Why Hollywood's Idea Of 'Innovation' Is SOPA
Jon Lawrence's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week

Homework Assignment: Go Talk To Your Representative Or Senator About SOPA/PIPA

Politics

from the do-it! dept

Fri, Jan 6th 2012 07:39pm -

We’ve already discussed how things will work at the end of the month when the Senate comes back into session and Harry Reid tries to put PIPA to a vote. However, as we noted, that only works if enough Senators are convinced to support a plan to move forward with PIPA and approve the first bill to allow an American internet blacklist to occur. That means there are just a few weeks to make sure that Senators are aware of the widespread outrage about these bills, and that they’re not left falling for the lies that Hollywood and the bills’ sponsors are spreading.

One way to do this is to go see your Senators and your Congressional Reps over the next few weeks. With Congress out of session, it’s pretty typical for elected officials to hold “town hall meetings,” and it’s important for people to attend these sessions and speak up. I know that many people feel apathetic towards elected officials, and don’t believe anything said to them will make a difference — but that’s not true. If they’re at least hearing about the controversy and concerns enough, at least some will recognize that this bill is not something they want their names associated with and will back off. Unfortunately, these meetings are often scheduled with very little notice, and the standards/requirements to get in vary drastically. Thankfully, folks have been putting together some great resources to help you figure out when these are being held and how to take part.

  • The good folks at Reddit are helping to crowdsource info about meetings.
  • There’s a Meetup.com page listing out known townhall sessions. Again, these often appear with very little notice, so check back often.
  • Even without townhall sessions, you can and should reach out to your elected officials about meeting with them to express your concerns. Even if they don’t actually take the meeting, hearing from enough people will alert them that there’s widespread concern. Internet Freedom has set up a neat forum system, organized by state, that will both highlight when there are townhalls and, more importantly, provide details on how to request a meeting with your Senators. On top of that, it will allow coordination for those who do get meetings to go with a group of similarly concerned residents.
  • EFF has a page about in district meetings, why they’re important and how to set them up. It also has a one-pager with some basic facts that sums up the problems (pdf).
  • Public Knowledge has also put together a quick two-page citizen packet (pdf) that highlights problems with the bills, and includes some “sample questions” that people might want to ask if possible.

Now, as a group of combined concerned citizens, we don’t have the lobbying power of Hollywood or the US Chamber of Commerce, but constituent concerns do matter to politicians. They want to get re-elected at some point, after all. There’s less than three weeks to make every Senator aware of the damage they’re about to do to the internet, to innovation and to the economy if they’re not well-informed about this bill. This is a true GoDaddy situation. While there are some efforts to have SOPA/PIPA supporters lose their next elections, all that’s really needed is for them to recognize that this bill is bad news, and to refuse to vote to move the bill forward. That can be done, but it requires a lot of people speaking up and making a difference. Hollywood has the easy access, but the rest of us have the sheer numbers and the facts on our side. Let’s make that work for us…

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

113 CommentsLeave a Comment
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Homework Assignment: Go Talk To Your Representative Or Senator About SOPA/PIPA”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
113 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Copy protection laws should not be about preventing others from monetizing content in and of itself, it should be about advancing social welfare (ie: by promoting the progress), just like any other law (including anti – theft laws, anti – murder laws, etc…).

and, given your definition of the word ‘stealing’ I see nothing wrong with it. ‘Stealing’ as in copying I’m fine with, ‘stealing’ as in depriving someone of a (limited/scarce) tangible property that they ‘own’ I think is more unacceptable.

IP laws deprive me of my (otherwise abundant) right to copy and they steal taxpayer money to provide you with the necessary enforcement, taxpayer money that I’m deprived of. That definition of the word stealing is closer to the definition of the word that I consider wrong since my right to copy exists outside of government and I’m being deprived of a natural right.

I say abolish IP.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Then the MPAA/RIAA should stop trying to trespass on the private property rights of Internet infrastructure owners and search engines using legislation like this. They’re all looters, you know. Couldn’t make a go of it in the free market, now they’re resorting to government violence to prop up their failed business models. Typical looter rationalizing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Does SOPA/PIPA impose on foreign sites any of the liabilities ordinarily associated with infringement under US copyright law?

How nice it would be for domestic infringers if the sole remedy available was an injunction to cease their infringing activity, and failing to do so their access to money was made more difficult.

