“I’d ask the Minister whether … it’s appropriate in this case for a woman’s body parts to be inserted into a sheep when that’s normally been the domain of Tory males…”
— Grant Gillon, Alliance MP, New Zealand Parliament

     It was a serious day in Parliament on July 4th. One can imagine that the conversation regarding the cloning of human organs would have been rather dry had it not been for Alliance MP Grant Gillon, who delivered one of the best one liners NZ Parliament has seen in a good while.
     Most every Kiwi will agree that they’ve made a similar joke at least once in their lives. New Zealand’s media has made a farce of the situation, most notably TV3 and their coverage of the incident. Apparently, some people both in and out of Parliament are less than impressed, taking stances against “moral outrage” rather than having a laugh.

     Gillon rescinded the statement immediately and apologised for the joke, but this isn’t good enough for some MPs who seem more intent on continuing the mudslinging of late (not to mention the outrageous cries for “accountability”) rather than doing anything for the common good.
     Former Prime Minister Jenny Shipley seemed the most outraged at Gillon’s comment as she was interviewed by TV3. After first attacking Gillon’s behaviour she went on to explain her disdain, saying that “bestiality” is “pornographic,” and that this sort of behaviour, besides being illegal, was “intolerable.” Her language and use of pronouns made it unclear what, specifically, was illegal — the joke itself, making a joke in Parliament or buggering sheep.

     As if that weren’t ludicrous enough, other media reports have been offered regarding Gillon’s statements as being “sexist.”
     In defence of local media however, there was a later report that more than twenty years ago Gillon made a “sexist” statement in Parliament. Unfortunately, that was the entirety of the report, and it fails to elaborate the least bit. We are all left to wonder whether he did something direct like calling an up-and-coming Women’s activist a “bitch,” or whether he humorously vocalised his disdain at having Tampon commercials broadcasted during televised Rugby games.

     One has to wonder about peoples’ inability to take what Gillon said as the joke that it obviously was. Perhaps the ones most argumentative about it possess a guilty conscience.

     But someone said the comment was sexist…?

     Ok, fine… Maybe it’s not just the guys doing it…

Note: author of cartoon cannot be found, or s/he’d have credit.

On Tuesday 9 May 2000, Marijuana reform took a knee in the groin from the New Zealand Parliament. In what the media has referred to as a “late session,” an additional tax was imposed in the form of a $1 NZ per pack increase in the cost of cigarettes.

The public outcry is increasing daily. All I’ve heard on Talk Radio for the last three mornings were complaints about the issue. The few callers supporting the measure have had their arguments shot down quite intelligently by others. Some have protested the sheer cost of a pack of cigarettes, stating that pre-tax prices were nearly expensive enough to be unaffordable. However, the few proponents who still hinged onto this assertion were able to expostulate their theories in a manner rationale, as they took the aid and example of 180 Smoke herb vaporizers. Such vapourisers may come at quite a cost, but are quite beneficial in the long run, owing to their long shelf life and minimal cost incurrence. It seems that a good number of non-smokers also protest, speaking vehemently about Government overspending and arguing that the NZ economy has continued to drop against the US dollar despite many other new taxes created in the last year; comparisons to newly imposed gasoline and road taxes were sideline topics.
The paranoia and anger of other callers compares the current Labour government to that of George Orwell’s 1984. Their prophecies range from home grown tobacco and black market cigarettes to complete bans on public smoking and Gestapo-esque raids of pubs that allow it.

Government claims the price increase is due to the burden on the Health Care system caused by smoking. That’s all fine and good, but using Marijuana is also smoking. And since this is an attack on Smoking, it nullifies any hope of Marijuana reform, doesn’t it?
Some say “If marijuana is legalised, they’ll tax the Hell out of it and get their money for Health Care.” This avenue was already discussed. Statements made by MP’s and committees alike have agreed that increasing the street value of Marijuana to compensate will only increase the currently shocking amount of illegal sales by independent growers and dealers.
And of course, repealing a law they’ve just passed would make them lose face in the sight of the public, wouldn’t it?

Me? I’m sitting here enjoying a Dunhill and thinking… This brings the price of cigarettes to roughly the same price as a small bag of wonderfully aromatic Northland Marijuana, which may be purchased at https://www.discountpharms.com/seeds/.

Can’t do it, tho… Damn allergies.

