http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-wednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business

-- 
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-w
ednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business

Who is going to go black for Obama signing into law the revocation of
 the Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution,
on New Year's Eve, which places the entire country under martial law?
Land of the Free la-de-da.

On 01-16-2012 18:37, paulfuchs@porkain'tkosher.oink wrote:
> Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>  wrote:>
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-w
> ednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business
>
> Who is going to go black for Obama signing into law the revocation of
>   the Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the Constitution,
> on New Year's Eve, which places the entire country under martial law?
> Land of the Free la-de-da.


All of us.  But NDAA (I assume that's the evil you're referring to) 
doesn't violate the entire Bill of Rights, just a portion of it. 
Hopefully the Supreme Court has enough gumption to call their bluff.

-- 
Wes Groleau

People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
                        — Peg Bracken

In article <jf2n44$gl0$3@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 01-16-2012 18:37, paulfuchs@porkain'tkosher.oink wrote:
> > Alan Browne<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca>  wrote:> 
> > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-
> >  on-w ednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business
> >
> > Who is going to go black for Obama signing into law the revocation 
> > of the Bill of Rights, i.e. the first 10 amendments to the 
> > Constitution, on New Year's Eve, which places the entire country 
> > under martial law? Land of the Free la-de-da.
> 
> 
> All of us.  But NDAA (I assume that's the evil you're referring to) 
> doesn't violate the entire Bill of Rights, just a portion of it. 
> Hopefully the Supreme Court has enough gumption to call their bluff.

Ironic that as a liberal I am hoping for the most activist conservative 
SCOTUS of my lifetime to contradict the most conservative Congress 
(abetted by one of the weakest presidents) of my lifetime...

-- 
"The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in 
order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And 
then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as 
if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"  
- Dalai Lama

In article <aamdnUKIzL_EP4nSnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-wednesd
> ay-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business

If feasible, it would be even better to have a continual blackout on 
Wikipedia for inquiries from .gov sites.

-- 

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

On 01-16-2012 22:19, Tim McNamara wrote:
> Ironic that as a liberal I am hoping for the most activist conservative
> SCOTUS of my lifetime to contradict the most conservative Congress
> (abetted by one of the weakest presidents) of my lifetime...

I thought I leaned toward conservative.  But I don't see conservatism in 
SOPA or PIPA or NDAA, I see stupidity and outright evil.

And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary?  Wants judges 
called on the carpet for unpopular opinions?  It's not unpopular 
opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect prevailing public 
opinion instead of the Constitution.

And Newt tells me Mitt Romney and John Kerry are the same because they 
both speak French.  Glad he's keeping me informed of what's important,
so I don't need Limbaugh any more.

-- 
Wes Groleau

People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
                        — Peg Bracken

In article <jf2vqm$m1o$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>
> And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary?  Wants judges 
> called on the carpet for unpopular opinions?  It's not unpopular 
> opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect prevailing public 
> opinion instead of the Constitution.
> 
   No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or 
at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but 
pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or 
through, the justices who were "getting in my way".

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

In article <SalmonEgg-764DF2.20055316012012@news60.forteinc.com>,
 Salmon Egg <SalmonEgg@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <aamdnUKIzL_EP4nSnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
> > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-wedne
> > sd
> > ay-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business
> 
> If feasible, it would be even better to have a continual blackout on 
> Wikipedia for inquiries from .gov sites.

Good idea. : )

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

Kurt Ullman: 
>    No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or 
> at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but 
> pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or 
> through, the justices who were "getting in my way".

Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests of
the country in mind. Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething
hatred that lives to this day among so-called conservatives (the
opposite of "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as
we have seen all too often, regressives further no interests except
those of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic,
jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me laugh!
That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From where the
regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be thankful for
centrists like Obama who represent the majority of Americans, who
themselves stand squarely in the center.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article <rYWdnU3hYtkny4jSnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <jf2vqm$m1o$1@dont-email.me>,
>  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary?  Wants judges 
> > called on the carpet for unpopular opinions?  It's not unpopular 
> > opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect prevailing public 
> > opinion instead of the Constitution.
> > 
>    No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or 
> at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but 
> pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or 
> through, the justices who were "getting in my way".

