Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet News Politics

Senator Diane Feinstein Trying to Kill Net Neutrality 873

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the wonder-what-the-payoff-was dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to the Register, Senator Diane Feinstein is attempting to put language into the stimulus bill that would kill net neutrality. The amendment that her provision was attached to was withdrawn, but lobbyists tell Public Knowledge that Feinstein hopes to put it back into the bill during the closed-door conference committee that reconciles the House and Senate versions." Bad Senator! No Cookie!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senator Diane Feinstein Trying to Kill Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @11:54AM (#26813429) Journal

    I mean, I thought it was the Republicans who were destroying America and the Democrats were going to save us? You mean to tell me that they are all beholden to business interests? Say it it isn't so!

    • by kick6 (1081615) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:00PM (#26813527) Homepage
      What amendment changed "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to "government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the corporations.?"
      • by Culture20 (968837) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:03PM (#26813573)
        Ah, but a corporation is a person by way of legal fiction. The politicians are just thinking of the people...
        • by TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:27PM (#26813961) Journal

          Close, but no cigar. Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote. It's people like us who give politicians their jobs, and it's people like us who can just as easily take them away.

          • by John Anonymous (73428) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:32PM (#26814087)

            Close, but no cigar. Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote. It's people like us who give politicians their jobs, and it's people like us who can just as easily take them away.

            Corporations are much more powerful than people: they are after all comprised of people, who can vote; they can "live" longer than people; they typically have much more money and resources than people, with which to lobby governments; and since there are generally many people working for a corporation, they have a lot more person-hours to spend on lobbying, etc. than a natural person.

          • Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote.

            Sure they can, "one viewer, one vote" for elections, and "one lobbyist, one vote" for bills. Together, this simplifies to "one dollar, one vote", and we all know that corporations have many more dollars than individuals.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by QuantumRiff (120817)

            Why would you need to vote, when you can just buy politicians?

            but seriously, if a corporation gets treated as a person in legal realms, it should get punished as one. I would love to see a "corporate death penalty" where they just reject the charter of a corporation, dissolving it, or place it in a "jail" so it can't do any business for 30 days, or whatever..

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by HungryHobo (1314109)

              and that would just lead to "Generic Systems Co" folding and opening up the next day as "Ge dynamic Systems CO". A completely different entity which just happens to employ all the same people.

              Now a death penalty which involves the board of directors or the biggest share holders actually being given the death penalty might mean something.
              Perhaps in cases where a company causes a vast number of deaths.

            • by sumdumass (711423) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @02:29PM (#26816163) Journal

              The problem is that a corporation doesn't act by itself. It acts at the direction of the board and management that direct it's actions. In essence, we do have the death penalty for corporations because any manager or director shown to have intentionally killed someone, will be subject to the death penalty just as you or I would.

              Don't let this separate entity thing confuse you. It you take all the people out of a corporation, it will do exactly nothing. It won't sell anything, it won't poison anyone, it won't pollute the environment, it won't do anything. Now just as there are with most laws, there is a component called intent. If you intend to set out and do something illegal, you get the full charges pressed against you. If you unintentionally do the same, then you get lesser penalties. Being a corporation does nothing to hide the actions of the people involved and they will be held accountable to the same respect. At best, the corporation will end up being fined in addition to any penalties assessed to the employees responsible for any wrong doing.

              Take this peanut problem we currently have where a shipment of tainted peanuts were used knowing they were bad. It's a criminal investigation that will whoever ordered the shipment to be used as well as anyone who knew about its condition but didn't report it to be exposed to criminal fines and penalties. If the order came from the owners themselves, the corporate veil will not protect them at all.

              That's something else that people seem to ignore. The Corporate veil only protects the owners or shareholders who took no direct action in the illegal activity. A misconception is that if you incorporate, your bullet proof or something and that simply isn't true. If your actions cause damage, you are personally responsible too. If your business practices cause a bankruptcy, your personal assets aren't protected. If you are responsible for anything the corporation does, you can be and most likely are responsible. Now when you invest in something and take a silent approach and a worker comes in still drunk and kills another employee or kills a civilian not affiliated with the company, then you are separated from his actions even though the company might not be. That's the only protection a corporation offers someone.