Seems to me here is a perfect opportunity for users who simply cannot live without these sites to crowdsource their operating expenses. After all, this is just one of many business models that is constantly trumpeted here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

SOPA does even worse than that, it turns people who did nothing wrong elsewhere into criminals in the United States without giving them the chance to defend themselves by keeping the bar high to do so.

When are American authorities start dragging people out of connection flights?

Could a blogger end up in some wanted list on American borders?

What would happen if other countries started to do the same, would American business man be able to wonder around the world freely?

The Original Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Attack the person if you can't argue against his facts

Rule 5 of “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

Your post applied this rule perfectly.

Suja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jan 6th, 2012 @ 8:17pm

i heard if you believe something hard enough it comes true, seems to have worked for a lot of people, not so much for those who don’t

…copyright & IP are kind of starting to sound like religion…

well, at least most religions have the benefit of the doubt in that one cannot disprove (or prove) most of their beliefs, copyright/IP worshipers don’t have this luxury

didn’t stop them from blindly believing it though

Anonymous Coward says:

“I know that many people feel apathetic towards elected officials, and don’t believe anything said to them will make a difference — but that’s not true.”

From the reddit link

JeanVanDeVelde writes

“I went to my representative’s town hall (Howard Berman, D-CA, SOPA co-sponsor) on Wednesday evening (1/4) and was refused an opportunity to read a 2 minute statement. I agreed to truncate my remarks and go without my written notes. I was then informed that I could only ask a question, I assume the next step was to screen my question but I left the meeting, sent an email expressing how offended I was by the closed nature of the event and followed up with a call to his office the next day. I still have not received any form of reply, much less an apology and a chance to have my voice heard on this matter.

I now understand why OWS uses the “mic check” strategy. The staff was there to stonewall and close people out.

I’d love it if Reddit could join me with a couple of nicely placed phone calls to Mr. Berman inquiring about why people were refused a chance to make a statement and why the “town hall” for constituents within his district was used as an opportunity for Mr. Berman to make campaign statements regarding the forthcoming re-districting primary.

This is one of the main guys being paid directly and by lobbyists on behalf of the few media companies that control our industry here in Los Angeles.”

Response from J-Ro

“Good on you for taking the time to go. Tip for next time: Do what you need to do to get a chance to speak (ie. say you agree to their conditions), then speak your mind.”

and response from JeanVanDeVelde again

“yeah, in the future i’ll do a little more social engineering. I was expecting microphone lines (like every public meeting i’ve ever been to), but it’s 100% politics. tough game and i’m not willing to play it, I feel like it’s more effective to do activist and volunteer work.”

http://www.reddit.com/r/SOPA/comments/o5p6h/help_us_crowdsource_data_on_town_hall_meetings/

Where is this open democracy and free speech you speak of? It doesn’t exist. They blocked free speech out from every avenue outside the Internet, from wrongfully granted government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies to political town hall meetings. and, to the extent that the MSM pretends to oppose SOPA/PIPA et al and to the extent that they cover these IP issues with some iota of balance (instead of merely being one sided) and to the extent that they’re no longer blatantly dishonest, it’s only because of the Internets influence on the media. Mark my word, they intend to turn the Internet into the same censored platform they wrongfully turned everything outside the Internet into through bad laws.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

There were at least 7-9 speakers on SOPA. The other 500 people in the room had more pressing issues on their mind like jobs, healthcare, the 405. You know, real world stuff- not fretting over whether you can get free movies online.

Then you’d think our elected officials would have more pressing things on their minds as well, rather than trying to push this piece of corporate legislation through.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Excellent. As well as admitting that your darling pet project is unnecessary and trivial, you managed throw in an ad hominem attack, all without addressing any points in the post you were responding to.

If only you applied as much thought and talent to the real world as you do to pointless trolling, maybe you’d get somewhere in life.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

There were at least 7-9 speakers on SOPA. The other 500 people in the room had more pressing issues on their mind like jobs, healthcare, the 405. You know, real world stuff- not fretting over whether you can get free movies online.

Then perhaps Congress should concern themselves with more pressing issues, like jobs, healthcare, the 405. You know, the real world stuff – not propping up companies who don’t want to adapt to changing markets and real competition.

abc gum says:

Re: Re:

Why are these partisan get-togethers called “Town Hall Meetings”? If it were intended to be a way for our representatives to listen to their constituents and possibly respond then I assume things would be different than what you experienced, it appears that these meetings are not for that purpose at all.

Many citizens of this country were taught that the elected members of congress represented the interests of their constituents. It is apparent this is not true, I’m not sure that it ever was.