The twenty-four hour blackout protest is a futile, poorly conceived 
gesture that is counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating.  
Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia leadership are employing a flawed 
strategy against an opponent that frequently employs the same flawed 
strategy against others.  To wit:  this government punishes the sitting 
regimes in other states, whose actions it opposes, by imposing trade 
sanctions and embargoes against them.  Sadly, and predictably, the trade 
sanctions effect no change in the regimes.  They serve only to deprive 
and harm the population of that state.

Similarly, Wikipedia's twenty-four hour blackout will influence the 535 
immoral demagogues' voting decision on SOPA / PIPA by nil, but will 
deprive their own patrons of their service.  This is tantamount to 
punishing their customers for the actions of a third party.  I contend 
that the large majority of people who will encounter the message on the 
Wikipedia site during the twenty-four hour period will scratch their 
head, wonder "what does that mean", not investigate SOPA / PIPA further, 
and then continue with their uninformed lives.  There is no gain for 
Wikipedia in their actions.  It's truly a pedantic act.  How immature.  
How pitiful.

Wikipedia could have, and should have, taken the moral high ground by 
putting some skin in the game.  They could have requested to testify in 
front of congress.  They could have written position papers and then 
published them on their site prominently.  They could have requested 
interviews with print and broadcast journalism.  They could have 
requested interviews with the more potent blogosphere.  For people who 
are busy, they could have created a quick link on their site in which 
visitors could enter their email address, to which Wikipedia could have 
sent their position papers, thus allowing busy patrons to gain 
visibility and knowledge of the issue at their leisure.  Instead, they 
have chosen a method that constitutes the first refuge of the 
incompetent:  mindlessness and abdication of responsibility.  Sitting on 
the sidelines, complaining, whining, doing nothing of significance or 
positive consequence to address the issue.  Only hurting those whom they 
claim to serve.  Sounds like government.

Wikipedia, you failed on this cause.

-- 


Kurt Todoroff

     Markets, not mandates and mob rule.
     Consent, not coercion.

In article <170120120832286247%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
wrote:

> Kurt Ullman: 
> >    No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or 
> > at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is probably the worst, but 
> > pretty much every president has worked toward getting around, or 
> > through, the justices who were "getting in my way".
> 
> Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests of
> the country in mind. 

  No he wasn't. He was being thwarted in His Vision for the Country and 
did not want to let a little impediment like the Supreme Court get in 
his way. So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he 
could pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) let 
him do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it. 

Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething
> hatred that lives to this day among so-called conservatives (the
> opposite of "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as
> we have seen all too often, regressives further no interests except
> those of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic,
> jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me laugh!
> That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From where the
> regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be thankful for
> centrists like Obama who represent the majority of Americans, who
> themselves stand squarely in the center.

 Of course, the slavery issue is not remotely in play (here let me take 
a napkin and clean that spittle off your face)  and you conveniently 
ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP breaking the 
filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights Act of LBJ's 
would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the GOP caucus at 
the time voted for the Act than did the Dems. 
     I don't argue liberal vs conservative since most of that resides in 
the person's outlook and philosophy and is very relative term at the 
personal leve.

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

In article <rYWdnU3hYtkny4jSnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <jf2vqm$m1o$1@dont-email.me>,
>  Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > And Newt doesn’t nelieve in an independent judiciary?  Wants 
> > judges called on the carpet for unpopular opinions?  It's not 
> > unpopular opinions that bother me, it's those that reflect 
> > prevailing public opinion instead of the Constitution.
> > 
> No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent judiciary.. or 
> at least one that disagrees with them.

ROTFLMAO!  What a superb summation!