          • by Ardeaem (625311) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:46PM (#26814363)

            Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote. It's people like us who give politicians their jobs, and it's people like us who can just as easily take them away.

            Corporations don't need to vote; they have lots and lots of money. And they have JOBS waiting for the politicians when they leave politics. Did I mention money?

            The problem is that the political system is rotten. If you can't be supported by a major political party, you can't get elected unless you have lots and lots of money. The political parties are corrupt, so to be supported YOU have to be corrupt.

            "But wait, can't we just throw them all out?" Yeah, but the problem with this is that we all want the OTHER party thrown out first. The way the plurality system works, if you vote for a third party candidate, the OTHER party wins. So, whoever starts voting against the two party candidate closest to them in favor of a third party candidate will screw you in the end.

            What is needed is a complete change in the way politicians are elected and serve. THAT won't happen because the POLITICIANS have to do it. They like the system the way it is, because it makes them wealthy and connected.

            In short, we are doomed.

          • by Scrameustache (459504) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:52PM (#26814475) Homepage Journal

            Corporations may be people in some legal respects, but they sure as hell can't vote.

            Campaign contributions are worth much more than individual votes, they'll buy you tons of votes. In bulk.

          • by Reziac (43301) * on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @01:40PM (#26815323) Homepage Journal

            Then why do these idiots keep re-electing people like Feinstein? She's done nothing but raise taxes, vote away our rights, and spend money.

            THIS California resident votes for whoever the hell runs against her, but it's a lost cause so long as she has all that name recognition.

            "Democracy: that ultimate triumph of quantity over quality." -- Peter H. Peel

      • by johnsonav (1098915) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:04PM (#26813581) Journal

        What amendment changed "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to "government of the politicians, by the politicians, for the corporations.?"

        Which amendment put "government of the people, by the people, for the people" into the Constitution, in the first place?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by geekoid (135745)

        When the people stop getting involved.
        contact this person, inform them, get involved with your representatives.

        Most people just complain.

      • by LNX Systems Engineer (1443681) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:13PM (#26813739)
        Slashdot!

        Feinstein's webpage has an e-mail me section [senate.gov], from which you can request a USPS snail-mail response. You know what to do! [senate.gov]

        Ms. Feinstein,

        I do not believe it is your place to single-handedly eliminate this country's technological future by sneaking in an anti-net-neutrality provision at the conference committee.

        You should leave that decision up to your colleagues by introducing a separate bill. You wield a very might sword, one whose power you seem to be unacquainted with.

        Have some honor, respect, and dignity. For six of the last eight years, our country was plagued with a congress that did the sort of despicable things that I speak of - and you were thwarted from doing.

        Take the removal of your provision from the stimulus bill as a sign: this stimulus bill has no place legislating communications policy. You are sabotaging this country's Internet future.

        I should know, I work for one of our nation's largest telecoms and my team and I engineer the core networks that make the Internet possible.

        Please hear my plea of openness and transparency - we, the People, expect - and should receive - more from our leaders than shadow amendments inserted into much needed legislation.

        Thank you,

        Mr. XXXXXXX

      • by scorp1us (235526) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @02:48PM (#26816495) Journal

        This started in 1913 with the passage of the Income Tax Amendment AND the Federal Reserve Act.

        At this point, the government had a higher power - a bank - and the means to confiscate wealth at an alarming rate.

        Things were quiet - even including the Great Depression, the only notable happening was the Fed grabbed some more power to prevent it from happening again (lets see how that worked out).

        Then in 1945 Congress passed the Victory Tax act. This was an unconstitutional law that actually taxed people's individual wages. But in patriotic America, no one date question it, like the invasion of Iraq. The law was repealed two years later before anyone dare challenge it and replaced with one that was constitutional.

