The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 Passes Senate Panel 367
An anonymous reader writes "The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 passed a Senate panel, giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval. The bill, written by Sen. Jay Rockefeller [D-WV] and revised by Sen. Olympia Snow [R-ME], was drafted in an attempt to thwart internet-based terrorist threats, and gives the president this 'kill switch' without oversight or explanation. The bill is up for Senate vote."
Oh yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, you can't contr[Connection dropped by USA Presidential request].
How does this work? (Score:3, Interesting)
I know you're joking, but seriously, how would something like this even work?
As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America. So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website?
Re:How does this work? (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as I know, there's no Great Firewall of China style ISP-level filter here in America. So how would they even enforce a blackout of a website?
Should be easy enough to include such function inside the snooping machines that NSA has at tier 1 providers and ISP's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is probably your answer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"declare a cybersecurity emergency and then shut down or limit access to parts of the internet without any oversight or explanation"
Don't know about other
Re: (Score:2)
DNS poisoning?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Simply make two rules:
Define "Everyone" below as any ISP in the USA.
1) Everyone has to BGP peer with Big Brother AS number 666, one way or another
2) Everyone has to accept (not filter) a 0/0 route from Big Brother AS 666 (most people filter anything bigger than a /8)
Seems like it would be simple enough...
According to my favorite AIM buddy "BGP Bot" AS 666 is not currently assigned, probably pending this law.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
All those series of tubes are connected to a big donkey wheel in the cellar of the White House where you can shut it off.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And just think of what country has whored ICANN (and doesn't want to free it even while EU has asked to do so [slashdot.org]), most of the tier 1 providers and other Internet infrastructure to itself.
I don't see those being freed either, it's really convenient and a good diplomatic weapon for US to have a kill switch over the Internet if EU, China or Russia start to dominate too much.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can make a Nazi salute or deny the Holocaust in EU, but just not in Germany. And it was the US that put those laws in place there after WWII.
Not that I disagree though, there are still free speech issues that need to be worked out within EU countries. However it's generally a problem within those single countries, not whole EU in general.
Re:STFU (Score:4, Insightful)
While US did create ARPA in the 50's for military use, most of how Internet is used now a day has been actually created in Europe. US got the ball rolling, Europe polished and finished it.
On 6 August 1991, CERN, a pan European organization for particle research, publicized the new World Wide Web project. The Web was invented by British scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.
Same goes for almost every other major protocol and technology.
Re:STFU (Score:4, Insightful)
The Internet is an invention of the USA, so why shouldn't we have control over it, you eurotrash piece of shit?
DARPA created the Internet, so why shouldn't they have control over it?
More to the point, a very small number of individuals at DARPA created the Internet, so why shouldn't they have control over it?
In fact, only some PARTS of those individuals created the Internet, so why shouldn't those parts have control over it?
But wait, HUMANS created the Internet, so why shouldn't we all have control over it?
Why exactly are you picking one particular level of abstraction out of the infinite multitude of possible ones and declaring that it is the only one that we should all pay attention to? What makes the nation-state your entity-of-choice with regard to causal efficacy and moral supremacy? It seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Uh huh, terrororists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh huh, terrororists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this really what the bill is about? My assumption is that this is intended to give the President the authority to shut down botnet controllers during DDoS attacks. Waiting for the courts in such a scenario is unreasonable. The police can immediately respond to a crime in progress; this would make something similar possible in a botnet/DDoS scenario.
As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks (rather than against political speech or against copyright infring
Re: (Score:2)
My assumption is that this is intended to give the President the authority to shut down botnet controllers during DDoS attacks. Waiting for the courts in such a scenario is unreasonable.
Why is waiting for the courts unreasonable in such a scenario? We aren't talking about Jack Bauer standing over the nuclear weapon that's about to destroy New York City. We are talking about not being able to access a few portions of the internet for the duration of a DDoS attack.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
but much of the country actually relies on it for commerce and communication. If large portions are unavailable, the costs could be very large, especially if such a tactic is used in conjunction with other attacks.