-- 
"The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in 
order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And 
then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as 
if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"  
- Dalai Lama

In article <gZmdnaSNVbQBHIjSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <170120120832286247%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> wrote:
> 
> > Kurt Ullman: 
> > > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent 
> > > judiciary.. or at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is 
> > > probably the worst, but pretty much every president has worked 
> > > toward getting around, or through, the justices who were "getting 
> > > in my way".
> > 
> > Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests 
> > of the country in mind. 
> 
> No he wasn't. He was being thwarted in His Vision for the Country and 
> did not want to let a little impediment like the Supreme Court get in 
> his way. So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he 
> could pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) 
> let him do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it. 

And failed.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/fdr-
presidential/>

> > Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething hatred that lives to 
> > this day among so-called conservatives (the opposite of 
> > "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as we have 
> > seen all too often, regressives further no interests except those 
> > of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic, 
> > jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me 
> > laugh! That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From 
> > where the regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be 
> > thankful for centrists like Obama who represent the majority of 
> > Americans, who themselves stand squarely in the center.
> 
> Of course, the slavery issue is not remotely in play (here let me 
> take a napkin and clean that spittle off your face)  and you 
> conveniently ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP 
> breaking the filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights 
> Act of LBJ's would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the 
> GOP caucus at the time voted for the Act than did the Dems. 

Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and 
the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support-  IIRC 
all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in 
improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans.  Those of 
us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the 
60s can see the benefits.  Now that agency and those laws are under 
strident attack from the right wing.

IMHO the current Republican caucus would consider the Republicans of 
LBJ's and Nixon's time to be socialists.

> I don't argue liberal vs conservative since most of that resides in 
> the person's outlook and philosophy and is very relative term at the 
> personal leve.

And a healthy liberalism and conservatism in the US is essential for our 
progress as a nation.  It has been the creative tension between those 
political philosophies that has shaped the success of America.  
Unfortunately neither side of the spectrum is a coherent rational 
philosophy any more.

-- 
"The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in 
order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And 
then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as 
if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"  
- Dalai Lama

In article <timmcn-2C8E56.09184717012012@news.iphouse.com>,
 Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> In article <gZmdnaSNVbQBHIjSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <170120120832286247%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Kurt Ullman: 
> > > > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent 
> > > > judiciary.. or at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is 
> > > > probably the worst, but pretty much every president has worked 
> > > > toward getting around, or through, the justices who were "getting 
> > > > in my way".
> > > 
> > > Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests 
> > > of the country in mind. 
> > 
> > No he wasn't. He was being thwarted in His Vision for the Country and 
> > did not want to let a little impediment like the Supreme Court get in 
> > his way. So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he 
> > could pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) 
> > let him do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it. 
> 
> And failed.
> 
> <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/fdr-
> presidential/>
> 
> > > Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething hatred that lives to 
> > > this day among so-called conservatives (the opposite of 
> > > "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as we have 
> > > seen all too often, regressives further no interests except those 
> > > of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic, 
> > > jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me 
> > > laugh! That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From 
> > > where the regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be 
> > > thankful for centrists like Obama who represent the majority of 
> > > Americans, who themselves stand squarely in the center.
> > 
> > Of course, the slavery issue is not remotely in play (here let me 
> > take a napkin and clean that spittle off your face)  and you 
> > conveniently ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP 
> > breaking the filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights 
> > Act of LBJ's would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the 
> > GOP caucus at the time voted for the Act than did the Dems. 
> 
> Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and 
> the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support-  IIRC 
> all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in 
> improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans.  Those of 
> us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the 
> 60s can see the benefits.  Now that agency and those laws are under 
> strident attack from the right wing.
> 
> IMHO the current Republican caucus would consider the Republicans of 
> LBJ's and Nixon's time to be socialists.
> 
> > I don't argue liberal vs conservative since most of that resides in 
> > the person's outlook and philosophy and is very relative term at the 
> > personal leve.
> 
> And a healthy liberalism and conservatism in the US is essential for our 
> progress as a nation.  It has been the creative tension between those 
> political philosophies that has shaped the success of America.  
> Unfortunately neither side of the spectrum is a coherent rational 
> philosophy any more.