        The precedent was set though - Through a Patriotic Campaign [the7thfire.com] people were convinced to pay taxes on their "wages". Forms were set up and (W-2, W-4, etc) and used to collect the unconstitutional tax. After the Victory Tax Act was replaced, the precedent had been set, and a large wage tax the database established. The forms were kept the same, so no one was the wiser.

        Today you can read for yourself the constitutional definitions in 3401 [cornell.edu] and 3121 [cornell.edu] of title 26. Note the definition of wages" "employment", "United States", and "State". If you doubt the meaning of "United States" contrast it with 4612. [cornell.edu]

        Further more, Senator Bailey, the biggest income tax proponent had this to say:
        "I have no hesitation in declaring that a tax on any useful occupation cannot be defended in any forum of conscience or of common sense. To
        tax a man for trying to make a living for his family is such a patent and gross injustice that it should deter any legislature from perpetrating it."
        44 Congressional Record 1702 (1909)

        Well, Senator Bailey had no idea just how bad things would get. After WWII, we had a great sense of accomplishment. But we found ourselves in a cold war, and quickly moved into the Korean and Vietnam wars. All the while the expectations and budgets increased.

        We are incredibly guilty of this today. We have run up a $10T deficit, and we owe it to the Federal Reserve. Our money is has dropped to 1/25 its value, by moving from US Notes to Federal Reserve Notes.

        It is our demands on the government that are to blame. Before we were all paying federal income taxes (and specifically the wage tax) there could be no consolidation of power in Washington DC. But now they have a vacuum into every household of America, called the wage tax which allows them to control both sides of the equation. This is very attractive target for lobbyists. Once you only have one city to work in, you have less to concentrate on and can do so much more effectively rather than persuade hundreds in state legislatures everywhere.

        But still I continue to blame us. We must reject the idea of government being the solution. It has proven that unless it is war, it is not. All the solutions have come at a cost to future generations. They don't fix the problem they just sweep it under the rug for future generations. If we relied on government less, we'd not have to worry about these gross abuses of power because 1) they couldn't afford it. and 2) no one would pay attention.

        Recently several states sent letters to Washington reminding D.C. that state sovereignty still exists:
        Washington State [wa.gov]
        Arizona [azleg.gov]
        Oklahoma [yourwebapps.com]

    • She's not a good Democrat. Step 1 for Democrats was to get more elected Democrats. Now that is accomplished, step 2 is to get better Democrats.

      Feinstein and many others will probably be facing primary challengers for the next election. We can certainly find better Democrats than these people.

      • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:18PM (#26813829) Journal

        She's not a good Democrat. Step 1 for Democrats was to get more elected Democrats. Now that is accomplished, step 2 is to get better Democrats.

        Thank you for sharing the Daily Kos theme song with us ;)

        Feinstein and many others will probably be facing primary challengers for the next election

        Good luck with that.

        • by cjb658 (1235986) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:28PM (#26813995) Journal

          I live in California. Feinstein is my senator. She was my senator 12 years ago when I was taking government in Jr. High. She'll probably still be senator when I'm 50.

          The joys of living in a blue state with no term limits on senators...

          • by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:33PM (#26814101) Journal

            The joys of living in a blue state with no term limits on senators...

            Even if your state wanted to it couldn't put term limits on Federal offices. It was tried and SCOTUS shot it down [wikipedia.org]. We'd need a Constitutional Amendment to term limit these bastards. Given that the Congresscritters themselves get a vote on amendments through the typical process, we'll have to convince 2/3'rds of the state legislatures to call for a convention.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by palegray.net (1195047)
            You just hit the nail on the head with regard to the core problem. Feinstein is a powerful force in Washington, and she'll probably only get better at underhanded manipulative tactics the longer she remains in power. Unfortunately, your voting population is either too stupid or too apathetic to care.
      • by eln (21727) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:29PM (#26814019) Homepage

        Feinstein and many others will probably be facing primary challengers for the next election. We can certainly find better Democrats than these people.