Thankfully the courts don't take weeks to decide such matters. I'd rather see a few banks shut down for a day than the President granted the power the unilaterally muzzle communications.
Would you want your cops to stop an arson in progress, or should they be forced to go through the courts first?
Bad analogy. Cops don't need a warrant to arrest someone for a crime in progress. They do however need a warrant before they can interfere with/monitor that person's communications.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current means of court intervention, tort, does take weeks, actually.
Controlling a DDoS is a crime in progress, actually.
So you are incorrect on both counts, actually.
Actually.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm talking about USING the legal system as a check. The check being that they need to get a warrant or something similar from a court before pulling any sort of kill switch if by some chance this makes it into reality.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I know there are some VERY archaic laws on the books in all states, but sex toys are a fairly modern things, no? Did someone pass anti-vibrator laws in the past 3-4 decades?
That depends on what you call sex toys and what "fairly modern" is. What we'd call sex toys today were being made in the 1800s. Vibrators [wikipedia.org] were being used in the 1880s, as a medical device. The first one was invented in 1869. Kama Sutra [wikipedia.org] which is thousands of years old talks about using sex aids or toys [spaceandmotion.com]. Dildos come from around 1400.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This does explain the sudden rise in the number of times that bullshit term "cyberwar" has been turning up in headlines.
Oh and those designed-to-fail excercises where they put a few doddering old politicians in a room and had them defend against a fictional cyberattack which they of course couldn't handle.
They've got to pretend there's a real war/threat to get people to hand over power.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you are retarted... It's a mechanism for the US president, just like any other emergency plan they can initiate, to shut down all communications. It might be awesome that if China was to attack the USA (just an extremely unlikely situation ofcourse), the US president could shut down all communication? And be selective in this (might not want to insta-kill wallstreet, eh?). It might also be awesome that he can order it any time he wants without having to go through time consuming practices...
It's not
It's ok people (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's ok people (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws like these tend to have a long life. Who in their sane mind would give that out of his hand again? Once granted, it will stay. Even if you eventually get someone that makes Dubja look like Mahatma Ghandi.
To avoid Godwin, I'll pull a Dollfuß [wikipedia.org]. He was the dictator of Austria before it was absorbed by the German Reich. Think of him as Mini-Hitler. He ruled with a law from the first world war that allowed the administration to make laws without oversight in case of "need". He simply declared the perpetual "need" and thus circumvented the government.
Once such power is granted, it will not go away. And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once such power is granted, it will not go away. And it invevitably will eventually fall into the wrong hands.
I would argue that in many cases, misuse of power isn't the evil -- power itself is the evil. The fact that power will fall into the "wrong hands" and is a moot point, because there are no right hands.
To paraphrase Lord Acton, no class is fit to govern. This is just a formal way of saying that power itself (the special "right" to employ physical force as one's means) is evil.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>>Slashdotters, I love you, but I hope you never have to endure governments as powerless as you desire them to be.
You mean like the USA circa 1820s. We seemed to do okay. The government was limited to only those powers granted by the Constitution, and men were free to pursue happiness in whatever way they desired. There was the problem of slavery and sexism, but we were still making progress.
Now contrast to the present, where citizens are treated like serfs:
- "Buy healthcare or be fined ~$1000
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hahahaha. Nice rose-colored reading glasses you have there.
Since when has it been any different? The people with money and connections have always wielded the most power and influence. This was as true, if not more so, in the 1820s as in today. Only the availability o
1984 - a little late (Score:3, Insightful)
they're not as bad as the last administration, right?
Do as I say, not as I do. Bush BAD, BO GOOD.
Re: (Score:2)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I came here to say exactly that.
The BBS may be the solution. At least then you have to raid the office, and that still requires a warrant.
You are mistaken. Any number of "accidental catastrophes" could befall an operator. House fire, robbery, drive-by shooting, "random" murder during the commission of a robbery...
