How long will it now take before we start seeing iTunes Payola. Networks eager to get their shows on people's ipods will certainly be tempted to try to strike special deals to make their shows more easily obtainable. They may try to offer Apple cash, try to reduce the cost to consumers, or try to find ways to get their links on the front page.
This is certainly one of the most idiotic things I've seen posted on/. (which is saying quite a bit;) Payola is defined (per Wikipedia) as "the illegal practice of record companies paying money for the broadcast of records on music radio [...], if the song is presented as being part of the normal day's broadcast." iTunes does not broadcast music (or in this case, TV shows), so right there your argument falls apart. But allow me to continue picking at it. On the radio, you can only hear whatever song the radio has chosen to play at that moment; if the record companies are paying the radio station under the table to alter what the radio station would normally have played, that's a problem. With iTunes, YOU choose what gets played, so the problem can't exist. What you're talking about is just standard advertising. It's like when you go to Barnes & Noble and there are stacks upon stacks of the new Tom Clancy novel on the table directly inside the front door. B&N didn't choose to put it there on their own: the publisher paid for that spot. There's nothing shady about this... if you aren't interested in the book (or in the case of iTunes: song/TV show), don't look at (listen/watch) it!
Don't forget Goblin Commander. While you're correct in bringing up Herzog Zwei, Goblin Commander is the only RTS I can think of that was built specifically for current-gen systems, thus using a controller much closer to the 360's than the Genesis controller of Herzog Zwei. I'm thinking GC would give a closer idea of what to expect from this.
How long will it take to see a Cary Grant or Katherine Hepburn movie on Blu-Ray? The vast majority of truly good movies were made more than 30 years ago, and those are always the last movies to make it to a new format.
I agree with your view that it's probably going to take a while for those older movies to make the transition (although not with your love for old movies... I've tried to watch 'em, but they just don't click for me). However, does it really matter? Correct me if I'm wrong (I may very well be, and I want to know if I am), but is the source film on the majority of those movies in good enough shape to make high definition viewing worthwhile? I would imagine that as time passes and the original films degrade, transferring them into high-def digital formats will just emphasize the loss of quality. Again, though, I could quite possibly be talking out of my ass.
So the only early adopters will be the same gadget hungry geeks who invested in Laser Disc players. We all know how well that worked out.
As far as I can figure, Laser Disc failed due to the unwieldiness of the media. Sure, there was an increase in video and audio quality, but the amount of the increase compared to the size increase in the physical media itself (LD versus VHS) probably turned a lot of people off. Plus, LD didn't have the benefit of the PS2(PS3) to support it as DVD(Blu-ray) did(will).
Let people who download music through the subscription service (with perhaps a decent per-month limit, say, 100 tracks, to keep people from trying to download the entire database) keep their music when their subscription ends. [...]
I'd also recommend using non-DRM MP3, but hey, this is Microsoft we're talking about. Can't expect everything...
Sounds like you're looking for emusic... There's a monthly fee for a set number of downloads (number depends on which plan you choose) that are yours permanently. It's DRM-free MP3 format, as you requested. The only catch is that they focus on independent artists. There are some RIAA artists/labels to be found on there, but they're in the minority.
[Disclaimer: No, I don't work for emusic, despite the fact that this is my second post in a row shilling for them... I'm just a happy customer. Maybe they should pay me, though...]
In online music services you can sell individual songs permanently, or you can sell timed access to a huge song library. Either model has its pros and cons, but you have to pick one.
Not necessarily. There is (at least) one service that has a model that's a bit of a compromise. emusic is a subscription service (with a limited number of track downloads per month, depending on the plan you choose) that allows you to keep your music permanently. It's all in DRM-less MP3 format (plays perfectly on my iPod), and it's almost all RIAA-free to boot (they say they feature only independent artists, but I have spotted some RIAA artists and labels on there.
Also, they give you 50 free downloads (yours to keep, no strings attached) just for signing up. [Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with emusic whatsoever... just a happy customer:) ]
If you really wanna kick the RIAA in the teeth, buy some independent music. That'll let 'em know that you're still more than willing to buy music... just not theirs. Allow me to give you a few recommendations to get you started:
Harvey Danger (in case you missed the story on them here a couple days back about them releasing their latest CD as a completely free download... OGG format and all!)