     “Let me get this straight,” I argued with no pun intended. “You’re telling me that if I don’t go to this Sexual Harassment seminar of yours, then you’ll see to it that my employment here will be terminated?”
     “Absolutely!” she affirmed with righteous devotion.
     I sat there completely dumbfounded at the thought. It seemed completely illogical to force me to skip a day of work that desperately needed to be done so I could go to a seminar which has been proven to do nothing more than to decrease productivity because of increased tension between workmates of different sexes. I shook my head, closed my eyes, and out of my mouth came this noise which sounded remarkably like “Are you serious?”
     She keenly stared into my eyes, and with a condescending (translation: bitchy) tone of her own, said “Well, uhhh… Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying.”
     “Look,” I started. I’m not going.” I continued on for a bit, explaining why I felt the way I did, and finally, I just came right out and said it. It was the mother-of-all comment about sexual harassment.

     The big one.

     It was a comment for which there could be no reply, one which guarantees an emotional response to one degree or another. It was the kind of comment that would assuredly evoke either hatred or laughter, depending on who one says it to. As I turned my attention back to my monitor, I knew precisely which response I had evoked from her.

     The silence was broken only by the sound of the hairs standing up on the back of her neck. I faced dead ahead, staring into my monitor, too afraid to turn back around.
     After a few minutes, I mustered enough courage to look back, deciding that it was a good time to go and get lunch. I was shocked to find that she was still standing there, her eyes narrowed to tiny slits, her face the darkest shade of crimson…

     “Oh, shit,” I thought to myself. “She is pissed off!”

     For the next ten minutes, I sat there paralysed with fear, sure that any sudden movement or attempts to leave would incur her wrath. I read through the corporate newsletter. I checked my e-mail and Lotus Notes. I checked my voice mail. To make a long story short (too late), I wasted as much time as I could with the narrow hope that she would go away and I could leave.
     And then it happened… The moment I most dreaded.

     Someone’s hand laid heavy on my shoulder. “Oh, shit,” I thought. “Here it comes!”

     I didn’t want to turn around, afraid that she might be pissed enough to whack me in the face with her clipboard. I tilted my head down, and noticed those finely manicured nails that had been painted the darkest maroon, attached to fingers and hands that could only belong to a woman…
     Cautiously, I swivelled about, wincing at the expected blow, all-the-while hoping that she would remain professional.

     But as I came full about, I was surprised to see my boss standing there quietly. I let out a heavy sigh of relief.

     “Ms. Grant says that you’re excused from Sexual Harassment class,” she mused. “How the Hell did you get out of that? What did you say to her?”
     “I, uhhh,” I stammered. “I thought she was still standing there.”
     “Why?” she asked. “Did you have words?”
     “Oh, well,” I stammered. “Nothing terrible, I’m sure. Why, what did she say?”
     “Just that she didn’t think you needed to be there,” she replied. “Looks like you’re the odd man out
     “Ahhh,” I sighed, relieved. “Lunch time, eh?”
     “Sure,” she smiled. “Where we going?”

     I’ve always had strong feelings about sexual harassment in the workplace. I’ve seen a lot of friends get hurt by it, and I’ve been made to feel quite uncomfortable a few times, myself.
     And then another time, in particular, I was framed for sexual harassment at another place I had been employed years before. A female coworker had insisted that her and I should have sex. After declining her offers on several occasions, she my told my boss (also a female) that I had been groping her in the office, constantly asking her for sex and threatening to get her fired.
     Her claims were found to be false, and not by any court decision, either. One day, as she came into my office to torment me as usual, she didn’t notice that someone was walking in right behind her. My boss, in fact, and saw the young woman walk up behind me and grab hold of my ass with both hands, and whisper “Why don’t you just do me right here in your office?”
     She was fired on the spot.

     But things are rarely that cut and dry.