Could you citizens of a strange foreign country kindly keep your navel 
gazing off this international NG please.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <timmcn-2C8E56.09184717012012@news.iphouse.com>,
 Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and 
> the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support-  IIRC 
> all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in 
> improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans.  Those of 
> us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the 
> 60s can see the benefits. 

All the factories have shut down, part of the reason.

-- 

I been warped by the rain, driven by the snow
I'm drunk and dirty, don't you know
But I'm still
Willin Wilbur

In article <timstreater-CB1E5B.15303217012012@news.individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <timmcn-2C8E56.09184717012012@news.iphouse.com>,
>  Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <gZmdnaSNVbQBHIjSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> >  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <170120120832286247%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Kurt Ullman: 
> > > > > No politician of any stripe beleives in an independent 
> > > > > judiciary.. or at least one that disagrees with them. FDR is 
> > > > > probably the worst, but pretty much every president has worked 
> > > > > toward getting around, or through, the justices who were "getting 
> > > > > in my way".
> > > > 
> > > > Perhaps. At least FDR was a man of integrity who had the interests 
> > > > of the country in mind. 
> > > 
> > > No he wasn't. He was being thwarted in His Vision for the Country and 
> > > did not want to let a little impediment like the Supreme Court get in 
> > > his way. So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he 
> > > could pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) 
> > > let him do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it. 
> > 
> > And failed.
> > 
> > <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/fdr-
> > presidential/>
> > 
> > > > Unfortunately, he became the focus of seething hatred that lives to 
> > > > this day among so-called conservatives (the opposite of 
> > > > "progressive" is "regressive," not "conservative") and as we have 
> > > > seen all too often, regressives further no interests except those 
> > > > of a narrow, hateful, racist, mean-spirited, xenophobic, 
> > > > jingoistic, and rigid ideology. "States rights?" Don't make me 
> > > > laugh! That means the right to reinstitute African slavery. From 
> > > > where the regressives wallow, everyone looks like a leftist. Be 
> > > > thankful for centrists like Obama who represent the majority of 
> > > > Americans, who themselves stand squarely in the center.
> > > 
> > > Of course, the slavery issue is not remotely in play (here let me 
> > > take a napkin and clean that spittle off your face)  and you 
> > > conveniently ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP 
> > > breaking the filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights 
> > > Act of LBJ's would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the 
> > > GOP caucus at the time voted for the Act than did the Dems. 
> > 
> > Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and 
> > the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support-  IIRC 
> > all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in 
> > improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans.  Those of 
> > us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the 
> > 60s can see the benefits.  Now that agency and those laws are under 
> > strident attack from the right wing.
> > 
> > IMHO the current Republican caucus would consider the Republicans of 
> > LBJ's and Nixon's time to be socialists.
> > 
> > > I don't argue liberal vs conservative since most of that resides in 
> > > the person's outlook and philosophy and is very relative term at the 
> > > personal leve.
> > 
> > And a healthy liberalism and conservatism in the US is essential for our 
> > progress as a nation.  It has been the creative tension between those 
> > political philosophies that has shaped the success of America.  
> > Unfortunately neither side of the spectrum is a coherent rational 
> > philosophy any more.
> 
> Could you citizens of a strange foreign country kindly keep your navel 
> gazing off this international NG please.

Could you citizens of an even stranger foreign country kindly learn how 
to use killfiles?? 
    Probably not on either count. (g).

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

In article <jf44rq$mlc$1@news.mixmin.net>,
 Wilbur Eleven <wil@nowhere.at.all> wrote:

> In article <timmcn-2C8E56.09184717012012@news.iphouse.com>,
>  Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> 
> > Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and 
> > the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support-  IIRC 
> > all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in 
> > improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans.  Those of 
> > us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the 
> > 60s can see the benefits. 
> 
> All the factories have shut down, part of the reason.

