee

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do I write to? None of my representatives are part of the committee. How am I being represented?

True but...

[rsilvergun]

he backed down on Social Security. Give him 90% of the electorate and he wouldn't have.

I think what he was getting at

[rsilvergun]

were the widespread accusations of fraud & voter intimidation (esp in Florida). There's strong evidence that both Kerry & Gore won by small margins, and that they didn't contest because they felt it would be bad for the country.

Re:This is a fallacy they would love you to believ

[Anonymous Coward]

Witness the trouble John Kasich is having in Ohio and Scott Walker in Wisconsin due to overreaching.

The Core Issue....

[Anonymous Coward]

The root of the problem is the State's monopoly on the initiation of force. Complex social problems can't be solved through threats and coercion, in the long run it always only makes things worse.

We must place the non-aggression principle at the center of our interactions.

Voluntary relationships. (Voluntarism)

Safe Harbor for Web Communities?

[smagruder]

What's going to happen to those who run discussion boards, social sites and the like? How on Earth can they prevent all copyright misuses?

Sometimes copyright infringements are obvious and can be taken down, but there's an awful lot of images and text content that gets placed into discussion posts, and how can administrators really police this? It seems to me that with "Safe Harbor", admins are at least theoretically given a chance by copyright owners to do the right thing.

Is it reasonable to say that SOPA could destroy discourse on the web? Or at least severely dampen it?

Re:This is a fallacy they would love you to believ

[Anonymous Coward]

Merely getting into office emboldens them to worse excesses. If they don't have a landslide, they just lie and claim they did.

Look at Canada. The party with the most seats only got 39% of the popular vote, and they're running roughshod over EVERYTHING. When questioned on any topic, the line is they got a majority on election day, so suck it.

It's mainly the (Wall St.) corporate media

[Burz]

They control the terms of debate, who can frame issues, who will be made to look heroic or heinous.

The "fourth estate" are now attached at the hip with the rest of the odious, money hoarding, war-mongering establishment. Their interests lie is making the wealthiest Wall St. investors ("risk takers") feel safe and secure and that means conning the general public out of our power and wealth and redirecting it all to aforementioned corporate plutocrats.

How many of you participate?

[X.mpls]

Just because you voted does not mean you're active in your democracy. So many people take the cop out stance that big business buys politicians. First of all, prove that. Second, how many of you regularly contact your Congressmen? As a Hill employee, I can tell you that your elected officials (1 Representative and both Senators) have systems that log comments given by constituents. You can keep bemoaning the system and claim your voice isn't heard. And your voice alone isn't, but don't fall for that self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone held their tongue regarding an issue close to their heart, they'd never know who agreed with them and nobody in a position of power could ever act on their behalf. Most Congressmen will tell you that their tenure is a contract, and every two years all of us have the ability to vote them out of office if we don't agree with their choices. Stop complaining and get out and engage in your democracy.

I was mostly right, part wrong

[Quila]

The love fest was completely there, all it needed was a bit more KY between most of the attendants. Of course they ommitted such niceties during their rape of the one person against the bill, as they were hammering her in their opening statements before she was even able to speak.

Lofgren expectedly made only token resistance, but Jackson-Lee disappointed, providing little entertainment.

Like Iago said...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think I'm gonna have a heart attack and die from that surprise!"