When used as a vehicle to prosthelytize a better name might be circle jerk.

Jayce says:

And they would care, why?

“You’re” representatives care about campaign donations.

Unless you happen to be one of those who give them big donations, they don’t care.

Witness: the Patriot Act, the stimulus bill, the tarp bill (which even Nancy Pelosi granted was about 95% against in phone calls to her office). They. Do. Not. Care.

Nearly every campaign is won by the person with the most money to spend. It is 90+%. It is in a politicians best interest to advocate for the people that donate. Anything else is a waste of their time.

I don’t think there is a practical solution, but for the foreseeable future, I’ll be getting a write in ballot and putting “None of the Above!”. Maybe if enough people do that, we’ll get a little change. Maybe.

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: And they would care, why?

I don’t think there is a practical solution, but for the foreseeable future, I’ll be getting a write in ballot and putting “None of the Above!”. Maybe if enough people do that, we’ll get a little change. Maybe.

I wonder if that would work. Plenty of politicians get elected without carrying over 50% of the popular vote. If you win with 43% of the vote, are you really the “chosen” representative or just winning by default? What happens when a ton of disgruntled write-in votes takes the candidate down to the point where he or she wins with 15-20% of the popular vote? My guess is that the candidate still takes office, simply for coming out on top.

I’d love it if falling below a certain percentage meant all the candidates had to run again. And again. And again, until drained completely of campaign finances and maybe, just maybe, the desire to “represent” a group of citizens who have clearly demonstrated that they’d rather be represented by no one than by anyone on the ballot.

Loki says:

Re: Re: And they would care, why?

It’s not even really 43% though. I saw a recent mayoral election where only 16% of the eligible voters actually voted. 16%!!

The winner carried almost 60% of the vote, but that comes out to only 10% of the actual eligible voters.

You don’t really need a lot of votes, or even a real majority, to win.

Look at it this way. Let’s say it’s a small town and there are only 100 people who are able to vote, but only 40 plan to vote. 20 for the democrat, 20 for the republicans.

I don’t really need to worry about most of them. I need to put most of my efforts into the other 60, but I don’t even really need most of them. I just need to win maybe 15 people who weren’t planning to vote before. If I can then convert just 2 people from each of the big 2 parties, the vote ends up being 19 for me, 18 for the democrat, 18 for the republican.

You don’t need a majority, you just need to win over the right minority.

The hardest part is just getting the right information into to right hands.

Suja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/SOPA-PIPA-one-pager.pdf

“Homework Assignment: Go Read the article on Talking To Your Representative Or Senator about SOPA/PIPA Before Talking To Your Representative Or Senator about SOPA/PIPA”

FTFY

it’s not the best explanation ever but pretty much says the same crap as what the bills themselves says, except without all of the long drawn out bullcrap & subtle wording

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Go Read SOPA/PIPA Before Talking To Your Representative Or Senator

Wouldn’t that give us an unfair advantage? I would imagine that most representatives have yet to read the bill they’re voting on. Plenty have already been told how to vote by helpful lobbyists which makes reading the bill a waste of everyone’s time. There may be a few reps who’ve skimmed through it looking for a place to insert some pork, but it appears that the only representatives who have read it are those opposing it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You’re yet to actually detail which parts of the bill people are wrong about. Most here have read it, and have come to the same conclusion. If you were interested in actually correcting people, rather than attacking and idiot trolling, maybe you’d have mentioned the parts of the bill people are “wrong” about…

But, no, you attack not only people here, but every expert who has come out against it as being wrong or ignorant, yet never explain yourself with anything as solid as citations or evidence. Pathetic, as always.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Specific references by Section and paragraph have been provided ad nauseum.

At least one technology expert has made it clear that filtering is acceptable in some circumstances, but in his opinion the subject matter of SOPA/PIPA is not such a circumstance. This is a policy, and not a technical, argument, and yet it keeps being promoted by others as a technology matter. This too has been presented.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that the bill raising the majority of ire, SOPA, and currently pending before the House is not the original bill. And yet, a plethora of those who raise the hue and cry of “censorship”, “due process”, “break the internet”, etc. continue to advance opinions based upon a version of the bill that is no longer pending.

The above are exemplary, and by no means a comprehensive list.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

At least one technology expert has made it clear that filtering is acceptable in some circumstances, but in his opinion the subject matter of SOPA/PIPA is not such a circumstance. This is a policy, and not a technical, argument, and yet it keeps being promoted by others as a technology matter.