And I'm sure you probably know about it already, but just in case, you can check out the RIAA Radar to verify if a band/artist is part of the problem or not.
(And if any of you are following along at home, yes... this is basically the same as the last post I made on/.:)
I don't think it would be such a bad thing at all if the RIAA dropped their labels off of ITMS. It'd just save me the ALT-TAB over to Firefox to check the RIAA Radar when I find a new band that I like, and it would give some much-deserved exposure to some of the great independent bands that are out there.
Maybe instead of seeing the Top 10 list filled with crap from Nickelback, Kanye West, Ashlee Simpson, Fittycent, and Kelly Clarkson we could start seeing something listenable, for example from any (or all) of the following:
A Russian coder that I used to work with once wrote some C code that would generate SQL queries dynamically. In his comments inside the code, he described this as "Building SQL queries on a fly" which had me giggling quite a bit when I first read it.
You must forgive him in that particular situation. You see, where he's from, flies build SQL queries on you!
If the federal government has no right to intervene in state's licensing schemes for motorists, then there's no requirement for states to honor each others' licenses reciprocally.
Described by his attorney as a white-haired businessman in his mid-50s, Christ is moving to West Virginia to enjoy a slower lifestyle. He bought property near Lost River, about 100 miles west of Washington, and has a U.S. passport, Social Security card and Washington driver's license bearing the name Jesus Christ.
Original name But he still falls short of West Virginia title and license transfer requirements because his Florida birth certificate has his original name on it and he has been unable to obtain an official name change in Washington.
Every state currently has their own requirements for what's necessary on a driver's license, and sometimes different states' requirements conflict. That doesn't mean that Mr. Jesus Christ can't drive in West Virginia with his Washington license, it just means that if he's going to get a WV license, he needs to comply with WV's rules. Under RealID, that's no longer the case. The federal government now gets to tell the states what they do and don't accept for this, and that's where people see a problem.
Watch the shipping industry die should that ever stop.
As I pointed out, states recognizing the validity of other states' licenses is not the issue. The issue is that each state should be allowed to determine what they want on their licenses. Using my above example, West Virginia having different rules than Washington for issuing a driver's license has no bearing on the shipping industry. I'm not going to say that there isn't a federal requirement already in place for states to accept other states' licenses, (there may be... I don't feel like googling it now...:) but my point is that there doesn't really NEED to be one. It would be in the states' best interest to accept out-of-state licenses as valid due to shipping and commerce.
It seems to me that in everyone's rushing to bash the RealID portion of this, the real threat has been entirely overlooked. Before I go on, I'm going to point out that I could very possibly be ranting about nothing at all... Let me explain. When viewing the text for this particular bill, there are 5 different versions presented (see here), and no dates are attached to any of them. Now, I'm hoping the last in the list ("Public Print") is the finalized version, but I can't tell for sure. If that's the case, then someone please confirm it for me, and everyone disregard the following:
The whole standardized national ID card is nasty, I agree. It's not the federal government's place to tell the individual states how to handle their drivers' licensing schemes, it's true. But as has been pointed out already, the if the authorities want the information in question, they're gonna get it one way or the other... If nothing else, this'll make it easier for them, which means less time spent on it, which could conceivably mean less taxpayer money spent on digging up the information. Anyway, that's not the point. The worst part about this bill is the fact that it allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law he/she wishes with absolutely no judicial review possible. This was discussed in comments a while back here on/. when it was brought up in H.R. 418, which was rolled into this current bill. I quote from the bill:
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
Or, to illustrate better, I'll quote Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon:
"If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review."
This is the reason we should be up in arms. This is the dangerous part, and I've seen precious little mention of it.
In a couple of the 5 versions of this bill (H.R.1268) that are up on Thomas, that section is struck out. I believe that the most recent version is one that has it struck out, but not seeing any dates on the 5 different versions, I can't be certain. Am I correct in assuming that "Public Print," the last one in the list, is the finalized version? If not, then welcome to the police state, folks. If so... well... I'm a tool who just spent entirely too much time typing all this up for nothin';)
Historically, Dark Horse:Ocean::Comics:Video Games w/r/t their rabid craze for licensing.