     Sexual Harassment Seminars put on the workplace only further complicate the whole issue. They tell us that “staring, touching and saying anything so as to make a woman feel uncomfortable in the workplace is sexual harassment.”
     You see, those were the same things Anita Hill complained of Clarence Thomas. Women’s organisations all over the United States went bonkers when Thomas was exonerated.
     But then when President Bill Clinton did the same things, these same women’s groups stood by him, stating that it’s only sexual harassment if a woman’s job is on the line.
     Anita Hill was hero, and Paula Jones is a slut… One has to wonder why…

     These two specific issues illustrate that there are still a lot of grey areas about Sexual Harassment. Things seem to have been turned backwards and upside down since the problem first gained media attention in 1992, and all of this only goes to confused people even more.
     Before Anita Hill gave her testimony, no one really understood what sexual harassment was. Just when we thought we had a clue, the tables turned, the definition changed. At this point, according to the US legal precedent set in Jones v. Clinton, it’s perfectly legal for me to walk up to a female co-worker and say “Hey, hon, how about a hummer?”
     Terrible, isn’t it?

     When people don’t have to worry so much about what they say or do in the workplace, they can be more productive. In the corporations I’ve worked with that have had mandatory Sexual Harassment seminars, the number of complaints have increased sharply after the classes. Some say that this is because with education, people suddenly realise that they’re being harassed.
     While this may be true in a specific case or three, it’s definitely not the Absolute Truth as many would have you believe. It’s worth noting that two of my experiences were in female-dominated offices. No man would dare come into one of them with sex in mind, because he would most assuredly lose some vital portions of his anatomy. In these two places, the seminars did nothing but further somewhat antagonistic attitudes towards the few men in the office. Needless to say, it made doing our jobs a lot hard.. err.. more difficult.

     I don’t want anyone to get the wrong impression here. I’m not altogether against Sexual Harassment seminars. On the contrary! I think they should made a part of Leadership Sensitivity Seminars instead of being separate entities. These seminars basically teach employees and management not to be Racist Homophobics and work together as a Team. I think they’re a good thing. Adding Sexual Harassment to that mix tells your employees not to be Racist Homophobic Perverts and work as team. That’s an even better thing.
     But by themselves? It’s hard to fill up an entire hour talking about Sexual Harassment without getting peoples’ backs up. And the fact remains that most of the people teaching these seminars seem to forget that women in the office can be just as bad, or even worse, than the raunchiest of men.

     For me, it all comes down to two things… If everyone were more interested in doing their job instead of standing around the office talking about “the chick with the big tits,” or “the new guy with the great butt,” or looking for new ways to be offended, things would be a whole lot different.

     And the second? Well, it’s like I told Ms. Grant…

     “Look, I realise there are men in this company who think ‘harass’ is two words. I’m not one of them.”

     First off, I am totally against this so-called US “anti-Spam legislation.”

     This stance may piss off quite a few would-be Mark Steel fans out there, but before you make up your mind that I’m a complete ass, please read the reasoning behind why I’m against it.

     I’ve been thinking about the issue of “Spam” quite a lot after writing this page on the 30th, and I’ve had a bit of a change of heart regarding the issue of New Jersey Rep. Christopher Smith’s H.R. 1748, the so-called “Netizens Protection Act of 1997.” Without linking to the Bill itself, and to the sites supporting it, there is no way for me to objectively tell you why I am against this legislation.
     As well, I decided to change this page entirely. Yes, I admit, it was a bit too inflammatory. Those of you who responded nicely about the issue are thanked, beforehand.
     And after reading your reading your letters, now I wish to rebuff a few arguments. You see, I’ve read your reasoning, and it still doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things. This proposed law will make some changes, but not in the manner that most of you think. A lot of you who responded were not looking at the “Big Picture,” so here’s a bit of it for you.
     I am in no way claiming that this is the entire “Big Picture,” but it’s assuredly a lot larger than what most of you bothered to think about. I think I’ve addressed every issue that was brought up. If I missed something, e-mail me again. Be nice about it and I’ll cover it, too.

     One of my core political beliefs stems from reading way too much of the works of certain “founding fathers of America” like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. You see, I was a history buff as a child. I admit that the older I get, the more I forget. But I do remember that all of them stuck to a single idea. I think Henry David Thoreau stated it most eloquently in his paper, “Civil Disobedience.”

     “That government is best which governs least.”

     The United States Code Title 47, Section 227 is an Amendment to the Communications Act of 1934, and looking at the proposed law, it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. However, thanks to the number of Lawyers in D.C. posing as Elected Officials, things have to be spelled out specifically, or else they’ll leave, as they say, a loophole by which a violator can prevent him or herself from being prosecuted.