Well that just shows how little you understand doesn’t it?

You cannot separate technology and policy so neatly as you would like. The circumstances of filtering WILL AFFECT technical issues. The simplest of these are the volume of data that you wish to filter and the nature of the discriminant between material to be filtered and that which is not to be filtered. Both of these factors have a huge effect on whether filtering is technically practical without major impact on the network infrastructure.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Can’t separate technology and policy so neatly? Seems Mr. Vixie is able to do so without much difficulty.

Actually, from my reading of what he has said, his position seems to be the exact reverse of what you claim. He does not have a problem with the motivations (allegedly) behind SOPA/PIPA but says that the technical effects of the proposed filtering will be a disaster.

Of course one CAN separate technology and policy IN PRINCIPLE (as Paul Vixie does) but one cannot separate them IN PRACTICE in the way that you claim.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

You misread this – the fact is that blocking child abuse material IS technically different from blocking copyright infringement for two reasons.

1. The volume of child abuse material is enormously less than the volume of copyright infringement material.

2. It is easy enought to determine the nature of child abuse material by simply looking at it. Copyright infringement – as demonstrated by the megaupload video case is much more difficult to determine and therefore the risk of an incorrect takedown is much greater.

As a consequence of these two facrts the volume of disruption, whilst bearable in the child abuse case, would be enormously greater in the copyright infringement case

I’m sure that these facts wee in the back of Paul Vixie’s mind when he wrote the paragraph – so your naive interpretation of it is incorrect.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

IOW, if it is a relatively small amount of stuff that we agree is really important to shut off, then filtering is OK. However, if it is a large amount of stuff that we do not agree is really important to shut off, then filtering is not OK.

This articulates a policy argument. “Yes, we can do it in either case, but we believe one is more important than the other.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

I’d say that blocking child abuse takes up maybe 0.1% of a search company’s time and money. To do the same with “infringing” material would probably take up an additional 30% of the total time and money; for YouTube, it would instantly bankrupt it without a single notice being made.

It’s like cutting someone’s heart out when they have the flu. It’s a massivy bad law that pays lip service to actually correcting the issue, without doing a single thing to solve it.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

This articulates a policy argument. “Yes, we can do it in either case, but we believe one is more important than the other.”

No – he is saying that the technical measures that worked in one case could also be applied to the other – but they would not have the same result in the second case – which in my book is a technical issue.

You see there are two types of technical issues. Those that apply at a micro scale – ie whether it is possible to block a single URL – and the macro scale – whether it is possible to block all URLs that meet a particular criterion.

The latter is still a technical issue,

I think what has happened here is this. Paul Vixie is using the concept of a technical issue in terms of only the micro scale.

Consequently his concept of a policy issue is different to yours and it is wrong of you to assume that because he says there are no technical issues (meaning no small scale ones) that he therefore believes that it is only a policy issue (in your terms) – meaning it is a matter of choice preference and desire and that there are no further practical issues to consider.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

Explain how Paul Vixie would implement a DNS block when he doesn’t know what protocol to target?

If people start using alternatives to bypass blocks, how is DNSSEC going to secure those?

The answer it doesn’t and can’t do it, also censoring things gives a tremendous incentive for people to find alternatives, so they will happen, and DNS becomes less useful for blocking anything even things that we as a whole would want too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

On a one liner:

If it comes down to freedom vs censorship, I will take even exposure to offensive materials(i.e. child abuse, racism, etc) any day.

Censoring those things doesn’t stop the spread of harmful acts, it doesn’t deter real criminals and it should be up to individuals to erect their own filters around them, not any government.

iBelieve says:

Its Foolish

~to think that if they can’t be reasoned with over the horrible consequences for such bad legislation to the world’s internet savvy and all the Huge interests that oppose this, then it should be apparent that tHEY will not bow down to coercion or threats even when it seems to threaten their political standing. Its foolish.

Anonymous Coward says:

If Internet companies, like Google and Facebook and Amazon and others, are against SOPA they need to do what is right by their shareholders and fight SOPA the hard line way. Remove ALL products made by SOPA supporters from their stores, their search results, etc. and keep them out. Put up a placeholder explaining why. Let’s face it, money talks, and little to nothing else does.

Anonymous Coward says:

I have a problem my homework is a bit different.

