Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

From what I understand the idea behind the law is not to allow opaque corporate funding of a candidate. The law was from meat space, but it had to enter cyber space eventually. Just like laws had to be enforced against o-n-l-i-n-e financial fraud.

My point is, I think o-n-l-i-n-e periodicals, journals and blogs should get media protection, not just because of McCain's silly law, but for other laws as well. Some parties are using the cover of 'trade secrets' to muzzle freedom of speech in cyber space. Removing McCain's law would not solve that.

PS: Why is o-n-l-i-n-e questionable content? :-)

Posted by Gojira at March 12, 2005 06:44 AM

Certain words, such as the name of an ED treatment and such seemingly innocuous words as the opposite of "offline," are used by comment spammers. MT Blacklist (which I presume Rand is using) blocks comments containing such words, on the assumption that the rest of us can get our point across by alternate means.

Posted by McGehee at March 12, 2005 06:51 AM

Isn't the choice of Arizona's senators a matter for Arizona voters, and not fundraisers and bloggers who don't live there?

Or am I forgetting that today's right-wingers believe winning is more important than incidentals like fair elections and democracy?

Posted by billg at March 12, 2005 07:59 AM

Isn't the choice of Arizona's senators a matter for Arizona voters, and not fundraisers and bloggers who don't live there?

Ultimately, yes. Does that mean that I'm not entitled to my opinion, or to try to influence theirs?

Or am I forgetting that today's right-wingers believe winning is more important than incidentals like fair elections and democracy?

Ignoring the nonsensical nature of your question, since no one that I know of is opposed to "fair elections" or "democracy," not being a "right winger," I wouldn't know. Anyway, who knew that the First Amendment, and freedom of speech, was a "right wing" issue?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2005 08:05 AM

I wonder if simply moving blogsites to overseas hosts will eliminate jurisdiction over this nonsense.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 12, 2005 09:10 AM

It will. In fact Perry DeHavilland over at Samizdata is already putting together business plans to host blogs in Britain. It's going to be unenforceable, and I hope that they actually do overreach, and show just how absurd and unconstitutional all of this stupid campaign finance legislation is.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2005 09:20 AM

> Or am I forgetting that today's right-wingers believe winning is more important than incidentals like fair elections and democracy?

Since billg didn't object when leftists did that....

Then again, what do you expect from someone pulling a Moby?

Posted by at March 12, 2005 10:18 AM

Another simple way to flummox attempts to regulate weblogs is to slap them together in a book once a year. "Sorry, not a weblog, this is a peer-reviewed journal. Are you going after 'Science' and 'Nature' for the way they've handled global warming as a political topic?"

Posted by Al at March 12, 2005 12:01 PM

>>"..the next task should be to get John McCain out of the Senate...even if we have to replace him with a Democrat..."

That's more than a statement of opinion, that's an agenda item that should be familiar to any politician who has been targeted for defeat by ideologically driven out-of-state right-wingers.

>>"...who knew that the First Amendment, and freedom of speech, was a "right wing" issue?"

It isn't, but, then, I didn't say that. Nice scarecrow.

Posted by at March 12, 2005 12:02 PM

>>?...Since billg didn't object when leftists did that..."

How, whoever you are, do you presume to know what I do or do not object to? You seem to imagine that, if I criticize right-wing reactionaries, I must, by definition, be a "leftist" (not that there are many actual leftists in American politics). That's bogus reasoning conditioned, no doubt, by spending to many hours watching Fox.

Although he insists otherwise, Rand takes a right-wing stance. If he was wearing an Al Gore button and said the same thing, my comments would have been the same, except I would have use "left-wing" instead "right-wing".

The real danger comes from anyone, right or left, who is so convinced of the truth of their ideology that they let the ends they seek justify the means they use. It's an old story; you'd think people would catch on faster.

Posted by billg at March 12, 2005 12:11 PM

What "right-wing stance" is it that I take, Bill?

Favoring evolution being taught in the schools? Drug legalization? Being favorable to cloning, and free trade? Being indifferent to gay marriage?