        The Senate is run almost entirely on seniority. No one is going to give up a Senator with that kind of seniority and replace them with someone of the same party unless the Senator gets convicted of a felony or something, and even then it's not certain.

        Entrenched Senators only lose their seats when they retire or when there's a massive demographic shift in their district that moves more people of the opposition party in. The primaries are just a formality when a senior Senator is involved.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Life2Short (593815)
        She was always something dragged out of a cesspool. I was in California during her run against Michael Huffington for the Senate. Lots of dirty tricks... Among my favorites: both agreed not to use notes during a televised debate. Feinstein had written notes on her hand, and when she gestured they could be seen by the television audience; Feinstein's camp revealed that Huffington's house had been purchased under a contract that stated that he would not turn around and sell it to a member of a racial min
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I mean, I thought it was the Republicans who were destroying America and the Democrats were going to save us? You mean to tell me that they are all beholden to business interests? Say it it isn't so!

      Ah, see? And yet again, because it's a Democrat party senator going against the ./ grain, the little (D) mark after the name is absent from the intro blurb. Curious how that always happens. Whenever it's a Republican senator or congressman in the hot seat, that little (R) is right there to make sure everyone knows it. I've pointed this out before, and here it is again. Coincidence? Oversight? Not this many times it ain't.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by eln (21727)

        There are two reasons the D is likely missing:

        1.) Slashdot editors are lazy
        2.) Everyone already knows Feinstein is a Democrat. She's one of the leaders of the party, and one of the people the Republicans are always complaining about. Anyone who pays attention to politics at all knows she's a Democrat.

      • I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. I gave up the label thing (and ended any personal party affiliation) long ago when I finally realized it doesn't really mean all that much, but this borderlines on FUD and it actually happens in quite a few places.
      • by jdgeorge (18767) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @01:44PM (#26815411)

        I mean, I thought it was the Republicans who were destroying America and the Democrats were going to save us? You mean to tell me that they are all beholden to business interests? Say it it isn't so!

        Ah, see? And yet again, because it's a Democrat party senator going against the ./ grain, the little (D) mark after the name is absent from the intro blurb. Curious how that always happens. Whenever it's a Republican senator or congressman in the hot seat, that little (R) is right there to make sure everyone knows it. I've pointed this out before, and here it is again. Coincidence? Oversight? Not this many times it ain't.

        Hmmm.... My gut thought this might be true, but my brain told me I should pay Myth Busters their due by actually taking a peek at a list of relevant stories posted in Slashdot [slashdot.org].

        By browsing through the list of stories which mention a US Senator, there is no identifiable pattern of senators being identified by party. I see many instances of less-known senators of both parties being identified with their party affiliation, and many more instances of well-known senators of either party being mentioned without noting the party.

        It is conceivable that a thorough statistical analysis would show some bias, but it is not at all obvious at a quick glance. The AC's post is demonstrably false as written. the R is not always noted, and the D does show up in a negative context (such as here [slashdot.org], or here [slashdot.org]).

        I consider this myth busted.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      just like how gas prices weren't going to go up once we got the oil man out of office. well, he's out and prices are going back up. does this make barak an oilman now?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spydabyte (1032538)
      The labels of democrat and republican are horribly uninformative; and people, including yourself, should stop labeling them so. Just because they label themselves one way or another doesn't make them non-politician. That's the label we should all agree on :). Lobbied Politician.
    • Feinstein is that special brand of Democrat coming from a state where there's almost no viable Republican challengers so she's free to give the American people the bird as much as she wants. There's rumors that Schwarzenegger might run against Barbara Boxer in 2010 though.
    • by hardburn (141468) <hardburn@@@wumpus-cave...net> on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @01:27PM (#26815133)

      Democrats, at least certain members, are as tied to the entertainment industry as much as Republicans are to oil companies.