In the US, the output of our manufacturing facilities is actually bigger 
(even in constant dollars) than it was in the 60s and 70s. It is just 
that the great increases in productivity have takes the jobs away. We 
have lost considerably more (higher paying) jobs to robots than the 
Chinese. 
     Of course, this change also increases the differences in air 
quality.

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

In article <timmcn-2C8E56.09184717012012@news.iphouse.com>, Tim
McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> In article <gZmdnaSNVbQBHIjSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> 
> Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act and 
> the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican support-  IIRC 
> all during the Nixon administration and each of striking benefit in 
> improving the health of and quality of life for all Americans.  Those of 
> us who are old enough to remember what urban air quality was like in the 
> 60s can see the benefits.  Now that agency and those laws are under 
> strident attack from the right wing.
> 
> IMHO the current Republican caucus would consider the Republicans of 
> LBJ's and Nixon's time to be socialists.
> 
> And a healthy liberalism and conservatism in the US is essential for our 
> progress as a nation.  It has been the creative tension between those 
> political philosophies that has shaped the success of America.  
> Unfortunately neither side of the spectrum is a coherent rational 
> philosophy any more.

One thought that might be considered here is that, EPA, Clean Air Act,
Clean Water Act, the Labor Movement, and many other causes in sway
today have grown to where they are no longer what they started out to
be. In many cases (not all, but somewhere between "many" and "most")
they spawned bureaucracies and bureaucracies have a strong focus on
self-perpetuation and empire-building...like the scorpion in the fable,
"it's just their nature."

As a result, extremists on both sides push their agendas, regardless of
balance. Right now, most of the press covers pressure to hem in and
beat back. In the nascence, the opposite was true. Balance should be
the goal, but the pendulum swings away.

Also, little remembered is that pre-Nixon, the bulk of restrictive
conservatism lay in the Democratic Party. It was the elections of 1968
and 1972 that moved so many staunchly regressive Southern politicians
from the Dems to the GOP.

-- 
Spenser

Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:
>
> Wikipedia could have, and should have, taken the moral high ground by 
> putting some skin in the game.  They could have requested to testify in 
> front of congress. 

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html

No meetings scheduled for SOPA, but there is background negotiation from
the MAFIAA (akaL lobbying) to get it moving again.

With no meetings scheduled, there will be no testimony.

On 2012-01-17 08:44 , Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:

> Wikipedia, you failed on this cause.

The only way they failed was in making it English site _worldwide_.  It 
should have been limited to the USA and not affect the rest of us.

While I also use the French Wikipedia, the articles are often not as 
complete.

-- 
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

In article <gZmdnaSNVbQBHIjSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he could pack 
> it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) let him do 
> whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it. 

ReaganBushBush managed to do the same thing, but over time instead of all 
at once.

> and you conveniently ignore, for instance, the fact that without the GOP 
> breaking the filibuster put on by certain Democrats the Civil Rights Act 
> of LBJ's would have never gotten past. A higher percentage of the GOP 
> caucus at the time voted for the Act than did the Dems. 

Those certain Democrats, AKA Dixiecrats, and/or their ideological heirs 
have been Republicans for decades.  Most of the Republicans of the 1960s, 
including Goldwater and Nixon, would be considered liberals by today's GOP.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <michelle-91D20B.14052617012012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <gZmdnaSNVbQBHIjSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he could pack 
> > it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) let him do 
> > whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it. 
> 
> ReaganBushBush managed to do the same thing, but over time instead of all 
> at once.

  You can't see the difference between appointing people as is the 
President's Constitutional right (or even duty) and trying to change the 
court makeup by trying to ADD people for the sole and utter purpose of 
getting your way?    
  Cmon Michelle, you aren't usually one to entirely succumb to Bush or 
Reagan Derangement Syndrome.