I’m trying to understand and put together
diff +
Mongoose +
Python +
PostgreSQL +
Git +
USC (United States Constitution +
PHP +
Lua +
argument map +
thinking maps +

Goals:

– Create a database with the laws of any country.
– Create a database of proposals(add, sub, mod), that can be visualized, voted and have stats tranferred to others so they can combine that information to get a picture of the acceptance or not of any proposal. It must be secure and anonymous while protecting against flooding(aka fraud) as much as possible.
– Create the equivalent of an instant messenger where people can group together anonymously with only pseudonymous to identify them.
– Create a historical database with information about public organizations and public figures and how they voted on issues, how many times they changed their minds, who finance them, public opinion of the instituion or individual(aka like or dislike), public confidence.

eDemocry is coming.

For now is just a dream and I’m not a programmer 🙂
The point being start the process of identifying the data that people need to make better decisions and the ways to deliver that to them.

Anonymous Coward says:

eDemocracy goals and dreams

diff +
Mongoose +
Python +
PostgreSQL +
Git +
USC (United States Constitution +
PHP +
Lua +
argument map +
thinking maps +

Goals:

– Create a database with the laws of any country.
– Create a database of proposals(add, sub, mod), that can be visualized, voted and have stats tranferred to others so they can combine that information to get a picture of the acceptance or not of any proposal. It must be secure and anonymous while protecting against flooding(aka fraud) as much as possible.
– Create the equivalent of an instant messenger where people can group together anonymously with only pseudonymous to identify them.
– Create a historical database with information about public organizations and public figures and how they voted on issues, how many times they changed their minds, who finance them, public opinion of the instituion or individual(aka like or dislike), public confidence.

eDemocry is coming.

For now it is just a dream and I’m not a programmer 🙂
The point being start the process of identifying the data that people need to make better decisions and the ways to deliver that to them.

Unrepentant one legged pirate and a bird. says:

eDemocracy is coming

Goals:

– Create a database with the laws of any country.
– Create a database of proposals(add, sub, mod), that can be visualized, voted and have stats tranferred to others so they can combine that information to get a picture of the acceptance or not of any proposal(aka argument map + voting stats). It must be secure and anonymous while protecting against flooding(aka fraud) as much as possible.
– Create the equivalent of an instant messenger where people can group together anonymously with only pseudonymous to identify them.
– Create a historical database with information about public organizations and public figures and how they voted on issues, how many times they changed their minds, who finance them, public opinion of the instituion or individual(aka like or dislike), public confidence.

eDemocry is coming.

Anonymous Coward says:

Asking a democrat to give up power that can result in lobbying money and control the population for their own good? You are dreaming if you think this is not going to pass. Just look at how they are now giving waivers to unions and heavy donors for the health care law…a law that these same interests supported now that they don’t have to pay for it they can donate more to their politicians. This will have the same result, and just like healthcare the move is on for them to convince their constituents why this is for their own good and then pass it even if there is no support for it. Their very first act will be to shut down this site and others like it that are against their political will.

abc gum says:

Re: Re:

“Asking a democrat to … ”

This is tiresome.

The US political environment is essentially a two party system, Democrat and Republican. When it comes to representing their constituents, neither party can be called exemplary. Neither party can claim the high road, and both of them will sell your ass up the river for a dollar. Both parties have their die-hard cheerleaders who will blow smoke up yer ass at any and all opportunities – so knock it off already.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well the problem is if you give one party the power to punish your enemies and reward your lobbyists then you cannot complain when the other party gets the power at the next election. So today Unions get exemptions from the expensive overreaching healthcare and are allowed to post anything they want on the net. IF the Republicans get in office and the private sector gets the exemptions and allowance to post to their hearts contents to get lobbying $$ while the Unions are muzzled and burdened with healthcare laws then you had better understand that is how government works. The more power you give government, the bigger you make it, the more oppressive it will be become in every single instance in every single society for the entire history of man. Accept it.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The more power you give government, the bigger you make it, the more oppressive it will be become in every single instance in every single society for the entire history of man. Accept it.

Not true – the particular democratic mechanisms used also enter into this. First past the post systems are particularly bad. PR systems are better – particularly if you a a bit of direct democracy – Swiss style.

On the other hand if you taske away government altogether you end up with Somalia…

abc gum says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Well the problem is … “

…. general, all encompassing statements.

I do not see any evidence of either party reducing the size of government, perhaps you have an example. I see where revenue is moved from one bucket to another, but how does that reduce anything? Making general statements about a particular political party in the absence of specific details is rather worthless dribble.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Patriot act is a perfect example- passed by a republican government – hated by liberals and libertarians alike who do not trust ‘the other party’ with that power. The Republicans used it to reward their defense donors.

