vote ro
I live in the 12th Congressional District in California. We're a pretty sensible (you might call us liberal) bunch. Over 80% oppose the war. Almost 70% oppose the "Patriot Act."
Yet our Congressman -- a wonderful and amazing figure, Tom Lantos -- doesn't vote the way his district thinks. He has supported the war. He has supported the Patriot Act.
I haven't done this before, and I'm not going to do this much again, but this gap between who we are and how we are represented has led me to help Congressman Lantos' opponent -- Ro Khanna. Ro's a bright, young, committed Democrat, committed to representing the views of his district.
He's got a blog. And a friend and I are going to have a party for him at my house on February 9. If you'd like to come, send an email.
| Permalink | technorati
Comments (48)
As I understand it, Tom Lantos is regarded as one of the best Congressmen in Washington. He's considered a real heavyweight-- one of the few who actually considers issues independently, and on the merits. I guess we wouldn't want *that* in Congress. . . .
What do you suppose the percentage is that can explain what the Patriot Act does?
Ro Khanna feels that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act went too far in stripping consumers of their rights for the digital media. Ro Khanna supports sensible fair use rights for digital consumers: consumers should be able lend e-books and music to friends and other family members. Ro opposes prosecuting people for reverse engineering products or discussing how to circumvent copy protections, as they discourage innovation.
Ro believes that company copyright and ownership should be protected and that investment in technological solutions should be able to address these needs.
Ro talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Both sides of his mouth? Perhaps he feels there's a balance to be struck.
some replies, in reverse order:
(3) it is the peculiar thing about our age that someone would think there's something inconsistent in saying both that the DMCA went too far, but that IP is important and valuable and must be protected.
(2) it has not been my experience that people warm to the Patriot Act the more they know about it. indeed, quite the opposite. the more you see the details, the more you know the devil.
(1) and, whether you would want an effective Congressman depends, I should think, on what effect that Congressman will have. E.g., just because President Bush has been effective in implementing his policy does not mean one should want another term of President Bush.
In the abstract, I neither support nor oppose another term for Bush. The question is one of alternatives. Leiberman is the only Democrat who, if elected President, I could feel safe with. The others are so bent on avoiding/ratcheting down conflict that they would compromise our security. When somebody bloodies your nose, if you do not strike back with overwhelming force, you make yourself a target. This is the lesson of Somalia. We appeared weak, and we invited attack. Bin Laden took the invitation. Bush understands this. We need a president who understands. Few Democrats do. Don't blame Lantos for acting in your best interest in spite of yourselves.
I take the precise opposite view. Ratcheting down confict is precisely what will increase our security. Bush has made the world, and America, a much more dangerous place in which to live by his bullying. America got a bloody nose and so he became a bully -- thereby increasing hatred of America. Brilliant...
It is incredible that we live in such an Orwellian world that people think we can bring about peace through war. How about being a good neighbor instead? Why did the Saudis and Egyptians attack us on 9/11? Because they wanted us out of their back yards. A simple solution presents itself, but instead imperialist Bush and lackies like Lantos think more force is the answer. Nope. Doesn't work for Israel, won't work for America, hasn't ever been a solution in human history (unless you wipe your opponent off the face of the earth, but then you are really hated and eventually overthrown)
Peace does not come through creating more conflict. Bush understands only what he is told to do by the Neo Cons who have an agenda that is not America's agenda. We need a new president who understands.
Nate,
You say that we need to ratchet down conflict, which would in turn increase our security. However, we cannot "ratchet down conflict" when these sort of conflicts are necessary.
It seems that most liberals have forgetten the concept of good and evil. Saddam Hussein was and is undoubtedly evil, and thus it was our right and our duty to take him out. America is not the bully. The terrorists, the Saddams, the Osama bin Ladens and others in this world are the bullies.
Why must we be labelled bullies by our own people and others when we strive to take out those who are evil? Are we bullies for trying to hunt down Osama bin Laden? Are we bullies for taking down Saddam, the man who committed genocide against his own people? I certainly don't think so.
