"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

Reading:
A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Archy
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Fablog
Hullabaloo
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Mahablog
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Orcinus
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

Books
The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
Pledge
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
Media
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
P.S.
What's this?
OHMIGOD

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....
Phillipines

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
Archives
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives


Electioneering
Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Politics1
Polling Report

Information
American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
DebtChannel.org
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Inequality
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
JobWatch
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Connections
XML & RDF
Peevish for PDA



Blog Directory


Search








Credits
Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori





All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

June 16, 2004
Just some stuff

No deep thoughts, just some links.

Is there journalistic bias over at the CSMonitor? In a June 4, column, editor Slambrouck discussed it, then readers weighed in (not surprisingly, they find bias in all directions, depending on their personal biases), so he's discussing it again.

His take? The increasingly partisan nature of our society is to blame for the increases in accusations of bias against each reader's preferred position.

Take a potato. Slice it into rectangles. Plunge it into bubbling hot fat until it absorbs enough grease to become crunchy. (It's even better if you coat the potato in batter first.) Voila! It's a fresh veggie! It seems that under the Bush Administration, anything that isn't preserved against rotting is "fresh."

Apparently a Bush victory in November means more than just four more years of the Bush Administration. It means the continued survival of the neocons.

Darfur.

For those whose blood pressure went up when I suggested that we might need to take a look at this country's guiding political philosophies and decide how much of what was relevant 200 or more years ago is still relevant today, you might want to read this.

Iran's picking on UN representatives. Big bullies.

You can get on a "do not call" list, but the Feds are afraid spammers will hack into a "do not spam" list and use the e-mail addresses to spam people, so they're declining to create one.

The interesting stuff comes at the bottom of the article, though.

Also Tuesday, key House members on telecommunications issues moved to overturn regulations set to take effect next year aimed at preventing homes and offices from receiving junk faxes.

Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce telecommunications subcommittee, said he planned to introduce a bill Wednesday to rescind Federal Communications Commission regulations that requires a recipient to receive a commercial fax only if they have given prior consent.

Speaking as someone whose business receives a lot of junk faxes from people breaking the current regulation banning such things, I'd like to protest any proposed increase in the same. And I'd like to know just what corporate donor is pushing for such legislation. What's Upton up to?

In other news, today is a pain so far. It's good to be employed and I'm trying to keep sight of that fact, but that doesn't mean I don't have days when I want to be really, really mean to people.

Posted by AnneZook at 12:57 PM


Comments

Just a technical note - spammers would not have to "hack into" a "do not send email" list. The list would be public - obviously. You can't make it illegal to send someone UCE (that's unsolicited commerical email) without also telling companies which email addresses are requesting a stop on UCE.

The point is, most companies that call you on the phone are law abiding, whereas most spammers are not law-abiding. Therefore a "do not call" list works - the assumption is that the companies making the calls, even when selling stupid or ridiculous products and services, fear the penalties of the law. The "do not call" list is made available to the public, you or I could get it with some effort, but making it public is thought to be safe.

But spammers tend to be lawbreakers - they often sell fraudlent mortgage services, or they sell pirate software, or they sell prescription drugs without a perscription, or they herbs of which they make claims that violate the FDA's interpretation of the 1994 DHSEA law. Therefore, if a list of email addresses were made public, it would be used to send those addresses more spam.

Public perception of spam lags behind reality. Although in the early days of the web spammers tended to be amatuers trying to make a buck, over the last 4 or 5 years spamming has more and more been taken over by organzied crime - much of it offshore. Therefore, for a wide variety of reasons, the law is not likely to be an effective tool against spam.

Posted by: Lawrence Krubner at June 17, 2004 06:14 PM

But what is the point of sending such messages to people who have said they don't want them? It's not like you're going to sell products or services, especially fraudulent ones, to people who have publicly registered as spam-haters.

(FWIW, I added the bit about "hacking in" to the list myself. That isn't what the government said.)

Posted by: Anne at June 18, 2004 11:33 AM