Calling me "right wing" isn't arguing--it's just mindless name calling.

And what horrible "means" to my evil "ends" (i.e., wanting to protect freedom of expression) are you objecting to?

Sorry, but your little rants are coming off here as quite dumb.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2005 12:16 PM

To me Rand just seems to be a liberal but he has a republican party slant.

By 'liberal' I mean the original sense:
"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry".

Right-winged can mean a lot of things these days. As can left-winged. Especially in the USA, where one party has christian luddites mixed with free market progressives and the other has the backing of people who affirmative action is good and others which think narcotic use should be permissible.

Not many choices for a real liberal. Or a stalinist for that matter.

Posted by Gojira at March 12, 2005 12:52 PM

Rand is from Michigan, right? If he likes hockey that means Red Wings.

Posted by Bill White at March 12, 2005 02:25 PM

You can't imagine how uninterested I am in hockey.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2005 03:47 PM

Rand, I may be wrong, but haven't you written that you lean libertarian? I don't discern much difference between libertarianism and the current crop of right-wingers. I know they do.

I didn't accuse you of "evil" ends. But, I did say that what passes for the right-wing today has, among other things, targetted politicans for defeat when they fail an ideological litmus test. When a national political organization funds an attack on a member of Congress because he isn't adhering to the party line, that's the triumph of ends over means. And, when the ends are those of the right-wing of the Republican Party, they're evil ends as far as I'm concerned. If you say that's not you, fair enough.

Posted by billg at March 12, 2005 04:36 PM

Rand is the illegitimate love child of Neal Boortz, hasn't he told you?

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 12, 2005 05:54 PM

Rand, I may be wrong, but haven't you written that you lean libertarian? I don't discern much difference between libertarianism and the current crop of right-wingers.

I'm sorry that you're so politically unsophisticated as that comment implies. I'm not sure what I can do about that, except recommend that you continue to read my blog.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2005 06:29 PM

I signed the petition, even though there was a line in there that said something like "paid political speach should be regulated...".

Wrong.

I think that we should be protesting not for a media exemption, but we should be protesting any restriction on our free speech. McF is unconstitutional despite the fact that the s. court hasn't rendered it so in practice... yet.

I believe there are persons that understand this issue on both the left and the right. I am ready to join with those across the political spectrum to completely shatter McF.

--Fred

Posted by at March 13, 2005 01:10 AM

Here is some more muzzling of free speech for your pleasure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/technology/12blog.html

Posted by Gojira at March 13, 2005 08:06 AM

Its pretty funny watching folks try to pigeonhole Rand, and in the same breath define libertarians as conservative. Libertarians (small 'l') are probably pretty peaved right now at Repebublicans. I think most libertarians have to hold their nose when at the ballot box these days.
Rand,
Keep up the good work, whether you view a particular issue as left, righ up or down, you usually are pretty reasoned and thought out.

Hmm my url is of questionanable content ...

Posted by Liberty at March 13, 2005 08:33 AM

>>I'm sorry that you're so politically unsophisticated as that comment implies.

I'll leave it for others to worry about political sophistication. Meanwhile, I'll just say I believe the long-term impact of libertarians in power would be the triumph of the wealthy and powerful minority over the rest of us; ditto for the long-term impact of today's self-described conservatives and liberals.

Any ideologically rooted political movement will move in the direction of creating a governing elite that will coerce behavior to force it to correspond with their ideology.

The common, and great, failure of libertarianism. conservatism and liberalism is that they are all driven by ideology and belief. They all seek to use the power of the state to validate the correctness of their vision.

Posted by billg at March 13, 2005 11:22 AM

Uh, huh. Have you read anything about libertarianism? The entire point is to limit the power of the state to very specific bounds, allowing people more economic and personal freedom. It is often expressed as the concept that "your rights stop at my nose" - that is, if I'm not hurting you, you have no right to tell me how to live.

It is about as different from what passes for "liberalism" and "conservatism" in the U.S. today as you can get. Both main parties are quite happy with big government and legislating morality, they merely have different priorities within those areas.

