McCain And The Net 3
Christopher Hunter, who wrote a nice thesis paper about Internet censorship in libraries, has an opinion piece in Salon magazine today. Don't Let McCain Censor the Net, he says, though frankly it's out of mere mortal hands at this point and all remaining legislation for this congressional session will be decided by who can twist whose arm the most in a smoke-filled dark alley. Or something like that.
Now *this* is not surprising. (Score:2)
What this whole mess boils down to is that neither party, Democrat or Republican, seems to have a firm grasp on what it is that they're supposed to be doing. On the Dem side, most thought seems to be "Let's have the Government take care of folks wholeheartedly". The Repubs come out with "Let's make some laws, but let local jurisdictions sort out how they want to enforce them, and at what level of strictness". Neither of these approaches work, and neither is even remotely close to what's allowable according to the US Constitution.
I'm now convinced, after much disgust with both major parties and a lot of research into the issues, that the only real answer (and one which may not be a viable option, but I'm still willing to work on it, as much as I can), is to get the Libertarians [lp.org] into there. They don't have the perfect platform either, but they do have one overarching principle which rings very real to me: The Federal Government has specific duties, and they must only be allowed to do those duties, and no more. Everything else can be slugged out where it belongs, on the State and Local levels. At least this puts most issues in play where people can reach them - state and local legislators are far more approachable, and responsive, in my experience. Besides, the Libertarian party, for all the press they're not getting (How is Buchanan and Nader getting mentioned in the Gallup and Washington Post/ABC News [washingtonpost.com] polls, but not Harry Browne [harrybrowne2000.org]? In polls where he is included, he outpolls Buchanan and nearly outperforms Nader!), is the largest third-party in the US, and has more members currently in office than the other third-parties combined. That also impresses me.
Is kids having access to porn bad? Sure it is. Can the Federal Government legislate against it? Sure it can. Will that legislation do one bit of good? No chance in H**l, and we all know it.
And for those who aren't US citizens, this matters in the sense that, for better or worse, the US is the top dog driving the tech industry. The decisions made here will reach to other countries (as they already have with this seemingly insane new proposed treaty [slashdot.org] outlawing "hackers". BTW, can anyone actually show me one of these extremely dangerous cyber-desperadoes? I've yet to see one. I doubt they even exist). These decisions being made here are word-wide decisions, even if they don't appear to be so now. -Jimmie
Re:Now *this* is not surprising. (Score:2)
That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. Most people are luck if they ever see their Federal representitives in person and if they do, they probably won't be able to talk to them.
State reps are usually better. (Though it was almost imposible to talk to my state rep. to ask them to support our local "Constitution Week.") Most them have are around their constituants more and have a feel for what they want and need.
We need a population of voters that are educated in the principles of the Constitution as stated be the Founders themselves. The National Center for Constitutional Studies [nccs.net] has programs that we can use help teach these principles. With a better educated voter base, it will be less likely that we'll end up with Socialists [gore2000.org] getting through the Primaries to run for President.
PerlStalker
Re:Now *this* is not surprising. (Score:1)