<pedant>Technically, that should be Dark Horse:Comics::Ocean:Video Games. As you had it, you're comparing Dark Horse's relation to Ocean to the relationship between comics and video games.</pedant>
Disclaimer: I like the XBox... I'm just arguing for argument's sake (and because I DO disagree with a few of your points)
"huge controllers" - Rectified with the Controller S, which has long been the standard controller. In fact, every game now only references this version, and the original has been long forgotten.
This is true, but it doesn't help someone who bought the system when it first came out and bought multiple controllers for their friends to use. Sure, they can (and probably did) go buy new controllers, but let's say someone picked up 3 extra controllers at launch, now they'll have to replace 4 controllers with the Controller S. That's another $120 down the drain... If MS had just thought about the controller for more than 2 seconds, this wouldn't have had to happen (although I suppose MS isn't arguing... it allowed them to sell more controllers).
"horribly buggy games" - Wah? KoToR? I guess you mean KoToR2, which was an awful game on any platform because of the decision to stop developing about halfway through the process. I know that there were problems with Xbox live and a few games (SC:PT I think had a serious lobby bug) but Live allows developers to patch games in serious circumstances, despite MS's wishes for it to not be used in this way. They'd rather it were used for expanded content and, you know, decent console multiplayer gaming.
Yes, KoToR. Also Fable and Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (Game of the Year Edition). All three of these games bugged out on me at some point. KoToR corrupted multiple save files (I'd try to save and everything would freeze, the screen would show random text characters, everything would be wonky, and even after letting it sit for 15 minutes it was locked solid. The only option was to reboot, and then the save was corrupted. Also I managed to run into a bug with my character disappearing (clothes, etc were still there, just no person)). Fable would just randomly freeze up during play (I can't recall clearly, but this may have been a disc read error, which goes under hardware bugs as opposed to buggy games... but even so: I have all three current consoles, and the XBox is the only one I've had disc read issues with... I'll get to that in a later point, though). Morrowind would only allow me to play for about 5 minutes, then would just lock solid, no way around it. There is XBox Live where patches can be distributed, but someone who's not paying MS for that service (like me) gets left out in the cold with the buggy games. Consoles are supposed to be virtually bug-free by their very nature (one platform to develop for, etc.), but it seems like XBox games get a little less testing time because of the crutch of XBox Live.
"DVD support" - Version 1 Xbox, from the evening after they started selling them here in the UK. It's played all media I've put in it - CD-RW, DVD+RW, DVD-R. Certainly no disc read errors for me.
I don't know if there's any difference between the XBox sold there in the UK and here in the States, but I DO have disc read errors on mine. It won't read CD-Rs at all, and many games randomly crap out with dirty disc errors (I keep my discs immaculate... and I've had a "dirty disc error" on a game the first time I opened it and played it.). I know the XBox isn't alone in these sorts of problems, but it's the only one of the three consoles I own that gives me trouble (including my first-gen PS2 that I picked up the day they went on sale).
The argument is that even doing the 5-10 minute gradual change is going to throw the milker's schedule out of whack. Sure, it can be done, the cows' schedule can be changed, but it's going to mean the milker changing his/her schedule as well. In both situations, then, you've got a schedule change on the milker's part... whether the milker has to get up an hour "earlier" (technically at the same time, but the clock itself will show it as being earlier), or changing the milking time by 5-10 minutes each time (which means changing the ACTUAL time it happens at, as opposed to the relative time based on the changing clock), the milker has to make an adjustment (whether real in your suggestion or perceived (same actual time, but earlier on the clock)). It's not about the cows themselves (not directly, at least), it's about the milker having to change their schedule, and the possible confusion/screw-ups that could result. Getting rid of DST means that it's always done at the same real time and the same perceived time.
Did it sell better than Halo 2? hmmm.... I don't know the numbers, but I imagine quite a few more copies of halo 2 got sold than PSPs.
Regardless of the fact that Halo 2 was released in 2004 (as someone else has already pointed out), you're missing some key points...
You're comparing software sales to hardware sales. It's like saying that the XBox is a flop because GTA: San Andreas outsold it (disclaimer: I've got no numbers for that, it's purely an example to illustrate the ignorance of your assertion). You're comparing apples and oranges.