  • How ridiculous. (Score:5, Informative)

    by andytrevino (943397) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:01PM (#26813535) Homepage

    Democrats NEVER hide unnecessary spending [nostimulus.com] or unrelated projects [wsj.com] in omnibus spending bills. They're for responsible government [cagw.org], remember?

    Change! Transparency!

    • Re:How ridiculous. (Score:4, Informative)

      by EastCoastSurfer (310758) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:12PM (#26813721)

      They are all crooks. The hypocrisy of the democrats who ripped on republicans and Bush and now ignore it when they do the EXACT same type of stuff just kills me.

      Change we can believe in ROFL. I'll bet now not one real change will happen.

      • Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Shakrai (717556) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:25PM (#26813939) Journal

        The hypocrisy of the democrats who ripped on republicans and Bush and now ignore it when they do the EXACT same type of stuff just kills me.

        My favorite was all the whining I heard from the far-left when Bush was selling the TARP plan by telling us how society was going to collapse if we didn't pass it. "Bush is just trying to scare us so he can raid the treasury!" they all said. I'm glad that Obama is above such fear-mongering to pass his agenda. He would never use loaded words like "catastrophe" [boston.com], would he?

        • Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @01:37PM (#26815287) Homepage Journal
          To be fair, Bush's TARP plan was basically "put a giant pile of money on the table, turn your back, and whatever the banks want they can take". The Obama plan is far more directed and includes oversight as well as earmarks to reduce the chance that the money just goes directly into someone's pocket, never to be seen again.
        • Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jdgeorge (18767) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @03:27PM (#26817205)

          Screw everyone who tries to make this a partisan issue.

          Bush and Obama have both accurately described the economic conditions as disastrous. The potential fallout of inaction is huge.

          Is massive government spending the best way to get us headed toward recovery? I don't know, but Bush thought so, and so does Obama. Props to Bush for sticking to his approach despite the lack of support from his own party. Props to Obama for not dismissing Bush's approach just because he's a Republican.

          Both of these guys genuinely want the US economy to succeed. They are and have been deeply concerned about its current direction. Calling what either of them did fear mongering is unjustifed. They are trying to help people understand the extent of the problems, and motivate them to support what they believe to be a workable solution.

          Don't like the Bush/Obama approach? Suggest a better one.

    • Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak (669689) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:13PM (#26813731) Journal

      What I don't get is how content that was never voted on in the original Senate or House bill can get added during the conference committee.

      • Re:How ridiculous. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Chris Mattern (191822) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:34PM (#26814119)

        Because there are no rules at all as to how the conference committee should go about formulating the compromise bill.

        Note that the compromise bill *does* have to be voted up or down (but no amendments) by both the House and the Senate afterwards. That is in fact the purpose of the conference committee--it resolves the paradox that the House and the Senate amend bills *separately* while they are on the floor, but must both vote in favor of an
        *identical* bill in order for that bill to advance to the President for his signing or veto. If the conference committee gets too cute in abusing their powers to write whatever they want, the chambers can vote not to pass it. It doesn't happen often, but it *does* happen, and almost the only time it happens is when the conference committee strays too far from making an actual compromise between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

        • Re:How ridiculous. (Score:4, Informative)

          by commodore64_love (1445365) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @03:12PM (#26816955) Journal

          I think if I were president I would veto virtually every bill that crosses my desk. Congress would have to demonstrate, through a 2/3rd override vote, that they really and truly want to make law. None of this "sneak amendments through the backdoor" shit.

          Imagine how much money we would save with the multiple failed bills & therefore less money spent.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PeeAitchPee (712652)

      You're right of course, but you'll probably get modded into oblivion here. Not that the Republicans are any better, either. They're as guilty as the Dems for pissing away hundreds of billions in Iraq over the last six years.