Does Ro have a position on the PDEA?
Also, someone should tell him that outlawing contributions from those under 18 is unconstitutional.
I assume you are talking about reaction to 9/11? If so, "these sort of conflicts" are anything but necessary. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and wanted to negotiate the release of bin Laden. Instead of taking the time to do that, Bush sent in the troops, made the Taliban temporarily retreat, bin Laden escaped, and more innocent civilians were killed than on 9/11. Now the Taliban is retaking the country and bin Laden is still free. Brilliant.
Then on to Iraq, another country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Brilliant.
If taking out evil dictators is what America's job should be, there are a bunch of other countries we should be invading. Sadly for such a viewpoint, most of the world actually believes in the sovereignty of nations, and that is why the world despises Bush.
So who's going to run against Anna Eshoo, who supported unfair sentencing, the Internet-censoring CDA, and national ID cards? surely Stanford deserves better.
The age old question of democracy: do we elect the person to decide on our behalf, or does the individual govern his voting choices by what his district believes?
[If that polling data makes that district sensible, does that mean that the great majority of Americans who disagree are insensible?]
M,
The concept of "Good versus Evil" isn't forgotten, it's just bogus. Who, exactly, is it that defines the sides of that battle? America I presume? Of course, how convenient.
And let's not forget -- we're not in Iraq because of the altruistic reasons you suggest. We're there because we don't want the region "destabilized", lest it affects our ability to get oil.
Kevin
Hm, Maad Abu-Ghazalah is also running as a democrat in that district and seems to have slightly better policy positions.
Dear Dr. Lessig:
I fully support your right to express your political opinions (I happen to agree with some and disagree with others).
However, I am concerned that your taking sides on political issues other than those related to IP hurts your ability to effectively gain all of the support needed to get your IP policy ideas implemented.
In supporting the Democratic party, you automatically give staunch Republicans an excuse to dismiss your main contributions to in depth thinking about IP issues.
I'm sure you have considered this but I would ask you to reconsider. Your contributions are too important to get sidelined because of people's disagreement with you on other issues.
McCann is right. Politics is perception.
Nate said:
"Sadly for such a viewpoint, most of the world actually believes in the sovereignty of nations, and that is why the world despises Bush."
Two points:
1. We are facing an enemy (Islamism) that believes in only one nation - Islam - God is the only sovereign. This has been documented regularly and ignored by most.
2. We also believe in the privacy and protection of our own home. However, there are times when that needs to be violated. Example 1: a neighborhood crackhouse gets taken down by police;2: Kids get removed from abusive parents. Somehow many people believe that being a country magically protects that country from being responsible for any internal wrongdoings. They can torture/kill their own people with impunity because of national sovereignty. What kind of human believes that?
Nate also said:
"It is incredible that we live in such an Orwellian world that people think we can bring about peace through war."
So have you told the police to never under any circumstances protect you? Have you signed your rights away to ever resort to the judicial system if you are wronged? If not, then why not, good neighbor?
Think man, think before you write.
I totally agree with you Alan.
Again, about what Nate said: "Sadly for such a viewpoint, most of the world actually believes in the sovereignty of nations, and that is why the world despises Bush."
If sovereignty of nations was all that we should care about, then each country could do as they please. In that case, Hilter was doing no evil, for he was certainly soverign and independent of other nations. So then, why did we intervene and interrupt his party?
Kevin,
You said: "The concept of “Good versus Evil” isn’t forgotten, it’s just bogus. Who, exactly, is it that defines the sides of that battle? America I presume? Of course, how convenient."
If the concept of good versus evil is bogus, then everyone is justified in their own eyes. Hitler was justified during WWII, he thought he was doing the world a favor.
I'll post more in a second, class is starting.