The PSP costs five times as much as Halo 2, and that's without any games. You're looking at around six times the price with just one game thrown in. At $50 for Halo 2, I'm sure plenty of kids were able to save up their allowances to pick it up. The same kids would've had to have saved 5-6 times as long for the PSP (ie: they're still saving).
Re:Sony still focusing on the wrong things
on
Inside the PSP
·
· Score: 1
A console is made popular by its games, and so far all the PSP games are just watered-down ports of PS2 games.
That's just not true. While there are a lot of games that are portable versions of PS2 games, I don't understand how you can say that they ALL are. At least two games that are out now, at launch, are completely different than anything I've seen on the PS2. First you've got Metal Gear Ac!d, a turn-based card battle tactical espionage game. Show me one game on the PS2 that fits in that genre. Sure, it's Metal Gear, and so if you're looking to make an ignorant sweeping statement about the PSP only having "watered-down" PS2 games, it's easy to include it, but a quick check of any review/preview of the game would tell you that it's something completely new.
My favorite, though, would have to be Lumines, a puzzler unlike any other I've ever encountered. If you think back to the original Game Boy, there was one title that really hooked everyone: Tetris. To quote the Gamespot review linked there: "In fact, between the beautiful presentation, the innovative gameplay, and the excellent single-player and multiplayer modes, Lumines may very well be the greatest Tetris-style puzzle game since Tetris itself." Personally, I'm digging it more than Tetris itself, but that's obviously personal preference. Again, I challenge you to point out which PS2 game this is a watered-down version of.
Note that DA Castor says that there might be a connection, or there might not. He's not demonizing D&D, nor are either news agency making it their headline.
Actually, D&D is being demonized by this because of the way it's being handled. You're correct in that the media isn't coming right out and saying "D&D made him do it, it's bad and needs to be destroyed," but Mr. Castor even mentioning it when there's possibly no link whatsoever is just irresponsible. If it turns out that D&D did have something to do with it, fine... they should tell us about it when they have proof. Until then, dropping a product's name as being "possibly" involved with a murder is, in fact, demonizing it in the public eye. If you notice, the only time D&D gets media attention is when it's being mentioned in situations just such as this. When was the last time you saw/read D&D getting any sort of positive mainstream media attention?
I second that! I used to read every friggin' webcomic under the sun until finally one day I realized that a good majority of them suck ass. PA is the only one that I still check regularly, but Sinfest and Goats (and that's "Goats"... NOT "goatse". Feel free to click) survived my webcomic cleansing as well. I don't always keep up with 'em regularly, but I'll check back periodically and catch up through their archives.
Which is exactly what they did with Year One (yes, I've got a copy). It wasn't the full newspost itself, but they did explain what each strip was about and even mentioned a little bit about the creative process behind each strip. The newspost these days usually gives enough background so that you know what the strips are about, but it doesn't always tell you what the thought process was when they were actually creating the strip itself. I'm sure they'll continue in this vein if (now "when," I suppose) more books finally come to light.
I personally don't smoke anything legal or illegal. But I find government regulation of smoking to have gone to greedy excess. As soon as this revenue stream starts drying up, they'll all move on to other items to tax (or other internet revenue).
Y'know, I never thought of it that way. Now I can tell all the pushy non-smokers that I'm smoking for their freedom to buy stuff tax-free online;)
I'm not sure I quite understand. If it was a useless answer, then you asked a useless question to begin with, as I answered you quite handily. Anyway, that's neither here nor there, as you did rephrase the question.
What happens when you have a party and have 17 people playing on five Xboxes?
You already answered this one for me (up it to 32;) but I figured I'd comment on it anyway. Another solution is something I've seen some other posts mentioning: Bluetooth. Set up internal bluetooth in the Xbox itself and pair each controller to the specific Xbox. I doubt MS'll go that route though, as it would probably increase the cost too much (then again, it IS MS and they could just absorb the price difference).
What happens when I go to PAX next year and there are a hundred Xboxes with 350 people playing them, in the same room?
My best guess on this one is that you're (I suppose I should say "Tycho and Gabe're") just gonna have to figure out some way around it, or not use the Xbox there. Somehow I don't think MS is going to worry themselves too much about the small share of the market that's going to be gathering more than 4 systems together at once. The only reason I could think of that they would concern themselves with it is so that they can have >16 systems on display themselves at E3, etc. As far as that's concerned, though, I imagine they'll probably just have a big enough booth to space everything out far enough to have no interference. The number of people they'll upset with a limit of 16 is FAR below the number that won't be affected at all.