The liberals get in power and they LOVE IT, EXPAND IT, tell everyone they will be protected and use it to get airport scanners put in to the company with lobbyists who gave tons of money to the democratic party. These are examples of why you cannot increase the size of government or give them more power- they will use it to get the campaign funds to stay in power. They rationalize it as doing it for their constituents but they are just doing it to stay in power and end up corrupted.

The only answer regardless of which side you are on is to reduce the size of government- is the person you are voting for going to do that? Have they done that so far?

Anonymous Coward says:

Whichever party wants to make government bigger for their interests is going to use that power to get lobbying money. They are going to withhold services to their political enemies while favoring their special interests. Stating both parties do it is not excusing it.

The only answer is to make government smaller- period.

There is no such thing as a large organization that doesn’t have some corruption going on within it. Business, Government, etc…giving them any power at all is a mistake especially when they claim they are only trying to help you. If you haven’t realized yet that there isn’t a selfless politician then you are an idealistic fool.

abc gum says:

Re: Re:

“Whichever party wants to ….. They are going to ….. “

– Discussing specific items which can be associated with facts is much preferable to generalities which are loosely applied to almost anything.

“The only answer is to make government smaller- period.”

– I see little evidence to support this claim. Sometimes in mathematics, there is only one correct answer – however elsewhere there usually are many answers, each with its own pros and cons. In addition, I assume you support the small government claims mostly espoused by one of the political parties. Do you seriously believe such tripe?

“giving them any power at all is a mistake”

– So, you are an anarchist then?

“If you haven’t realized yet that there isn’t a selfless politician then you are an idealistic fool.”

– I’m glad you realize this and therefore will refrain from making sweeping generalizations.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Small government does not equal anarchy…no government does equal anarchy. If proposing a smaller government is anarchy then does that mean that you are a Communist? Let me ask you this then…what size government is big enough?
What amount of debt is enough?

I am willing to wager the answer to you will depend on who is in office at the time the question is asked.

As the social security actuaries just passed 120 Trillion and are headed for a quadrillion in about 25 years- do you honestly think this path is sustainable? Do you understand that government is now at a point that it looks out for its own interests more than the interests of the citizen which is why so many unfavorable laws are being shoved through?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You want specifics and think this is all generalizations?

You see little evidence to support that a smaller government is less likely to be A)corrupt and B) have the ability to abuse that power?

Patriot act was already cited as an example- hated by liberals while passed by conservatives when conservatives had power.

Liberals get into power and expand the act after saying they would repeal it and then use it to get money from lobbyists.

Healthcare law is doing the same thing. There are conservatives who are publicly stating they doubt it could be repealed and could aid them going forwards when they win control.

Every law passed equals power and money not just for the party in power but the next party that comes along. EPA is the same- waivers are granted to donors while they expand the laws to punish the other party.

Did you know that the last act GE did before moving their Xray technology to China was create EPA laws that prevented another company from building the same devices to compete here? Our laws state the company that helps form the laws of our country cannot then operate in that sector- well that was just fine by GE. They effectively shut down Siemens from building the devices here, as well. How did they do that? GEs CEO is on Obama’s advisory committees.

Gerrymandering, court appointments, it is all done to keep and expand a power base it is the reason the both the OWS and Tea Parties are upset but they only see how it impacts them each will quiet down when their political party is in control but bitch when the tide turns as it does every few cycles in this country.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Maybe what we should instead strive for is some greater measure of transparency. I actually sort of liked the idea someone presented of Congress-critters being required to wear something like the suits race car drivers wear that have logo patches of their sponsors (campaign donors). Then you can tell at a glance which way a Congress-critter will lean; the larger sponsors (donors) are represented by larger patches, and the like.

shonvien says:

some reality check for you guys

here are some reality check, and why you guys must increase the visibility of sopa to a broader base

1. texas web users/ us population =17 176 661 / 313 232 044 = 0.0548368576, i.e 5 % of us population
2. texas web users/ texas population = 17 176 661/25,042,738=68 %
3. 1 million mails send to congress =1 million / 313 232 044 = 0.00319252139, i.e .3 %
4. us net users =77%= 239,893,600, total mails/ emails/ phone calls

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Why Hollywood's Idea Of 'Innovation' Is SOPA
Jon Lawrence's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...