     The unfortunate fact of the matter is, when you spell things out explicitly in a law, you leave more loopholes for “extenuating circumstances.” These days, people are much less concerned with the “spirit of the law” and much more concerned with the “letter of the law.” Proof of this is in the Clinton/Gore campaign scandal, and the bipartisan agreement that Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson’s council give up the fight. It doesn’t make Clinton innocent, but that’s another story altogether…

     The enforceability of H.R. 1748 is in question for several reasons. A lot of you have complained about Usenet messages in our correspondence, but let me be the first to inform you that this law does not, in any way, shape, form or fashion, address anything with regards to Usenet and newsgroups. It only addresses the issue of Unsolicited Commercial E-mail.

“Our own stats indicate that almost 80% of Usenet and 20% of email is nothing but Spam. Obviously this is a major drain not only on our infrastructure but everyone else’s as well. It must stop…”
– Ed Kelley, AT&T WorldNet Service Customer Care, Forums Manager

     That being said may change a lot of your minds by itself. If not, keep reading. Oh yes, there’s more. Lots more.

     One of the largest problems on the Internet is that it’s often hard to tell where a Spammer is from and to whom he or she is sending these messages, regardless of whether or not Section 227(d)(1)(C) is amended as proposed. Logic would hold that since this will become of issue only within the United States, the Bill cannot address the problem of International Spam.
     You may think that’s all fine and good, that the majority of Spam does come from inside the United States. But supposing this Bill does become Law, there is nothing to stop an American from putting a machine at a remote location anywhere in the world, and running all Spam and business through that country. The violator can still be a silent partner, still reaping the profits of his labours.
     Many people say “Oh, no, that kind of thing is too costly for most Americans.” They are incorrect in that assumption. All they have to do is build a simple machine, ship it somewhere in the world for around $60 US, and put it on the subnet of a willing Internet provider. The average cost for this type of venture is around $200 US, not including business registration by their “partner,” of course. Giving the provider a percentage of the profits reaped by this “business,” the need for business registration and paperwork can be overlooked entirely.
     Discarding that, no company in the United States is barred from using any “advertising company” they wish. This proposed law only affects the spammer, and not the company they’re “marketing for.” Nothing stops a would-be business owner, who wishes to market his company in the United States, from going to a Spammer in some other country and having them send these “unsolicited advertisements.” This section of the proposed law states that the “identity of the business, other entity, or individual sending the message” and their respective contact information must be listed “at the beginning” of the “unsolicited advertisement.” This does not, however, disqualify the foreign entity from promoting anyone they wish. The promoted company will be held without guilt, as the foreign Spammer, being a marketing company, was actually responsible for the Spam. And to make matters worse, not only can they not be prosecuted because they are a foreign entity, they complied explicitly with the proposed Law.

     Bad loophole, isn’t it?

     Thanks to the “letter of the law,” the wording of Section 227(b)(1)(D) creates a problem in itself, and I can think of no way to rectify it. As Internet Providers gain more and more users and the domain name registration databases grow larger and larger, a simple typographical error on the part of an “advertiser” will not necessarily be returned as undeliverable – it’s likely to actually go *to* someone.

     As far as adding “knowingly” to the first line (“…to knowingly send…”), that seems a good idea, but as the violator will most assuredly say “I didn’t know” in his defence, he will be found innocent of “knowingly” sending the Spam except my a massive preponderance of evidence.

     Regarding the current U.S.C. Title 47, Section 227 — it’s quite tough for an individual or company to find anyone to take action against a violator. The burden of enforcement for these laws falls under the umbrella of the FCC. Your liaison used to be the Public Service Commissions in your respective states, however, many states are doing away with them. Even if this new Bill becomes Law, who will you call to report the incident?
     And even if you do find someone to take your claim and begin to help you get your damages, it’s impossible to *force* anyone to *pay* the amount of the rendered judgement. Many people will say things about “Oh, well, having a default of several thousand dollars on their credit report won’t look too good!” You’d probably be amazed to know how many of your elected officials have filed bankruptcy. I guess proponents of this line of thinking aren’t aware of the current laws regarding Bankruptcy, which can effectively erase any sort of “bad marks” on their credit except for the bankruptcy declaration itself. There are plenty of institutions out there to loan money to recent bankruptcy filers and if you want to know about your credit history, visit this credit rating guide from a popular logbook loan website. So what’s that going to hurt?