Personally, I'd like to see them implement the solution I've seen a few other folks mention: removable wires. Plug it in to charge it or if you need to have a direct connection to the Xbox (per your situations above), unplug it when you need to step out onto the balcony/patio to have a smoke but still want to play through the window;)
This, folks, is the part where we all write our respective senators and let them know that this will not stand. You can find your senators here. There should be a link next to each senator's name where you can either email them or send a message through a web-based form. I've just completed my message to my senators, and I'll post it below if anyone wants to reference it for ideas (or use it yourself... I'll leave the variable parts blank;)
[Mr./Ms.] [Senator's Surname],
Recently I became aware of a highly objectionable and appalingly unconstitutional bill that has just been passed through the House of Representatives: HR 418, also known as the Real ID Act of 2005. The problems with this bill are numerous, but I will focus on just two that I found particularly troubling.
First, the bill overall is an attempt to force the individual states to submit to the federal government's will or risk losing federal highway funding. The federal government receives the money used for the highway funding from its citizens through taxes, of course. These taxes are paid willingly under the assumption that the money will be used for the stated purpose (in this case, highway funding). Ethically, then, it follows that there should be no situation in which the federal government should be allowed to withhold that money from the states. This, however, is of a bit lesser concern than my next point.
In section 102, the bill states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section." This, in my opinion, is allowing the Secretary FAR too much power. The argument can (and will, I'm sure) be made that there is a restriction placed on this with the last phrase "to ensure expeditious construtction of the barriers and roads under this section," but this seems like a flimsy bit of filler to make this bit of totalitarian legislation seem palatable.
The bill goes on to say "Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction-- `(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or `(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'." This could quite possibly be the worst part of the entire bill, as everything else up to this point could be dealt with in court if it ever were to be challenged. This part changes everything, however, stating that if someone disagrees with the Secretary bypassing any and all laws he feels like bypassing, no one can challenge it in the court.
To illustrate the deficiencies in this bill, I quote Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. "If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review."
I implore you to vote against this bill, and to do everything in your power to ensure that this does not become a law.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget Goblin Commander. While you're correct in bringing up Herzog Zwei, Goblin Commander is the only RTS I can think of that was built specifically for current-gen systems, thus using a controller much closer to the 360's than the Genesis controller of Herzog Zwei. I'm thinking GC would give a closer idea of what to expect from this.
As far as I can figure, Laser Disc failed due to the unwieldiness of the media. Sure, there was an increase in video and audio quality, but the amount of the increase compared to the size increase in the physical media itself (LD versus VHS) probably turned a lot of people off. Plus, LD didn't have the benefit of the PS2(PS3) to support it as DVD(Blu-ray) did(will).
[Disclaimer: No, I don't work for emusic, despite the fact that this is my second post in a row shilling for them... I'm just a happy customer. Maybe they should pay me, though...]
Also, they give you 50 free downloads (yours to keep, no strings attached) just for signing up. [Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with emusic whatsoever... just a happy customer
And I'm sure you probably know about it already, but just in case, you can check out the RIAA Radar to verify if a band/artist is part of the problem or not.