You are forgetting, they are the government. They can do whatever they want and lie because there is no oversight. It's easy to make a person disappear.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are mistaken. Any number of "accidental catastrophes" could befall an operator. House fire, robbery, drive-by shooting, "random" murder during the commission of a robbery...
Let's not forget a bad review on Yelp [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that even the government would go that far! It's just beyond imagining.
Re: (Score:2)
True, true. Whatever did happen to Heidi?
A Kill Switch? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's a poison pill. It acts like a virus. It replicates, eating up all the memory. If you see this affecting your machine as the system administrator, don't be an idiot. Type "Cookie". That will help to head the program off at the pass.
The second portion of this poison pill is a "Zero Bug". it attacks all the login and overlay files. I advise that you run anti-virus, while checking out the systems display.
The third, and final payload is a "rabbit" virus which infects administration systems. A smart administ
Re: (Score:2)
Report to Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't seem, though, to give Congress power to stop the emergency action if it feels that it's not really an emergency.
We'll see what the House does with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, wait.
Better than the alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch? You're talking about shutting down or heavily impacting > 90% of the economy, making communication difficult or impossible for a large number of people, and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society. The damage would be severe and significant and I just can't imagine a situation where it would do more harm than good.
Re:Better than the alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch? You're talking about shutting down or heavily impacting > 90% of the economy, making communication difficult or impossible for a large number of people, and permanently damaging the trust that people have in a connected society. The damage would be severe and significant and I just can't imagine a situation where it would do more harm than good.
Depends on who the "better" is for. I know if I was in the government and the people were trying to over-through me and my cohorts that the ability to stop all the communications networks they're likely to use (internet + cellphones) would be very useful in preventing anything coordinated.
Re:Better than the alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on your definition of "harm" and "good". An revolt with widespread popular support by a significant minority or even majority of citizens could require the internet to be shut down to prevent the people from organizing to rally against an oppressive regime. It worked out pretty well for Iran.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... A quickly spreading botnet that is then used to attack China, exclusively executed by US hosted computers, that could prompt China into assuming an internet based attack.
Yes, unlikely and hardly executable. You asked for an example, not one that's remotely possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Can anyone think of a single example where throwing the kill switch would be better than not throwing the kill switch?
I believe they're looking to shutdown specific sites. The best thing to do is start setting up darknet/freenet nodes all over the place. Once they begin nailing websites they don't like, they won't stop.
Re: (Score:2)
You really think darknets will remain legal much longer?
Re: (Score:2)
It will be a hard go. Something positive needs to happen.
Free, private communications is a cornerstone of maintaining a free society. Without a secure method of communications, the possibility of eventually overthrowing a tyrant is very small.
Who would have thought that "de oppresso libre" could become that applied in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
I think thy're only talking about killing individual web sites.
(Obviously they never heard of the Streisand effect but that's another story - I can't wait for the first politician to use this to try to remove pictures of himself in a public washroom. Oh, how the world will laugh ...).
Bye, bye freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Vote.
Run for office.
Rebel.
Re:Bye, bye freedom... (Score:5, Funny)
Vote.
Run for office.
Rebel.
I believe you forgot:
????
Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
a) Vote.
b) Run for office.
c) Rebel.
Your options have some problems. But don't worry, I have the solution for all of them.
A - As it is right now, your vote won't change anything: To make your vote count, kill everyone else.
B - You don't have enough money to run for office: Steal some millions of dollars.
C - They're more than you, to quench your rebellion: See A.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote.
Hmm. How's that working out for you?
Run for office.
Good luck with that, truly. You'll need more than luck though - see above.
Rebel.
How? Take up arms? You won't last ten seconds. Stop paying taxes? Even worse, the Revenoo will be after you.
Rebellion seems to be the only choice until you realise that you need so many people in on it you might as well just vote the same way. Seems like a catch-22 to me...
Re: (Score:2)
Vote.
Run for office.
Rebel.
In other words:
Ballot Box.
Soap Box.