For a mild introduction to libertarianism I might suggest "Free To Choose" by Milton and Rose Friedman. It focuses more on economics, but it gets the point across.

Posted by VR at March 13, 2005 02:47 PM

> How, whoever you are, do you presume to know what I do or do not object to?

By observing what billg does object to. He's free to point to a post where he did object or he can claim ignorance. Otherwise, he's guilty as charged.

As to who I am, I put my complete name on my posts. I'm sure that billg has a good reason....

> That's bogus reasoning conditioned, no doubt, by spending to many hours watching Fox.

Nope, I didn't watch much Fox the last two years as it was clear that my favorite football team was going to be quite bad. Things are looking up this year, but I don't know if I'm willing to watch mediocre.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 13, 2005 05:25 PM

> How, whoever you are, do you presume to know what I do or do not object to?

By observing what billg does object to. He's free to point to a post where he did object or he can claim ignorance. Otherwise, he's guilty as charged.

As to who I am, I put my complete name on my posts. I'm sure that billg has a good reason....

> That's bogus reasoning conditioned, no doubt, by spending to many hours watching Fox.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 13, 2005 05:26 PM

> How, whoever you are, do you presume to know what I do or do not object to?

By observing what billg does object to. He's free to point to a post where he did object or he can claim ignorance. Otherwise, he's guilty as charged.

As to who I am, I put my complete name on my posts. I'm sure that billg has a good reason....

> That's bogus reasoning conditioned, no doubt, by spending to many hours watching Fox.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 13, 2005 05:27 PM

VR: I'm aware of libertarianism's distinguishing features. But, I don't believe a society organized along those lines would remain true to libertarian ideals unless the state stepped in to compel and coerce behavior that accorded with libertarian beliefs. That's my basic issue with any political system premised on an ideology that presumes to know how the world works, whether thantideology is libertarianism, conservativism, liberalism, Marxism, etc. People do not, will not, behave in accordance with any single ideology. Any state rooted in an ideology will eventually seek to force behavior that the state's ideology says is appropriate.

Andy: The comment I replied to had no name attached.

Posted by billg at March 13, 2005 06:23 PM

Bilge, you're dismissing any "ideology that presumes to know how the world works" -- on what, then, do you base your view of what government should and should not do?

Posted by McGehee at March 13, 2005 06:52 PM

> Andy: The comment I replied to had no name attached.

Fair enough, but that still leaves whether billg/Moby is going to cite a counter-example, claim ignorance, or a cop a plea.

Posted by Andy Freeman at March 14, 2005 08:44 AM

McGehee,
I suspect his answer would be that all decisions are done as a plebiscite. This is the one that had me laughing so hard I fell out of my chair:

unless the state stepped in to compel and coerce behavior that accorded with libertarian beliefs.

In my experience if you had two libertarians in the room you'd end up with at least 5 different "belief" systems.

Posted by Michael Mealling at March 14, 2005 08:58 AM

If I remember correctly no one ran against him. In the last election.

Posted by ryan at March 14, 2005 10:59 AM

I'll have to think about this one. Politicians don't listen to o-n-l-i-ne petitions for one, and for another, my right to free speech isn't based on the fact that I'm a part of the "media".

Posted by Eric the .5b at March 16, 2005 10:34 AM

I agree, John McCain, is nothing more than a waffeling Political drug addict, seeking any kind of publicity he can get, he isn't a Republican he isn't a Democrat so what the heck is he? A PAIN IN THE BUTT, this self inflated ego of his, must be from the Neopolean era, Short and ego driven. You can't tell which side of the fence he is on. I love his comments about Hilary, they will bit him in the butt when he decides to run for President. Hilary will use that quote over and over to be him. That show's the stupidity of this man, he should know better as a politican. I having run for Congress Know full well, whatever you say, always comes back to haunt you. I am so glad he made that comment that ensures us he will never be President. This little Dictator....

Posted by Jerry Hall at March 17, 2005 05:03 AM

Post a comment