(And if any of you are following along at home, yes... this is basically the same as the last post I made on
Maybe instead of seeing the Top 10 list filled with crap from Nickelback, Kanye West, Ashlee Simpson, Fittycent, and Kelly Clarkson we could start seeing something listenable, for example from any (or all) of the following:
The whole standardized national ID card is nasty, I agree. It's not the federal government's place to tell the individual states how to handle their drivers' licensing schemes, it's true. But as has been pointed out already, the if the authorities want the information in question, they're gonna get it one way or the other... If nothing else, this'll make it easier for them, which means less time spent on it, which could conceivably mean less taxpayer money spent on digging up the information. Anyway, that's not the point. The worst part about this bill is the fact that it allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive any law he/she wishes with absolutely no judicial review possible. This was discussed in comments a while back here on
In a couple of the 5 versions of this bill (H.R.1268) that are up on Thomas, that section is struck out. I believe that the most recent version is one that has it struck out, but not seeing any dates on the 5 different versions, I can't be certain. Am I correct in assuming that "Public Print," the last one in the list, is the finalized version? If not, then welcome to the police state, folks. If so... well... I'm a tool who just spent entirely too much time typing all this up for nothin'
The argument is that even doing the 5-10 minute gradual change is going to throw the milker's schedule out of whack. Sure, it can be done, the cows' schedule can be changed, but it's going to mean the milker changing his/her schedule as well. In both situations, then, you've got a schedule change on the milker's part... whether the milker has to get up an hour "earlier" (technically at the same time, but the clock itself will show it as being earlier), or changing the milking time by 5-10 minutes each time (which means changing the ACTUAL time it happens at, as opposed to the relative time based on the changing clock), the milker has to make an adjustment (whether real in your suggestion or perceived (same actual time, but earlier on the clock)). It's not about the cows themselves (not directly, at least), it's about the milker having to change their schedule, and the possible confusion/screw-ups that could result. Getting rid of DST means that it's always done at the same real time and the same perceived time.
My favorite, though, would have to be Lumines, a puzzler unlike any other I've ever encountered. If you think back to the original Game Boy, there was one title that really hooked everyone: Tetris. To quote the Gamespot review linked there: "In fact, between the beautiful presentation, the innovative gameplay, and the excellent single-player and multiplayer modes, Lumines may very well be the greatest Tetris-style puzzle game since Tetris itself." Personally, I'm digging it more than Tetris itself, but that's obviously personal preference. Again, I challenge you to point out which PS2 game this is a watered-down version of.
Don't forget Santa Claus, IN! Located, according to Google, on the shores of Christmas Lake.
Personally, I'd like to see them implement the solution I've seen a few other folks mention: removable wires. Plug it in to charge it or if you need to have a direct connection to the Xbox (per your situations above), unplug it when you need to step out onto the balcony/patio to have a smoke but still want to play through the window
They most likely will do what Nintendo's done with the Wavebird and allow each controller to function on one of 16 individual channels.
This, folks, is the part where we all write our respective senators and let them know that this will not stand. You can find your senators here. There should be a link next to each senator's name where you can either email them or send a message through a web-based form. I've just completed my message to my senators, and I'll post it below if anyone wants to reference it for ideas (or use it yourself... I'll leave the variable parts blank ;)
[Mr./Ms.] [Senator's Surname],
Recently I became aware of a highly objectionable and appalingly unconstitutional bill that has just been passed through the House of Representatives: HR 418, also known as the Real ID Act of 2005. The problems with this bill are numerous, but I will focus on just two that I found particularly troubling.
First, the bill overall is an attempt to force the individual states to submit to the federal government's will or risk losing federal highway funding. The federal government receives the money used for the highway funding from its citizens through taxes, of course. These taxes are paid willingly under the assumption that the money will be used for the stated purpose (in this case, highway funding). Ethically, then, it follows that there should be no situation in which the federal government should be allowed to withhold that money from the states. This, however, is of a bit lesser concern than my next point.
In section 102, the bill states that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section." This, in my opinion, is allowing the Secretary FAR too much power. The argument can (and will, I'm sure) be made that there is a restriction placed on this with the last phrase "to ensure expeditious construtction of the barriers and roads under this section," but this seems like a flimsy bit of filler to make this bit of totalitarian legislation seem palatable.
The bill goes on to say "Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'." This could quite possibly be the worst part of the entire bill, as everything else up to this point could be dealt with in court if it ever were to be challenged. This part changes everything, however, stating that if someone disagrees with the Secretary bypassing any and all laws he feels like bypassing, no one can challenge it in the court.
To illustrate the deficiencies in this bill, I quote Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. "If this provision, the waiver of all laws necessary for quote improvements of barriers at the border was to become law, the Secretary of Homeland Security could give a contract to his political cronies that had no safety standards, using 12-year-old illegal immigrants to do the labor, run it through the site of a Native American burial ground, kill bald eagles in the process, and pollute the drinking water of neighboring communities. And under the provisions of this act, no member of Congress, no citizen could do anything about it because you waive all judicial review."
I implore you to vote against this bill, and to do everything in your power to ensure that this does not become a law.
Thank you,
[Your name]