Ammo Box.
Re:Bye, bye freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy - James Madison
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You can start by rallying friends and family to vote for anyone but an incumbent. Get out and support their primary challenger. If that doesn't work, vote for other other guy. Send enough people packing and the rest will get the message.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First step? Repeal the 17th Amendment; turn the Senators back into wards of the State Legislatures. When they have to actually represent the States they have come from and not their own self-interests (who *really* pays attention to what they did 5 years ago at election ti
Wikileaks (Score:3, Interesting)
A page must be created right now to prepare the bets and polls on which page will be blocked first.
An expansion of existing presidential authorities (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When he got the right to round up innocent Americans and inter them.
"critical infrastructure information systems" (Score:2)
What's that?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama's Blackberry.
Re: (Score:2)
That's kind of the key point. It could be more clearly defined in the bill, but it's clear from context that they're talking about private networks used to run infrastructure like the power grid, the water system, etc. In order to use it to disconnect someplace like WikiLeaks, they would first have to declare WikiLeaks to be critical infrastructure.
Need to have a fast method if needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot think of a single situation where pressing the kill switch is less damaging than not pressing it
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Need to have a fast method if needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame me (Score:2, Funny)
I voted for Hillary.
Control (Score:2, Insightful)
He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing
Where are the technical people on /. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I'll ask. Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work? Specifically, how would the president hit one button and "shut down" all telecom infrastructure in the country (including wireless). What about the various mesh networks that sprung up?
I am trying to envision how this would work on any technical level and I just can't get there. Yes, you could pretty easily cripple our telecom system here and there but to shut the whole thing down and make it unusable is quite a different scenario.
Not to mention the hacking opportunity this presents. Yes, I am sure there will be many many layers of security....but still.....if the president can do it, then someone else can also do it.
This actually raises (many) more questions than it answers.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was about to post this same thing, the only situation that makes any sense is that he could tell the ISPs what to do, who would promptly challenge the directive in court rather than shutting off traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
It would only happen during martial law. In that case if an ISP didn't shut down, military personnel would shut it down. and no, I don't mean they would destroy it, they would just evac the building and pull the plug.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It would work just like martial law would effect TV and Radio.
All ISPs would be told to shut down a service in the specified area. Military personnel would show up at an ISP not complying and force compliance.
Declaring martial law has never happened in the US. Doing so would have huge negative political ramifications, as it should.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly how would a kill switch for the intrawebs work?
This bill is not about a kill switch.
From the summary:
...giving the president unprecedented power to issue a nation-wide blackout or restriction on websites without congressional approval.
Giving a strong legal power (such as power to shut off the internet in an emergency) makes it much easier to control individual websites.
A few years ago, during the big debates on the legality of wire-tapping and torture, many of the counter arguments ran along the lines that the president was within his legal rights because of similar and more massive powers he had during "emergencies" or "war time". And those arguments worked.
No one cares a
Dangerous and disturbing this is (Score:4, Insightful)
This is akin to putting people on the no-fly list for no reason. IMHO, this is a blatant abuse of power and violates the 1st amendment in a big way. Can anyone remember when shutting down the opposition in the name of security was done last? Oh, yeah, Hugo Chavez. Oh yeah. the Chinese government. Oh yeah, the Iranian government. Oh yeah, the Burmese government (scuse me Miranmar). If people being pissed about the Patriot Act contributed to a change of power, this will do the same in the other direction. "Oh, but our beloved president Obama would never do that do me only to those evil right-wing militias (that nobody ever heard of until now)." Yeah, keep thinking that. Would you want a president with an opposing ideology to have this power?
Oh shut up. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is no different then the presidents power to issue martial law.
Even during the most oppressive moments of our government, martial law has never been declared.
NO one s on the no fly lists for 'no reason'. Some people are mistakenly put on it. HOWEVER no fly lists are far worse then this; they assume guilt and punish innocent people.
2 different things.