Ro Khanna feels that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act went too far in stripping consumers of their rights for the digital media. Ro Khanna supports sensible fair use rights for digital consumers: consumers should be able lend e-books and music to friends and other family members. Ro opposes prosecuting people for reverse engineering products or discussing how to circumvent copy protections, as they discourage innovation.
Ro believes that company copyright and ownership should be protected and that investment in technological solutions should be able to address these needs.
Ro talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Both sides of his mouth? Perhaps he feels there’s a balance to be struck.
some replies, in reverse order:
(3) it is the peculiar thing about our age that someone would think there’s something inconsistent in saying both that the DMCA went too far, but that IP is important and valuable and must be protected.
professor lessig, perhaps you might ask mr. khanna how he proposes to strike this balance as he opposes prosecuting people for reverse engineering products or discussing how to circumvent copy protections.
perhaps you could ask him to be specific as to what investment in technological solutions would result in protections immune to reverse engineering so that digital IP rights which he (and you) say are important can actually be protected?
it would be fascinating to learn how he proposes to solve the vexing problem of how consumers should be able lend e-books and music to friends and other family members while perfectly frustrating any attempt by others who wish to share their content with a wider audience.
Alan,
I did think, which is why I complained about Bush's actions. You give analogies of protecting your own home, and then ignore the fact that the countries Bush attacked had nothing to do with 9/11. That's like saying you suspect Robber A is going to break into your home, so you go to Robber B's house and beat him up!
I am aware of the Islamic view of the world, and that is all the more reason the Bush idiocy is bad for America. By attacking Islamic countries that had nothing to do with 9/11, he is inflaming Islamic hate. Those people don't need the encouragement.
Don't tell me to think before writing. I do. That's how I am able to put down independent thought instead of regurgitating the same old party line from the media.
Part of the Patriot Act was just ruled unconstitutional by a Federal Judge...
Hi Nate:
My last comment was immoderate...apologies.
Your comments did look like a certain party line (as I'm sure most of ours do at times).
So where we disagree it seems is on the issue of attacking the two countries vis a vis their involvement with 9/11 and the ultimate goal of making the world a safer place for freedom. I can see your reasoning and I agree there is validity to your stated concerns...however my support, on balance, goes to the current stated strategy.
I have to run but my arguments would hinge around:
- 9/11 was only the wake up call and the OBL islamists are only part of the problem
- the proven futulity of being nice (ie. they just think we are soft)
- the respect of force in the Muslim world
- getting rid of a regime that harbored OBL (Afghanistan - I know you argue this point - however, why didn't Clinton get him when he had multiple chances?)
- attempting to install a free society in the middle east in the country most likely to be able to accept it while at the same time getting rid of a brutal dictator that did harbor terrorists (perhaps not the 9/11 terrorists)...and yes, there is public evidence of multiple conversations held between Saddam's regime and OBL's
And, finally, I have to say that if the Islamic world sees pre-invasion Afghanistan and Iraq as their friends and allies against the US and what it stands for, then I will not look to them as a influence in forming my thoughts.
Tom Lantos is a holocaust survivor and the lion of the Bay Area's congressional delegation. He's highly respected in Washington. This Khanna is a fuzzy-cheeked boy who's obviously seeking to pander his way to Washington by attacking Lantos where he's vulnerable: Lantos is serious about getting the terrorists, keeping America safe, and fighting fascism, but his constituents include a number of Volvo-driving, latte-drinking etcs.
Fortunately, Lantos is still very popular in his district, so this isn't going to be much of contest.
Alan,
I very much appreciated your comments toward me. Thanks. As for your arguments, I suspect we wish for the same results and are differing only on the details. Ah, but that's where the devil resides, huh? :)
The following is not an endorsement, but should be noted regarding national security credentials:
Both John Kerry and Wes Clark should receive *immense* respect for their national security experience, far more than George Bush. They've both had extensive involvement, on the ground and in policy-making.