-- 
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative, 
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz 

In article <Q4WdnQ3b57E7bojSnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > So, he tried to get the Supremes expanded all at once so he could 
> > > pack it with his own people who would then (he hoped anyway) let him 
> > > do whatever he wanted TO whomever he wanted to do it. 
> > 
> > ReaganBushBush managed to do the same thing, but over time instead of 
> > all at once.
> 
>   You can't see the difference between appointing people as is the 
> President's Constitutional right (or even duty) and trying to change the 
> court makeup by trying to ADD people for the sole and utter purpose of 
> getting your way?   

The point is that they all tried to get the supreme court have justices wo 
would let them do what they wanted.  FDR tried to do it by having the law 
changed to increase the number of justices; Reagan and Both Bushes did it 
by replacing liberal justices with conservative ones as vacancies occurred.

You're focusing on the methods, whereas I was pointing out the goals.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <170120120916530579%dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid>,
 sbt <dogbreath@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:

> In article <timmcn-2C8E56.09184717012012@news.iphouse.com>, Tim 
> McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <gZmdnaSNVbQBHIjSnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> > 
> > Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act 
> > and the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican 
> > support-  IIRC all during the Nixon administration and each of 
> > striking benefit in improving the health of and quality of life for 
> > all Americans.  Those of us who are old enough to remember what 
> > urban air quality was like in the 60s can see the benefits.  Now 
> > that agency and those laws are under strident attack from the right 
> > wing.
> > 
> > IMHO the current Republican caucus would consider the Republicans 
> > of LBJ's and Nixon's time to be socialists.
> > 
> > And a healthy liberalism and conservatism in the US is essential 
> > for our progress as a nation.  It has been the creative tension 
> > between those political philosophies that has shaped the success of 
> > America.  Unfortunately neither side of the spectrum is a coherent 
> > rational philosophy any more.
> 
> One thought that might be considered here is that, EPA, Clean Air 
> Act, Clean Water Act, the Labor Movement, and many other causes in 
> sway today have grown to where they are no longer what they started 
> out to be. In many cases (not all, but somewhere between "many" and 
> "most") they spawned bureaucracies and bureaucracies have a strong 
> focus on self-perpetuation and empire-building...like the scorpion in 
> the fable, "it's just their nature."
> 
> As a result, extremists on both sides push their agendas, regardless 
> of balance. Right now, most of the press covers pressure to hem in 
> and beat back. In the nascence, the opposite was true. Balance should 
> be the goal, but the pendulum swings away.
> 
> Also, little remembered is that pre-Nixon, the bulk of restrictive 
> conservatism lay in the Democratic Party. It was the elections of 
> 1968 and 1972 that moved so many staunchly regressive Southern 
> politicians from the Dems to the GOP.

True enough and indeed the Democratic congressional caucus now covers 
the spectrum from center-right to center left (there being no liberals 
in Congress any more), while the Republican caucus covers the spectrum 
from right to extreme right.  

As the Democrats moved to the right in the 1990s, having fallen for the 
relentless dun of right wing propaganda and having no coherent position 
of their own to anchor them, the Republicans reacted by moving ever 
further to the right.  Genghis Khan would be a warm fuzzy benevolent 
dictator compared to where some of the Republican whack jobs in office 
want to go.

-- 
"The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in 
order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And 
then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as 
if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"  
- Dalai Lama

On 01-16-2012 17:19, Alan Browne wrote:
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/wikipedia-plans-to-go-dark-on-wednesday-to-protest-sopa/?ref=business

A lot more than Wikipedia
<http://www.webpronews.com/sopa-blackout-set>

I am impressed by the agreement between so-called liberals and 
conservatives on this:

MoveOn:    <http://pol.moveon.org/nointernetcensorship/>

ACLU:      <http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/Statement_to_HJC_SOPA_11-16-11.pdf>

ACLJ: 
<http://aclj.org/free-speech-2/new-government-attempts-control-stifle-internet>

Tea Party: <http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/183999>

and many more at
<http://www.cdt.org/report/list-organizations-and-individuals-opposing-sopa>

Anyone know where to find a list of outfits explicitly endorsing it?