And no, this doesn't have anything to do with Obama. Nice try.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, too bad Obama publicly stated he wanted this. He also publicly stated that he wants a federal police force that answers only to him. Besides, since people think Bush was so evil, why didn't he do this? He certainly had enough time and a congressional majority to do it.
The difference between martial law and this is that martial law takes a lot of time and manpower to implement on a national scale. This takes a few hours.
And martial law violates Posse Comitatus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_C [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Those of us who have heard of the Hutaree before are scratching our heads.
Yeah, they're extreme, but they're also committed. If they were as dangerous as they are made out to be now, don't you think one of them would have started shooting by now?
They don't know WTF is going on either. I find that far scarier than a "criminal militia".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, a lot of us "radical liberals" are steaming mad at Obama. I didn't drink the kool-aid, I knew he was no different than Bush, I knew he was a corporate-feudalist puppet who would support fascist police state policies from the start.
On the other hand, I've known about the apocalyptic christian death cults for the better part of 20 years now. The group in Michigan is only the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you forgetting Oklahoma City? Are you forgetting Atlanta? Are you forgetting the abortion clinic bombings? Are you forgetting the return of lynchings, hangings and church bombings in the south?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
None of these were militias. And lest we not forget that it was southern Democrats who were opposed to the civil rights legislation.
This is no different (Score:2)
then the power any president has had with everything else.
It's like martial law. Ever stop to notice we have never had martial law?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we have. Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War, with the authorization of Congress.
Change you can believe in (Score:5, Funny)
Change you can beli-- 404 ERROR...
Is this the same overhyped bill from last year? (Score:2)
I remember that it was more about restricting internet access to infrastructure targets like power plants. That's not to say that the actual law isn't vaguely enough worded to allow for gross breaches of civil rights. I didn't see anything in the blurb about what the changes were to the kill switch legislation.
Not so terrible (Score:5, Interesting)
I've read the bill. It honestly isn't that bad. First off, the "kill switch" doesn't apply to arbitrary web sites or anything like that. It specifically targets 1) government computer networks and 2) computer networks connected to "critical infrastructure". By "critical infrastructure", they mean things like the power grid, water and sewer systems, natural gas systems, stuff like that. Some people who have read this bill have made the assumption that "infrastructure networks" is synonymous with "network infrastructure", i.e. internet backbones, but it's pretty obvious from the context that this is not what the bill is meant to cover. There's nothing in the bill which allows the president to turn off your internet or disconnect you unless you are a utility company.
Now, that said, they really could have more precisely defined "critical infrastructure networks" in order to make that clearer. There is still a little weasel-room in the bill where it is possible that someone could try to justify ridiculous actions using it. They could have eliminated this with a more specific definition of what comprises "critical infrastructure". So I wouldn't say that I support it 100% in its current form, but honestly, I don't think that the bill is all that terrible.
The bigger problem to me is that I don't see any reason to believe that the measures in this bill will do anything significant to address the problem which they are purporting to address. Although I'm not convinced that a "cyber attack" is a real threat, if it is, by the time the president declares a state of "cyber emergency", it will probably already be too late. If there really is a serious on-line threat then the way to fight that is not to give more power to people at the top to respond, it is to give people at the bottom more authority to make decisions and respond quickly to a developing security situation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Build your own web (Score:2)
I think that this bill points out the need for all of us to know a little bit about the electronics involved with digital communication. We basically need to know enough to connect our computers together into small nets that can be independently linked to the world internet.
Our political masters in Washington have the idea that internet is a giant centrally-controlled utility that can be completely shutdown when some political leader orders it done.
It is quite possible that it
Removed (Score:3, Informative)
Taxes, RICO, PATRIOT Act, FAIRNESS, Internet, etc. (Score:4, Informative)
The 1913 US Tax law was a tax on only the top 1% of the population, the "wealthy". Now, the wealthy have tax dodges that allow them to pay less taxes than their maids, who often work at minimum wages. The resulting enforcement agency, the IRS, has been repeatedly used over the years as a political weapon, even more so than the Census Act. The use of the Census Act as a political weapon is rapidly gaining ground.