The current administration seems almost exactly to suffer from a "faking it" syndrome (pun intended)
Anyway, regarding Lantos, I may be talking out of turn here, but a quick look shows that he appears to be having second thoughts about the PATRIOT ACT
http://www.house.gov/lantos/civil_liberties.html
"Second thoughts" implies that at some point Lantos was a booster, Seth, and I don't think that's the case. He's been consistently anti-fascist, and the attempts to smear him as some sort of Ashcroft surrogate are going to fail.
From that page:
"Tom Lantos voted for the USA PATRIOT
Act, as did both of California's Senators and most of its
Representatives. The bill granted the Department of Justice (DOJ)
wide-ranging powers to investigate and arrest alleged terrorists.
Unfortunately, the enforcement of the USA PATRIOT Act has raised
serious questions about the Bush Administration's respect for civil
liberties. ..."
Translated from the politician-ese, that sounds to me much like
"I thought it was a good idea at the time, but I don't like what's happening now."
Alan wrote:
"We are facing an enemy (Islamism) that believes in only one nation - Islam - God is the only sovereign. This has been documented regularly and ignored by most."
Alan,
Please be careful with how you use the term "we". Islamism may be your enemy, and it may be the enemy of the current U.S. regime, but I (a U.S. citizen) have no enemies.
Graham
I'm your enemy, Graham, so you have at least one.
Seth, Lantos' position vis a vis Patriot is no different from Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and Gephardt on the liberation of Iraq, so it's hypocritical in the extreme for Lessig to slam Lantos at the same time that he fawns over Edwards. This makes it look like Khanna's appeal is that of a sock-puppet who'll do the bidding of the terminally superficial people who dominate Silicon Valley politics and civic life.
Many of Patriot's provisions are sensible and needed, and the abuses we keep hearing about are more academic than actual. But by opposing both Patriot and Arab Liberation, this Khanna character looks more like a friend of Osama than a friend of mine.
Alan wrote: “We are facing an enemy (Islamism) that believes in only one nation - Islam - God is the only sovereign. This has been documented regularly and ignored by most.”
One, a distinction should be made between fundamentalist Islam and more liberal Islam such as Sufis and Dervishes; just as a distinction can be made between fundamentalist Christianity and more liberal Christianity such as Quakers and Swedenborgians.
Not all muslims call America the Great Satan, and not all Christians believe that the Antichrist is among us and the apocolypse is near. The latter sects of each of those religions promote intellectual inquiry and science, whereas the fundamentalist versions implicitly distrust science and any inquiry which might poke holes in their belief system.
I think rather than a war between Good and Evil and Christian and Muslims, what we will see over the next 100 years is how people who have a spirit of inquiry will come to terms with those who fundamentally don't.
And, as a practicing Christian and US citizen, I cannot condone a policy of "pre-emptive" war. A) Christ was "prince of peace" asking us to love our neighbors, not kill them. B) People look to and respect the US not because we are a bully, but because we have created ideals in this country that until recently promoted one of the least corrupt, governments in history, and one not made of dictators and monarchs. However, our foreign policy sucks when put up against these ideals.
Uh, kt, nobody said we're at war with Islam. The term the dude used was "Islamism" which means roughly the idea that Islam has to rule the world.
America's secular ideals, of which you are apparently quite proud, are inimical to any theory of the domination of human society by a religion. So oddly, you're facing the same enemy that Alan complains about.
Jesus, by the way, wasn't one to sit at home downloading free music when his neighbor was being tortured, raped, and slaughtered by an evil dictator. You might think about that.
The Iraq war is such a debacle, it will unfortunately serve as a litmus test... Many legislators who were conned by the Bush Administration will be tainted by their votes on the issue. Then again, most legislators who rubber-stamped this folly do not deserve reelection.
Much of the world should regard President Bush as a war criminal. There’s lots of hyperbolic baggage attached to this charge, but I fear it's valid.
(Regrettably, I must admit Prime Minister Blair should also pay, at least politically, for Britain’s involvement in this fraud.)