-- 
Wes Groleau

People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
                        — Peg Bracken

In article <DsidnRLPzqScO4jSnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <jf44rq$mlc$1@news.mixmin.net>,
>  Wilbur Eleven <wil@nowhere.at.all> wrote:
> 
> > In article <timmcn-2C8E56.09184717012012@news.iphouse.com>,
> >  Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Indeed, the creation of the EPA, the passage of the Clean Air Act 
> > > and the Clean Water Act happened with significant Republican 
> > > support-  IIRC all during the Nixon administration and each of 
> > > striking benefit in improving the health of and quality of life 
> > > for all Americans.  Those of us who are old enough to remember 
> > > what urban air quality was like in the 60s can see the benefits. 
> > 
> > All the factories have shut down, part of the reason.
> 
> In the US, the output of our manufacturing facilities is actually 
> bigger (even in constant dollars) than it was in the 60s and 70s. It 
> is just that the great increases in productivity have takes the jobs 
> away. We have lost considerably more (higher paying) jobs to robots 
> than the Chinese. 

I don't know if that is actually true, not having seen the numbers on 
that, but the basic idea that increased productivity results in less 
manpower to accomplish a job is at least partially true.  That will vary 
by industry to a greater or lesser degree.

> Of course, this change also increases the differences in air quality.

So does getting 35 mpg compared to the 10 mpg that was typical when that 
agency and those laws were created.  Catalytic convertors are a benefit 
as well (as I was recently reminded when standing behind a lovely late 
60s Mustang as it idled).

-- 
"The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in 
order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And 
then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as 
if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"  
- Dalai Lama

In article <timmcn-CB92DA.20001517012012@news.iphouse.com>,
 Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> (there being no liberals in Congress any more)

Dennis Kucinich is not a liberal?  Tammy Baldwin is not a liberal?  Barney 
Frank is not a Liberal? (He's still in congress, for another year.)

-- Michelle

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <michelle-EE0F87.20212117012012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <timmcn-CB92DA.20001517012012@news.iphouse.com>,
>  Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> 
> > (there being no liberals in Congress any more)
> 
> Dennis Kucinich is not a liberal?  Tammy Baldwin is not a liberal?  
> Barney Frank is not a Liberal? (He's still in congress, for another 
> year.)

Kucinich is just kind of nuts, Baldwin I don't know much about and Frank 
is partially liberal at best.

The last liberal in Congress was Wellstone.

-- 
"The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in 
order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And 
then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as 
if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"  
- Dalai Lama

In article <jf593q$50q$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:


> <http://www.cdt.org/report/list-organizations-and-individuals-opposing-sopa>
> 
> Anyone know where to find a list of outfits explicitly endorsing it?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xjisu18X6s7lPtAsIQg5Ol3KJjymPT2az1kas
QVwGiw/edit?pli=1

Including Apple.

-- 
"The surprising thing about humanity is that Man sacrifices his health in 
order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And 
then he is so anxious about the future that he doesn't enjoy the present; the
result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as 
if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived"  
- Dalai Lama

In article <michelle-EE0F87.20212117012012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <timmcn-CB92DA.20001517012012@news.iphouse.com>,
>  Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> 
> > (there being no liberals in Congress any more)
> 
> Dennis Kucinich is not a liberal?  Tammy Baldwin is not a liberal?  Barney 
> Frank is not a Liberal? (He's still in congress, for another year.)

I've never heard of any of these people. What do they have to do with 
Macintosh systems?

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <timmcn-4B44F3.00393518012012@news.iphouse.com>,
 Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xjisu18X6s7lPtAsIQg5Ol3KJjymPT2az1kas
> QVwGiw/edit?pli=1
> 
> Including Apple.

That document is out of date; Apple no longer supports SOPA.