The RICO Act was created to fight organized crime, and a "promise" was made that it would "never" be used on ordinary citizens. Now, it is used over 10,000 times a year against ordinary citizens as a way to steal "guilty" property and as a supplemental funding source when law enforcement budgets are frozen or cut. The RICO Act provides that the law enforcement agencies can keep the property they stole even if it turns out that the "target" supplied by a jail house snitch seeking a "deal" was innocent.
The MOST UNPATRIOTIC law ever passed, the PATRIOT ACT, effectively destroys the Bill of Rights. The accused cannot tell anyone, including their spouse, that they've been accused, or of what they have been accused. They cannot face their accuser, nor can they see the "evidence" against them. They are tried in special courts. In fact, the PATRIOT Act RE-ESTABLISHES the conditions that were created in America by King George, prior to the Declaration of Independence. It's a slam-dunk convection when you cancel the Bill of Rights, especially when you add the infamous "perp walk" and the leaked "fact" news, all deliberately used to create an air of guilt for which there is often little or no real evidence. Toss in the self-appointed TV pundits, who act as judge, jury and executioner, and the accused is forever tainted. Fear of terrorist attacks have resulted in a law which cannot guarantee safety and has destroyed the Constitution. Like the Tax law and the RICO act, it is only a matter of time before future politicians use it for political purposes. So now, the US citizen has neither safety nor freedom and bribed Congressmen steadfastly refuse to identify or accept the power base of Jihadist threats in America, and persist in wasting American blood and treasure in Mid-East energy wars while Oil Companies continue to make record profits on oil and lobby to suppress alternate energy development in order to sustain their profit margins.
The FAIRNESS Doctrine was never about fairness. It was created as a political weapon. The political center and Right has always had a larger base in the US and, as Sen Franken found out, the Left cannot sustain a sufficiently large enough audience or advertiser base to support a national radio talk show preaching Socialist/Communist/Marxist values. When businesses failed to purchase sufficient ad time and devoted listeners failed to donate enough money, Air America failed. Not to worry! The Left has been successful in getting its message out by hijacking public radio and TV and subverting tax payer funds to sponsor "independent" films and guests, which focus on Marxist themes. The kinds of themes championed by ACORN or other Left Wing alphabet groups. Combine the always Leftists Indie films with mindless, talentless "Create" themes, and constant public service announcements against "hate speech" (which is any speech against Leftist ideology), and you have the complete brain washing paradigm. The stories about America's National Parks, etc., although inspirational, are mainly fillers, to maintain an air of neutrality.
Now we are going to be "protected" by selectively shutting down the only source of free public discourse remaining in this country, the Internet. The Internet bypassed the magazine and newspaper editors and their management of the "news". What was true in the USSR (there is no news in the Truth and no Truth in the news) had become true in America. The Internet bypassed single points of focus of government control or of editorial agendas. Now, the EXACT same method used in China by the Chinese Communist Party to control thei
Much More Than What It Appears To Be (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I really thoughts the democrats would be different.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty good. It's just hope for change now.
Snideness aside. You give the Prez too much "power credit". Yes, he has power, but only if he does what is backed by the rest of the political clout. Think of it as groupthink, a group of bullies that have a head honcho that leads them. He could easily incite them to steal your pocket money and jacket, but you don't think his buddies would follow him if he suddenly suggested they start doing community work, do you?
Politics isn't much different.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to have worked up your ire.
Re: (Score:2)
How's that hope and change workin' out for ya?
is parroting Caribou Barbie really the most effective way of doing it?
That is the exact opposite of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy and it is a logical fallacy all the same.
Does the originator of the quote make it any less true?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How can Obama deserve criticism here?
A bill with the support of a Republican Senator and a Democratic Senator in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has been introduced to the Senate that will have to be passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives before it gets anywhere near Obama.
Why is a bill coming out of committee such a big deal?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)