More than ten thousand people have been killed or grievously maimed for the "liberation" of Iraq. In no way was Iraq an imminent threat to the United States, and I challenge anyone to provide *compelling* evidence to the contrary.
Bush must be held accountable for the ethnic violence in northern Iraq, religious strife in southern Iraq and political assassinations throughout the nation. He should be blamed for trauma to our armed services, the abuse of our reserve forces and the savagery and stupidity endured by our military men and women.
Our policy and humanitarian goals could have been achieved through other means, but neoconservative crusading had moved Clinton into signing off on a "regime change" policy. We needed to deftly carrot-and-stick Iraq--instead Vice President Cheney and President Bush spent their days planning to "take out" Saddam Hussein and apportion Iraq's oil fields. While our forces have been sitting in the desert, many debilitating attacks have been carried out by terrorists around the world. Afghanistan is still a nation in turmoil.
Iraq was a tyranny, but one with *civil* law. The nation is on the verge of becoming a theocracy with death squads struggling to prevent civil war... Jumping from one sick and repressive government to another with only a brief respite under Bremer and his cadre of born-again bumblers guarded around the clock (lest they be distracted by the endless jubilation in the streets).
Our rash invasion of Iraq, and subsequent ideological and incompetent management of its affairs, may have set back the cause of social justice in the Middle-East by generations.
Any American who professes faith in our president has fallen to idolatry.
Richard Bennett wrote:
"I’m your enemy, Graham, so you have at least one."
Richard,
If you make enemies that easily, then you're your own worst enemy.
It takes two to tangle; I still have no enemies.
Graham
In response to the respone, I guess you can say that I fall into the camp with UofC law profs E. Posner and Yoo, who are certainly aware of the details of the legislation. See The Patriot Act Under Fire, WSJ December 9, 2003.
Lessig writes:
'it has not been my experience that people warm to the Patriot Act the more they know about it. indeed, quite the opposite. the more you see the details, the more you know the devil.'
But how do you respond to the argument made in this very detailed article that suggests quite the opposite:
O. Kerr, Internet Surveillance Law After the USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother That Isn't, Northwestern University Law Review (2003)
(copy available for download from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317501)
kt said: "A) Christ was “prince of peace” asking us to love our neighbors, not kill them."
I couldn't agree with you more Richard. I myself am a Christian, and know that there is definitive good and evil in this world. America's "pre-emptive" strike on Iraq was partially led by the fact that Saddam is evil - plain and simple.
Peace cannot come unless those who seek to disrupt peace are are destroyed or contained. Why do you think Christ said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." The sword is symoblic of the word of God - Christ recognized that Christians must combat evil, not sit idly.
"eric" wrote:
"The others are so bent on avoiding/ratcheting down conflict that they would compromise our security."
Oh, come on. For staters, they all (except Kucinich) supported the invasion of Afghanistan.
Both Dean and Clark have stated quite clearly that they are not anti-war, but that the Iraq war was a dangerous distration and waste of resources at a time when we needed our resources to fight al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Islamic extremist terrorism. (Saddam was a tyrant -- and he ruthlessly suppressed Islamic extremists. Iraq has more terrorist activity now than it ever did under Saddam.)
They all support full funding of first responders and stronger security at the ports and entry points to the US -- which, perhaps you would be surprised to know, Bush actually OPPOSES. Because it "costs too much" -- money needed for tax cuts for billionaires, I guess?
Bush has also repeatedly attempted to pull out of Afghanistan before establishing a stable government (look it up) -- that would of course allow the Taliban and al-Qaeda to run freely in their old stomping grounds again. And you trust the nation's security to THIS administration?
Bush is quite frankly a threat to the nation's security because he's fighting the *wrong* war; the war for giving stuff away to Haliburton, rather than the war to protect America.
Bush's consistent practice of the "big lie" appears to have paid off, unfortunately, because I keep running into people who believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. (He didn't. Even the White House admits it when they're asked point blank whether there is even one shred of evidence.)