     People just don’t think about what laws cost. There’s all that time that it’s just a Bill, being passed about amongst elected officials, taking up time and taxpayer money. And then when it’s passed, there is additional time and effort spent writing up informational and educational materials for those who are planning to enforce the law. Then additional government funding must go to the enforcement groups responsible for upholding the law. And it’s never enough… They always need more.
     And then there’s the already overcrowded court system (not to mention the jail system). Think of all the petty lawsuits this bill will create. Think of how much wasted time and money will go to that. Think about how much each court member has to be paid to try the case. You go to court, you’re probably going to be taking up the time of at least twenty people. Figure twenty people at an average of about $9 US an hour. Add up each employee who has anything to do with this case, and the time it will take each one of them, singularly to do their job. Figure around five hundred hours spent on each case. Multiply your hours times your average rate. Now think of this from a nationwide standpoint. Use a conservative figure, like maybe one hundred petty cases per month. There are twelve months in a year. The sum to your American court system, just for the small, petty lawsuits… Only $5,400,000 US.
     And that’s a very conservative figure. Americans, as we have to admit, are litigation crazy. I would venture to say that this conservative estimate of $5,400,000 US will more like be $54 Million US in the first six months of enforcing the law.
     And how much of that money does the court get back? Just the sum of their court costs and paperwork fees, which never amounts to enough to support them.

     So, now… What if HR 1748’s amendments *are* passed … Will the FCC hold the burden of responsibility for this law, or will a new Enforcement body be created? Will the costs of enforcement be offset by taxing your Internet usage, or will they simply raise your US Federal taxes more?

     Do you complain about your taxes? Do you support this bill?

     If you answered “yes” to both questions, I can’t help but wonder what logic brought you there.

     Especially if, after reading this article and Bill in question, you are still under the mistaken impression that UCE will be “illegal.” It isn’t. This Bill only gives you the “right” to sue a spammer, which is ridiculous at best. At last check of the US Civil Law System, you can sue anyone for any reason at any given time you wish in a Civil Court, right?

     I have been using the Internet for many years now, and feel that this type of Invasion into what is largely a private sector, International body is unwarranted. I have no quarrel that unwanted e-mail and Usenet messages are a problem — I hate them, as well. But this a problem which can be taken care of in the Private sector without government intervention.
     Proof of this is in Aegis.net’s disconnection of one CyberPromotions, Inc. Since CyberPromo’s denial of service, as well as quantcomm.com and a few others (which have brought up legal issues regarding contract violations), the amount of Spam in my mailbox has decreased astoundingly. Before these denials of service, I was getting a solid ten messages a day of e-mail Spam. Now I get two or three a week.

“Spamming is the scourge of electronic-mail and newsgroups on the Internet. It can seriously interfere with the operation of public services, to say nothing of the effect it may have on any individual’s e-mail mail system … Spammers are, in effect, taking resources away from users and service suppliers without compensation and without authorization.”
— Vint Cerf, Senior Vice President, MCI

     If more companies were willing to use their right to enforce Terms of Service Agreements and Acceptable Use Policies, and to refuse service to these companies and individuals responsible for Spam, the problem would simply not need to be addressed by any Government.

     One of the other, similarly annoying things about the supporters of this bill is some of the supporters, themselves. Many of them showed so much defiance last time an Internet-related Bill came up. Remember all those pages, white on black, bearing the Blue Ribbon of the EFF? Remember all those people saying “Keep your laws off my Internet!” over and over, and having candlelight vigils to the Death of Free Speech on the Internet when the Communications Decency Act was initially passed? Why on Earth are they now running back to the US Government for help about spam, when they spoke out so fervently against the intrusion before?
     Not all Spam is for-profit — much is passed around from the same well-meaning idiots trying to promote a cause. That being that, I can’t help but wonder if some peoples’ idea of Free Speech and Expression is strictly limited to anything that doesn’t annoy them. If that’s the case, they should be ashamed of themselves.

     Apparently, many of the quotes and ideas I mentioned on my original “mr. bill’s bill” page were taken well. As the issue of Communications Decency regarding the Internet and Television Programming becomes more and more widespread as a conversational topic, I’ve begun to see and hear myself repeated almost word for word both from Mass Media and American Politicians seeking a vote. It’s a bit depressing, really, to see “Put simply: The CDA is a Federal Law which makes Bad Parenting legal” and not at least get my name next to the quote. Nonetheless, there’s more to life than the Andy Warhol experience … although, it is annoying that stating “I said that!” after Media has plagiarised your material frequently greatly decreases the chances of anyone taking you seriously as writer.