      Where's the party that wants to reduce the size of government, spend less, and hold people and corporations accountable for their own actions? The one that still believes if you touch a hot stove, it should hurt? I could care less what its name is as long as those things are in its p

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by furby076 (1461805)

      They're for responsible government, remember?

      Wrong..Republicans are for responsible gov't...Democrats are for stealing money for republicans and giving it to the welfare line folks. Jeez, get it straight boy!

    • Re:How ridiculous. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cjb658 (1235986) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:32PM (#26814079) Journal

      Why do we allow bills to be so big anyway? That makes it so easy for people to slip things into them like this without anyone noticing.

      If I were president, I'd veto any bill that was over 10 pages long, 12 point, Times New Roman, 1-inch margins. If you want your bill to be longer, break it up into smaller bills.

  • Ummm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by internerdj (1319281) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:03PM (#26813569)
    I for one welcomed our new Democratic overlords, but now I'm not so sure...
    • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rolfwind (528248) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:15PM (#26813763)

      Both parties are bought and paid for.

      That anyone ever thinks differently must lack critical thinking. The people in power are corrupt, and the weaker party, which happened to be in power last time, is going to swoop in and fix everything.

      Fuck, half the problem is that this country wasn't set up as a democracy, but a republic. But then it started with electing the president directly instead of state legislatures deciding themselves, sending electors that were little more rubberstamps, and then an amendment where the senators get voted in by the people, instead, again, of the electors deciding. The republic originally envisioned would have had several layers, with people voting the bottom local layer, and then those layer of people voting up another level, etc.

      The net effect is that, I as a lone and insignificant voter, instead of just voting for a few people that I know better on a local people - get swamped with choices on every level - local, state, federal. Who has the time for it? You know how people complain about choice and linux distros? This is 100x worse. The end effect is that people start voting down the line for parties. National Parties evolved.

      Such a system also gives the mainstream media undue power, puppet strings whereby to agitate voters into their agendas who in turn wail to their politicians, all the way up to Senators and Presidents, about the latest insignificant thing. It's not a good way to keep government limited if people always demand things from the government. If senators, as originally, were appointed by state legislators or governors - there would be focused on more than winning the next election.

    • Re:Ummm... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jackspenn (682188) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:24PM (#26813909)
      Yeh, I have a lot of friends who believed by "change" Obama intended to:

      su - President
      del /SpecialInterests
      cd /newUS
      ./configure
      make
      make install


      Unfortunately for them, by "change" he meant:

      su - President
      mv /SpecialInterests /opt/agenda2009

      and they never expected to see

      cp lobbyists /home/whitehouse/cabinet/

      or

      cp taxcheats /home/whitehouse/cabinet/

  • by Whammy666 (589169) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:06PM (#26813601) Homepage
    She needs to be investigated for her conflict of interest between her position as chair on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee and her husband's firms receiving billions of dollars of defense construction contracts. Oops. She's the chair of the Senate Rules Committee. I guess there won't be any investigations.
  • by slashdotlurker (1113853) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:07PM (#26813617)
    The Democrats have always been in the pocket of RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood types. Look up Hillary Rosen if you have any doubts. Republicans have scr*w*d up the country but on this issue, they have always been a better alternative. Not because they are more moral or anything, but because they are not as beholden to the Hollywood set.
    • by Lendrick (314723) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:10PM (#26813673) Homepage Journal

      Yes, to regulate a given industry, you want the party who isn't in the pocket of that particular industry. Generally that's the Democrats, as the Republicans are in a lot more pockets, but there are some exceptions, and Hollywood is one.

      • by LittleLebowskiUrbanA (619114) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:49PM (#26814411) Homepage Journal

        Actually the Clintons were considered the oil company's best friends when Bill was in office. Read "Hear No Evil, See No Evil" by Robert Baer for a fascinating blow by blow account of the author being ordered to help the oil companies by the Clinton administration.