Bush STILL hasn't managed to catch Osama bin Laden.
On another point, from Alan McCann:
"In supporting the Democratic party, you automatically give staunch Republicans an excuse to dismiss your main contributions to in depth thinking about IP issues."
Well, um, I guess those "staunch Republicans" are guilty of judging a book by its cover -- prejudice based on party affiliation. If I may speculate, they've probably done the same thing with Bush in reverse -- assumed that because he was a Republican, he stood for things remotely related to traditional Republican party principles (which he doesn't) -- or that he wasn't a liar (he is, which is well documented) -- or that he was a successful businessman (he wasn't) -- or that he was solid on national security issues (he isn't, and I can provide points on that) -- or that he would shrink the government or the deficit (he did the opposite in both cases).....
Those are the people who give democracy a bad name.
And on a third point:
"The sword is symoblic of the word of God - Christ recognized that Christians must combat evil, not sit idly."
Which is why all true Christians must strive to remove Bush from power. The man is deeply evil, and his administration is more so.
* His administration deliberately sent a Candidan citizen to Syria (a Baathist dictatorship, just like Iraq, but one of Bush's good allies) to be tortured (this is well documented, because the man evenutally escaped).
* His endless lies to the American public (and others!) are too many to document, although they are actually pretty well documented.
* He has no remorse about stealing the 2000 election (the fact that he would have lost under *any* fair count was shown by the newspaper recount)
* The world supported the US after 9/11. Bush's insane obsession with Iraq managed to destroy that completely.
* He attempted to cut benefits to soldiers and veterans *while* starting the Iraq war, *while* already involved in the war in Afghanistan
OK, I could keep coming up with stuff forever, but this is a good start. Look up the facts on this man for yourself.
If you believe in the possibility of the Antichrist (which I don't), you should look at Bush even more carefully. Someone who pretends to be very religious and holy, and attracts the following of many religious Christians -- but is actually a constant liar and deciever, who starts wars to conquer other parts of the world, while being cruel in many little ways at home? Think about it.
Seems to me that lots of politics chose not to listen to people's opinion
It's perfectly reasonable for someone to say that a representative who does not agree with his constituents on major issues is not representing them.
It's rare that I see an argument about either the Patriot Act or Iraq that is well-informed by history or the facts in evidence. But regardless of the substance, the reality is that for the 12th district of California, the Patriot Act is a symbol of the Bush administration's fundamental disrespect for civil liberties, and Iraq is a symbol of their self-righteousness. It is a good and healthy thing for the constituents to challenge Mr. Lantos on why he disagrees with them. Let the debate continue! :-)
Nathanael,
I did not know about that Canadian incident, I will have to look into that more. I consider myself an independent conservative, so I only support Bush when I believe he is doing right. I don't believe that any single man can do everything right for the country, so I'm not going to blindly support Bush on everything.
As for your comments, I'd like to hear more about the Canadian man sent to Syria. If in fact that is true, Bush should have recieved severe criticism, from me also.
Which "endless lies" do you speak of? Be a little more specific and I will do my best to comment.
How did Bush "steal" the 2000 election? Simply because he didn't get the popular vote, yet managed to get the electoral vote? I believe that has happened with many presidents (Clinton comes to mind...). It is not "stealing", it's the way elections are held. Also, he didn't steal anything if Gore is the one who backed down.
I believe that Bush could have done better with the war on Iraq, but we still have allies, and many countries are helping us in Iraq. However, the whole WMD was a mess of lies - but they are not linked to Bush or his administration. Recently the chief weapons inspector in Iraq had an interview in which he said that Iraq before the war started was in a state of disarray. Graft was common and Saddam's highest officials lied to him and others for money. Documents prove that there were no weapons or anything, but that they were simply balking. I'm not just trying to defend Bush, but if the information we got was false, then we should blame the ones who harvest that information - the CIA. Anyways, enough ranting about that.
