I was an intern in a congressional office, and I can say this is partially true. Letters do get delayed, but we tended to get them a few weeks after they were sent, not a few months. And we do log, file and respond to all letters, though I don't know what (if anything) gets done beyond that. A LOT of non-identical letters- i.e. not something that a lobbying group sent you to mail to your congressman- will make a difference.
However, it is definitely true that phone calls and especially office visits are a lot more influential. A small group coming to the office (especially if they represent a larger constituency) usually gets to meet with a staff member for a while and get their message across. If you're going to do this, my only advice is to be completely prepared (and not drunk--this has happened more than once). If you know your issue and can explain it in a persuasive way, it can actually change the minds of the staff who have the ear of the representative.
Don't expect much if you disagree with the rep on a major issue though. If it's something where the rep has a staked out position with a long history, and you disagree with it, we'll certainly listen but that's about it.
Basically, pick an issue without too much history and where the congressman might agree with you with some prodding, and you can actually get results.
Once I was having problems with my cable modem; it was far slower than it would be expected. I called support. Approximately the following conversation occurred:
Me: My internet access is running at far slower speeds than it usually does.
Tech: Do you have a router?
Me:...yes...
Tech: Well, you know, you might want to replace it. Routers can wear out, like lightbulbs.
Bicycles are clearly not practical for everything. Cars are practical for basically everything an SUV can do (except for transporting large cargo, and I have no particular problem with someone who has a legitimate need for an SUV owning one). Most people who buy an SUV use it in EXACTLY the same way they would use a smaller car. That's the point.
Sorry, it ceases to become a "personal choice" when your choice is polluting the environment and causing greater danger to people who choose cars that aren't the size of small towns (in case you didn't know or figure this out from intuition, a small car involved in an accident with an SUV is much more likely to have a fatality). If it was just a matter of different car shapes or styles, all else being equal, it wouldn't matter. But SUVs are damaging to the environment and to other drivers. It doesn't just affect the person buying it.
No, there's a big difference. The Cuecat was essentially useless because it was tethered to a computer. Who reads magazines at their computer? This thing is embedded in a cell phone, with its own web browser. This means if someone sees one of these things, they point their cell phone at it and have the information there, instead of having to be near a computer. I mean, it's not an immensely useful technology in any form, but this at least has the potential to do something marginally interesting.
I don't know, back in the dim and distant past when I were a lad, it was considered harmful to use brainwashing and coercion in education.
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Iraq never supported terrorism. Yes, they were nasty people. But they weren't really Islamic enough to be friends with terrorists (they enforced arbitrary laws, just not arbitrary laws based on radical Islam). The invasion of Iraq has created a world backlash against the US, and most significantly a huge recruitment boost for groups like Al-Qaeda. The appearance, accurate or not, that this is a war of civilizations between the West and Islam, is a main part of the appeal for groups like Al-Qaeda: if you think that an incredibly powerful nation is out to destroy your civilization, you will be more likely to support whatever is necessary to fight them, including attacks against civilians.
The perception that the United States wants to destroy Islam is highly increased by the invasion of Iraq, a country not even slightly linked to Al-Qaeda. The way to stop terrorism, permanently, is not to attack specific terrorists (there will always be some) but to undermine their public support. The war in Iraq does the opposite. There are more places for terrorists to hide. America is less safe.
Slashdot Mirror
I was an intern in a congressional office, and I can say this is partially true. Letters do get delayed, but we tended to get them a few weeks after they were sent, not a few months. And we do log, file and respond to all letters, though I don't know what (if anything) gets done beyond that. A LOT of non-identical letters- i.e. not something that a lobbying group sent you to mail to your congressman- will make a difference. However, it is definitely true that phone calls and especially office visits are a lot more influential. A small group coming to the office (especially if they represent a larger constituency) usually gets to meet with a staff member for a while and get their message across. If you're going to do this, my only advice is to be completely prepared (and not drunk--this has happened more than once). If you know your issue and can explain it in a persuasive way, it can actually change the minds of the staff who have the ear of the representative. Don't expect much if you disagree with the rep on a major issue though. If it's something where the rep has a staked out position with a long history, and you disagree with it, we'll certainly listen but that's about it. Basically, pick an issue without too much history and where the congressman might agree with you with some prodding, and you can actually get results.
Me: My internet access is running at far slower speeds than it usually does.
Tech: Do you have a router?
Me: ...yes...
Tech: Well, you know, you might want to replace it. Routers can wear out, like lightbulbs.
Me: ...
Note that the Post article itself quotes the paragraph that the ACLU was forced to remove. Heh.
Bicycles are clearly not practical for everything. Cars are practical for basically everything an SUV can do (except for transporting large cargo, and I have no particular problem with someone who has a legitimate need for an SUV owning one). Most people who buy an SUV use it in EXACTLY the same way they would use a smaller car. That's the point.
Sorry, it ceases to become a "personal choice" when your choice is polluting the environment and causing greater danger to people who choose cars that aren't the size of small towns (in case you didn't know or figure this out from intuition, a small car involved in an accident with an SUV is much more likely to have a fatality). If it was just a matter of different car shapes or styles, all else being equal, it wouldn't matter. But SUVs are damaging to the environment and to other drivers. It doesn't just affect the person buying it.
No, there's a big difference. The Cuecat was essentially useless because it was tethered to a computer. Who reads magazines at their computer? This thing is embedded in a cell phone, with its own web browser. This means if someone sees one of these things, they point their cell phone at it and have the information there, instead of having to be near a computer. I mean, it's not an immensely useful technology in any form, but this at least has the potential to do something marginally interesting.
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Iraq never supported terrorism. Yes, they were nasty people. But they weren't really Islamic enough to be friends with terrorists (they enforced arbitrary laws, just not arbitrary laws based on radical Islam). The invasion of Iraq has created a world backlash against the US, and most significantly a huge recruitment boost for groups like Al-Qaeda. The appearance, accurate or not, that this is a war of civilizations between the West and Islam, is a main part of the appeal for groups like Al-Qaeda: if you think that an incredibly powerful nation is out to destroy your civilization, you will be more likely to support whatever is necessary to fight them, including attacks against civilians. The perception that the United States wants to destroy Islam is highly increased by the invasion of Iraq, a country not even slightly linked to Al-Qaeda. The way to stop terrorism, permanently, is not to attack specific terrorists (there will always be some) but to undermine their public support. The war in Iraq does the opposite. There are more places for terrorists to hide. America is less safe.
That's true, it's not irrelevant to US security interests. It made the US less safe. That's relevant.