     As usual, I’ll start out with a few Quotes which I feel are very relevant to the ideals of Freedom and Democracy — at least to the people in the United States.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
— Benjamin Franklin, 1759

“I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
— Thomas Jefferson, January 30, 1787

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
— Samuel Adams, 1776 (not just a decent Beer)

     I find it rather unfortunate that the quotes above will do little more than give the American Mass Media ammunition to make people think you’re a radical Militia fan, or someone who’s going to one day be in the same sort of mess as Timothy McVeigh (who’s a right bastard, IMHO).
     All I can do is say that I’m not like that in the least. I simply feel that two-party systems were designed specifically so that people could be Moderate. The ideal of Freedom is to let people make up their own minds about things.
     To be, in essence, able to change the channel themselves.

     On 25-Jun-1997, several people claiming to write Newspaper columns contacted me. They wanted to hear my comments about the CDA, as it had been ruled Unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
     With little forethought, I wrote about it and forwarded it to each of them with a simple request: “If you print any of this, please send me a copy of the article.” And, like I had thought, none of them sent me a copy.
     Bastards, all.

     I realise that that’s a bit of a subject in itself, but I felt it was worth mentioning. Having this wonderful thing called an Internet has always allowed me to get foreign viewpoints from unrestricted media. The CDA could well have abolished that in the United States.

     So could the V-Chip.

     On with the letter:

26-Jun-97

     My primary reason for being against the Communications Decency Act was that it restricted free speech rights inexplicitly. That section of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 attempted to block any speech which may be found indecent, in any context, and did not apply simply to Pornography as we have been preached to on numerous occasions. Immediately after the passage of the bill, many people began receiving e-mail from “do-gooders” who were off on a lot more that just pornography. According to them, “Indecency” ranged from informational material about Venereal Diseases to ‘why someone hated a particular President’ to discussions about Religion and Spirituality, many of which were called “occult” simply because they were non-Christian. The way the law was written, most anyone could have been prosecuted for anything they said.
     In the beginning, it seemed that a lot of conservative groups jumped on the bandwagon and convinced a good many people that this bill was simply an Anti-Pornography law, something to help our nation’s children. But as I said in the text of my web page, it’s not for our government to take care of our nation’s children and legalise bad parenting. Nor is it Constitutionally viable for a governing body to restrict our free speech. Nor was it an Anti-Pornography law.
     Correct me if I’m wrong, but certain limitations of our Freedoms, such as Freedom of Religion and the freedom to speak our minds, was a big reason why many Europeans came to this continent to found this country. Since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the CDA because they found it unconstitutional, I’ve been watching a lot of mainstream Media. They seem to have all jumped back on the “Anti-Pornography” bandwagon.
     A bit over a year ago when this controversy started, mainstream media was blasting the government for passing this law, claiming that it was a limitation on free speech. Now, many of them are blasting the government yet again for overturning a bill which they claim was simply an Anti-Pornography law.

     People seem to have this idea that Republicans are the scum of the Earth, that they’re the “classic moderators of thought” as I’ve seen so many times. What people must remember is that this bill was created by Democrats. The bill was passed by both Democrats and Republicans. Both sides have their conservatives and their liberals, and they’re pretty evenly distributed, despite Mr. Clinton’s claims. The two party system was put together to create a system of checks and balances by which ideas could be voted upon fairly, but this seems no longer the case.
     I don’t want to run the risk of sounding like a federal-building-bomber, but I think this quote not only gives merit to a lot of what I believe, but also states the problem quite eloquently:

...when all government... in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
     -- Thomas Jefferson, 1821

     The passage of the CDA, itself, seems a case in this point. I would hate to think that our nation’s elected leaders would pass a bill without reading it from top to bottom, sideways, backwards and inside out. The Telecommunications Bill of 1996 was so full of convoluted, useless articles, so long, boring, hard to read and comprehend, and just perhaps the passage of the CDA portion was simply an oversight. I say that because I’m not quite ready to hold dear the idea that our elected officials are 100% corrupt and don’t really give a damn about the rights of the American People…
     …and I hope I’m right.

     But there is a flip side to my argument….

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…”
— William Jefferson Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993

     God, I hope I’m wrong.