I believe that cutting those benefits is wrong. All of our military and veterans deserve to be paid well for their service. We shouldn't cut their pay and make them do more work. Although I somewhat agree with Bush's tax break, maybe some of that money should have been spent paying these people for their service.
I do not believe that there is an "anti-Christ" per se. I believe that there are those who will decieve us, but I do not yet see Bush as one of those men. I do, however, believe that Saddam was - and thus I am glad he is out of power.
George W. Bush is not the Anti-Christ, I am. I represent immorality and all that is otherwise evil in this country and many others. Bow down, www.democrats.org
I always find it interesting that the PATRIOT Act's harshest critics, those who claim to be champions of civil liberties, kept their mouths shut when Congress passed child support collection legislation that enables the government to search all the records of banks and utilities for so-called deadbeat dads, suspend the driver and professional licenses of those so identified, take their passports, place liens on their property, and impose draconian levies on their incomes for life. While this is arguably a good cause, these measures are clearly encroachments on civil liberties that have much more immediate and wide-spread effects than the PATRIOT Act.
So why no complaints? Are dads more dangerous to America than terrorists?
"that have much more immediate and wide-spread effects than the PATRIOT Act."
I highly doubt that. But prove it to me anyway. Are you saying that there's no way that the PATRIOT Act could be worse than child support collection ? How ? Edumacate me.
"kept their mouths shut when Congress passed child support collection"
You imply that the people who oppose the PATRIOT Act are following child support leglislation, like you do, and let it fly by, unopposed. This is obviously not the case. Again, I'm open...show me where/when the 'harshest critics' were aware and allowed the child support leglislation without their comments.
Money where your mouth is, Richard.
On a related note, the PATRIOT Act probably has attracted more newbies to the issue of civil liberties than any other piece of leglislation, I'm guessing. Saying the PATRIOT Act is ok because child support processes are allowed the same thing does not make the PATRIOT Act good, if that's what you're implying.
The PATRIOT Act says that terrorists are now treated no better than fathers have been for years, so yes, that is a bad thing. So let's free the fathers, and then we can get around to pampering the terrorists when things in the Middle East have settled down a bit.
Tom Lantos is a Holocaust survivor, so as far as the middle east goes he'll basically do what it takes to keep Israel safe. So it's no surprise he supported PATRIOT really. On these matters he may as well be considered an Israeli member of Congress because he is an unabashed and blind supporter of his own tribe.
My blog keeps on getting posts that are related to Gambling, porn,satellite tv and pharmaceuticals,does anyone know why?
Richard Bennett wrote:
"So why no complaints? Are dads more dangerous to America than terrorists?"
There are, in fact, complaints. Notably, however, none of the child support legislation restricts access to a lawyer, or the right to your day in court. (All the "deadbeat dad" stuff takes place only after a *court* finds the dad "deadbeat", the dad gets to appear at that court with a lawyer, and the liens and so forth all must be imposed by judges.) It also doesn't restrict freedom of speech or the right to protest.
The "USA-PATRIOT" Act restricts all of the above.
Much of it is also restricted by the insane war-on-drugs legislation of course, under which your property can be seized without you ever getting a day in court, if someone *else* hid drugs on your property, or if the police simply claim that someone did. :-P
Some anonymous person wrote:
Ro Khanna feels that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act went too far in stripping consumers of their rights for the digital media. Ro Khanna supports sensible fair use rights for digital consumers: consumers should be able lend e-books and music to friends and other family members. Ro opposes prosecuting people for reverse engineering products or discussing how to circumvent copy protections, as they discourage innovation.
Ro believes that company copyright and ownership should be protected and that investment in technological solutions should be able to address these needs.
These are, of course, entirely compatible, as Larry Lessig has been trying to explain for a long time. A carefully limited copyright monopoly is beneficial and should be pretected; an overreaching, overextended copyright monopoly is detrimental and must be prevented.
Ro talks out of both sides of his mouth.
No. He talks using his brain, which seems to be more than you've done. Try it some time.