  • not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Michael Restivo (1103825) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:07PM (#26813627)
    when you look at the long-term contribution trends http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02 [opensecrets.org]

    Cheers, Mike
  • Shocked! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by faloi (738831) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:11PM (#26813681)
    A Congresswoman from California that received huge campaign contributions from people in the entertainment industry trying to back-door language to "protect" her primary contributors from the eebbils of copyright infringement? No way! And throwing in the "protect the children!" language. Next you'll tell me that she wants to force content on radio stations.
  • by Duradin (1261418) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:13PM (#26813743)

    This, amongst the other chicanery of congress, is yet another example of why we need to impose single purpose limitations on the bills congress tries to pass.

    They can take their riders and try to get them passed as stand alone bills.

  • by the_crowbar (149535) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:24PM (#26813915)

    I do not live in California and am unlikely to be given any consideration from a politician elected in that state. For those that do live in California please contact Mrs Feinstein and let her know that you will definitely not vote for her again if this rider gets added to the stimulus bill. Her contact info (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.WashingtonDCOffice [senate.gov]):

    Senator Dianne Feinstein
    United States Senate
    331 Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20510

    Phone: (202) 224-3841
    Fax: (202) 228-3954
    TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501

    Cheers,
    the_crowbar

  • Reality Check (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GottliebPins (1113707) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:25PM (#26813943)
    Republicans always get blaimed for everything bad that happens in this country. The sad thing is most Americans don't even know which party is in control in Washington. While the Republican hating masses were giving Congress a single digit approval rating, most of them didn't even realize it was the Democrats who were in charge of Congress. And now that there's no opposition in the White House to their stupidity this is what we get. Career politicians protecting the rights of special interests and screw the average citizens. And everyone stands around waiting for Obama to waive his magic wand and everyone gets free healthcare and nobody will ever have to pay for rent or gas and we can all eat cake and ice cream for the rest of our lives. Wake me up when it's over.
    • by weston (16146) <westonsd&canncentral,org> on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @02:37PM (#26816297) Homepage

      Republicans always get blaimed for everything bad that happens in this country. The sad thing is most Americans don't even know which party is in control in Washington. While the Republican hating masses were giving Congress a single digit approval rating, most of them didn't even realize it was the Democrats who were in charge of Congress

      Republicans: in charge of the House from 1994-2006, in charge of the Whitehouse from 2001 until three weeks ago, majority of the Senate from 1995-2006 except for a brief period in 2002 when Jeffords' defection gave the Democrats a 1 member lead (and I guess three weeks when Al Gore was still VP and it was briefly split). Supreme Court essentially narrowly split, although you can credibly argue that the Roberts appointment made the court on balance Republican to some approximation. This is essentially Republican control from 2001 until early 2007.

      Democrats: majority in the house from 2006, essentially split Senate from 2006, bare majority for Democrats given Sanders and Lieberman's caucus choice. But given the narrow split, the veto stick held by a Republican presidency, and the composition of the Democratic majority (esp. blue dogs in conservative districts), "control" is a pretty tenuous term for even the two houses of congress. Meanwhile, Republicans still hold the presidency and with Alito's appointment the court becomes arguably more Republican.

      Who doesn't understand which party has been in control in Washington?

      In 2-4 years, the Democrats won't have that excuse anymore, and accountability is important. I have no problem with people calling them out on specific policy positions and voting them out next election if that's what it takes.

      But it's ludicrous to assert that Democrats are primarily responsible for the current state of things. And it's a little extra stupid to accuse others who apparently have a better grasp of recent history than you do of not understanding what's going on. U.S. policy for the last decade has been dominated by the Republicans, there's no other reasonable conclusion. Whether the Democrats can do any better is an open question, but it's really only been askable for about three weeks.

  • by divisionbyzero (300681) on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @12:47PM (#26814383)

    Since this is so naked and obvious I'd say she doesn't care. Why might that be? Oh, right, by appeasing one of the largest lobbies in California it might make her trip to Sacramento a little smoother.

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Working...