<http://www.deviliphone.com/2011/12/19/apple-quits-supporting-sopa-other-com
panies-start-following/>

<http://tinyurl.com/7yptssu>

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article <michelle-EE0F87.20212117012012@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <timmcn-CB92DA.20001517012012@news.iphouse.com>,
>  Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> 
> > (there being no liberals in Congress any more)
> 
> Dennis Kucinich is not a liberal?  Tammy Baldwin is not a liberal?  Barney 
> Frank is not a Liberal? (He's still in congress, for another year.)

And don't forget Barbara Lee (D-Berkeley, CA), the only U. S.
Representative to vote against going to war in 2001. Honorable mentions
to Pete Stark (AFAIK the first and maybe only office holder to come out
and say he was an atheist) and George Miller.

-- 
Jim Gibson

On 1/17/12   PDT 10:30 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> Kurt R. Todoroff wrote:
>>
>> Wikipedia could have, and should have, taken the moral high ground by
>> putting some skin in the game.  They could have requested to testify in
>> front of congress.
>
> http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_12152011.html
>
> No meetings scheduled for SOPA, but there is background negotiation from
> the MAFIAA (akaL lobbying) to get it moving again.
>
> With no meetings scheduled, there will be no testimony.

Er, well, thanks Kurt for addressing the issue rather than the dozens 
who went off on tired political rants.

Discipline, folks, where is it?

On 01-18-2012 12:15, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> That document is out of date; Apple no longer supports SOPA.

In fact, the document not only lists Apple and Microsoft and numerous 
others as supporting SPOA as members of the Business Software Alliance, 
it also cites the same list of those "expressing concern" that I posted, 
a list which includes the Business Software Alliance.

A comment in Michelle's cite is disturbing, though not surprising.  It 
alleges that Apple changed their tune only because they realized the 
risk of losing advertising.  Not because of the technological stupidity 
of the whole thing.

-- 
Wes Groleau

People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
                        — Peg Bracken

In article <jf7rs3$bgn$1@dont-email.me>,
 John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

> Discipline, folks, where is it?

Not here, it seems:

<http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/2637326/sn/276586319/name/SOPA+and+PIPA+-+What
+do+we+do+for+fun+now.jpg>

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 01-18-2012 21:17, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<jf7rs3$bgn$1@dont-email.me>,
>   John McWilliams<jpmcw@comcast.net>  wrote:
>
>> Discipline, folks, where is it?
>
> Not here, it seems:
>
> <http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/2637326/sn/276586319/name/SOPA+and+PIPA+-+What
> +do+we+do+for+fun+now.jpg>

Cute.  Someone I know posted on Facebook "You don't know what eight 
hours without Reddit can do to a person!"

Odd aside, probably coincidence:  When I clicked the link, FireFox 
upgraded to 9.0.1 and thanked me.  What makes it odd is (1) I have it 
in prefs both "check for upgrades" and "install automatically" set to 
OFF.  (2) The reason for that is that this non-admin account should not 
even be able to install or change FireFox.

-- 
Wes Groleau

People would have more leisure time if it weren't
for all the leisure-time activities that use it up.
                        — Peg Bracken

In article <jf8bti$e88$1@dont-email.me>,
 Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> Someone I know posted on Facebook "You don't know what eight 
> hours without Reddit can do to a person!"

I don't even know what Reddit is.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 01-19-2012 01:20, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<jf8bti$e88$1@dont-email.me>,
>   Wes Groleau<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org>  wrote:
>
>> Someone I know posted on Facebook "You don't know what eight
>> hours without Reddit can do to a person!"
>
> I don't even know what Reddit is.

Ditto.  I guess that means we're both old?

I hope people voting will put more thought into what they are doing than 
was done by the typist of https://www.facebook.com/GenerationVOTE


-- 
Wes Groleau

   Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns
   it, and finds himself no wiser than before ... He is full of
   murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having
   come by their ignorance the hard way.
                                         — Kurt Vonnegut