Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (9948)	9/29/2003 10:57:30 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793717

Tsk, tsk. Those pesky Academics tried to install another censorship code at Cal Poly and failed. They just aren't happy with unmuzzled students. From "Volokh." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Eugene Volokh, 6:52 PM] Free speech at Cal Poly: If you want to read the proposed Internet speech code resolution from Cal Poly that I mentioned yesterday (it was rejected by the Cal Poly committee, 6-4), see here. Key language: RESOLVED: That the following wording be inserted as "Policy Application" in item 1, section D. of the Cal Poly Information Technology Resources Responsible Use Policy: To promote the University’s commitment to "providing an environment where all share in the common responsibility to safeguard each other's rights, encourage a mutual concern for individual growth and appreciate the benefits of a diverse campus community", the University does not permit of the use of its computing resources for non-University purposes that could create a hostile environment, including, but not limited to, transmitting sexually explicit, racially or ethnically degrading material (Note that the policy by its terms applies "to any user of the University's information technology resources, whether initiated from a computer located on or off-campus," which presumably includes students and student newspapers and organizations as well as faculty and staff; and the declarations that precede the resolution clearly contemplated that the speech code would apply to students as well as faculty.) "Sexually explicit" is defined as (i) any description of or (ii) any picture, photograph, drawing, motion picture film, digital image or similar visual representation depicting sexual bestiality, a lewd exhibition of nudity, as nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse, coprophilia, urophilia, or fetishism and "transmitting" is defined as "access[ing], download[ing], send[ing], or cop[ying] data." So the policy would have imposed a viewpoint-based restriction on sending or reading "racially or ethnically degarding material" (limited to non-University purposes, of course, but that would presumably cover a wide range of extracurricular student speech). It would have also prohibited any extracurricular sending or reading any description of lewd exhibitions of nudity, sexual excitement, or sexual conduct. Quite a thing to propose at a modern university, it seems to me. I'm very glad that it was defeated, but sad that it was even urged. volokh.com

To: JohnM who wrote (9948)	9/30/2003 3:32:38 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793717

I'd say the story's changed. Too too many folks had the story. I'll bet a beer the original leak was Wilson and/or his wife probably at several cocktail parties. Let's get on with an investigation. I am all for it.

To: JohnM who wrote (9948)	9/30/2003 4:58:16 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793717

Past haunts Dean on Medicare issue By Thomas Oliphant, 9/30/2003 HAD DICK Gephardt been more politically correct last week, he would have rebuked Howard Dean for standing with Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico on proposed Medicare cutbacks in the 1990s or with then-Representative John Kasich of Ohio. To those bosses of the newly Republican budget committee in Congress, he could have added the GOP revolutionaries running the House Ways and Means Committee -- Bill Archer of Texas and Bill Thomas of California. Newt Gingrich, however, was a lightning rod for disbelief -- a distraction, really. Dean expressed wounded shock and horror that anyone would link him to the former speaker, who in turn tried to link slashes in eligibility and other restrictions on Medicare beneficiaries with a whopping tax cut for high-income Americans. The truth, however, is that as a conservative Democratic governor, Dean really did do what Gephardt says he did, and his shifting attempts to wiggle off that hook have made his conduct an issue in a Democratic race that grows more serious by the week. Ever since Gephardt -- followed by John Kerry -- raised the Medicare issue nearly a month ago, Dean has expressed wounded horror at the guilt by association, deplored the tactics of "Washington politicians," and declared Gephardt's criticisms "flat-out false." Actually, they are flat-out true. That becomes even more troublesome now that Dean has come up with still another explanation for his Medicare behavior -- Bill Clinton himself. Dean's inaccuracy here is also instructive. I have been watching this subplot to the Dean phenomenon for two months, ever since Dennis Kucinich nicked him for having supported an increase in Social Security's eligibility age -- a criticism that Dean also initially denied and then flipped on. It has happened on Social Security, on trade, on middle-class taxes, on budget-balancing policies. Medicare is an especially big enchilada. For Gephardt to raise it is of special significance in Iowa, where he and Dean are in a dogfight in a place that has the fourth-highest concentration of retired people in the country. Dean will plead guilty to having supported a slowdown in Medicare's rate of spending growth (from 10 to 7 percent annually) -- an innocuous-sounding, almost accountant-like budget position. In fact, the proposal he supported would have restricted eligibility, called on some retired people to pay more, and used force more than incentives to require participation in managed care. Gephardt himself might be guilty of excessive force in using Gingrich's name the way he has, but the Medicare proposal was one-half of the centerpiece of the former speaker's infamous Contract With America (the other was the tax cut), and the fight over it led to the weeks-long shutdown of the government at perhaps the most climactic domestic policy moment of the Clinton presidency. Dean's support was especially important to the Republicans as the House prepared to pass its version of the proposal in 1995, but he never pulled it back as the White House-Congress war escalated. In the last few days, sensing the political fallout, Dean has come up with a fresh explanation: He was doing something that Clinton supported and actually signed into law. This is even more misleading, an apples and oranges mixture that makes what happened two years later sound like what happened in 1995-96. Nothing could be further from the truth. What Clinton signed in 1997 was a law that finally produced a tax cut for ordinary families (introducing the child tax credit, subsequent increases in which Dean now says he wants repealed), and containing spending cuts to pay for it. It is often referred to as the Balanced Budget Act, but in fact it was the booming economy that produced the huge surplus at the end of the '90s. This law, more accurately, produced a tax cut that was responsibly funded. The spending cuts included a large bite out of Medicare but not the same kind of bite the Republicans fought for with Dean's help in '95. This time around, instead of attacking the beneficiaries (which Clinton opposed), it reduced Medicare payments to providers like hospitals, nursing homes, and physicians. By bipartisan consensus it went too far, especially in its harmful effect on large teaching hospitals, and much of the money has since been restored. Dean now says his willingness to go after middle-class entitlements reflected the deficit crisis of the mid-'90s, but this is also a misleading position. The fact is that the deficit reduction program enacted in Clinton's first year had already put the country on the right road. What the Republicans were pushing in '95 was revolution. Moreover, the reemergence of fiscal crisis has made Dean's views in the mid-'90s relevant: He has said Medicare should again be on the table if he is president. Bottom line: Gephardt and Kerry have a legitimate point, and Dean will have trouble expanding his remarkable base to the elderly and to voters of moderate means unless he does a more forthright job of facing up to his past. boston.com

To: JohnM who wrote (9948)	9/30/2003 6:55:12 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793717

John, You will like this. Your state is now going to be in charge of your state of mind. Did you work on this bill? Nothing like having the state punish you for your natural bodily functions. The NJ highway patrol will now have to designate a lane for napping. Think what this could do to all of your jug handle turns. NJ is the only state where you have to turn right to turn left. Now you will have to turn right and take a nap to turn left. I predict NJ will make blinking while driving the next big crime. uw New Jersey Criminalizes Driving While Tired By JOHN P. McALPIN, AP BORDENTOWN, N.J. (Sept. 29) - As if staying alive were not enough of an incentive, motorists in New Jersey have another reason to make sure they are well-rested when they get behind the wheel - a first-in-the-nation law against driving while drowsy.