[KLUG Advocacy] RE: CIPA unconstitutional -- my simple idea ...

[Adam Williams]

>>And corporations have an entirely diffrent agenda than a library.
>Correct.
>>I like this "select a filter" idea,  and it actually would be trivial to 
>>implement using something like squid.  But it doesn't solve the "computer 
>>next to me" problem.  The person to my right may view something I find 
>>offensive, I'll see it out of the corner of my eye, and I'll be offended 
>>(Oh my!).  This may help,  but in the end I still think it is just a 
>>"problem" we are going to have to live with. 
>That's why certain filters (or lackthereof) can be regulated to a
>private room.

Possibly,  but keeping-the-peace in a separate room is going to require you to 
pay someone to sit there and monitor the situation.

>>Oh no!  The NEA is not for the Democratic Party?  I often vote for 
>>Democrats, and my wife is a public school teacher.  The NEA is way too 
>>stupid, backward, and ignorant to be "for" anyone, at least successfully.  
>Okay, I'll meet you there.  But they still favor the Democrats heavily.

In Michigan this is very true "officially" although a lot of individual
administrators seem to swing the other way.  Might have something to do
with the fact that our governor (Republican) actually showed up to
arrest striking teachers in his first term,  but he has really wimped
out since then.  That won him a lot of support, as public school
employees are down their with dead fish on the popularity scale (at
least in GR).  But at least dead fish are good for dinner,  while the
GRPS may loose its upcoming millage **renewal**!  (Which while it stinks
for the school system, is a REALLY much deserved swift kick to the
head).

>>I'm a "liberal" but I certainly wish they didn't consider themselves in my 
>>camp.  The only thing the NEA is "for" is the bloated egos of the educrats 
>>that make up their board.
>Now you know what us Libertarians must feel about the Republican party. 
>there are so many Libertarians locked up in a Republican party that
>still fails to realize you canNOT legislate morality.

<RANT>There (very simplisticly) are really only two legitimate parties -
Libertarian and Socialist.  Real debates can happen within the context
of or between those two groups, the Republican/Democrat mess is people
who want the benefits of one or both of those ethics
(Libertarian/Socialist) without paying any of its cost.  Obviously that
glosses over a lot of real issues, but (IMHO) neither of the two 'major'
parties represent a consistent or clear political philosophy, system, or
even statement.  You end up with candidates that are Republican or
Democrat simply because they say they are.  In Michigan at least it is
really hard to tell them apart from their voting records.</RANT>

>>But it doesn't help the small fringe groups that can't afford to 
>>onstruct their own lists, or (some by their very nature) don't have a 
>>cental organ to do so.
>That was my point -- they need to rely on large organizations to help
>them.

Which in the end seems unworkable,  the large organizations will want to
be paid.

>>I hope the Michigan Department of Ed doesn't try.  Oh my gosh.... Please!
>>Send in the corporotists.
>Okay, I understand.  I feel Florida would be more of the same too.
>>Hmm,  I'm not sure thats what freedom is about.  But thats another thread.
>Yeah, I hear you.
>It's too bad your a Democrat though.  ;-P  

But I'm not, I just frequently vote for them.  I want the government to
govern: that is provide a working infrastructure openly available to all
citizens.  A decent minimum wage, clean air & water, assurance that food
is safe, health care, transportation, etc...  And that, once provided,
to get out of the way.  I'd happily pay $150 a month in additional taxes
for a workable public transit system.  Pragmatically, I'd still come out
ahead!  In 2002 in a city of >1 million people, that I have to own and
maintain a vehicle to travel 2.2 miles a day is NUTS!   Currently public
transit is the biggest infrastructure problem (here at least). 
Emissions tests make it even more expensive for lower income people to
operate their (typically) older vehicles, and we are building a new
freeway through town.  I'm all for emissions test,  but think how much
emissions would drop if we locked most automobiles out of downtown
areas!  Our all wise city fathers are building a 20,000+ capacity
conference center and new hotels with *0* additional parking 20+ miles
from the airport.  This conference center (assuming someone is crazy
enough to want to hold a conference in a facility no one can get too)
will provide lots of lower-income non or low skill jobs.  But the
potential employees can't get there either.  This a Democrat/Republican
issue?  Its just DUMB!  But neither party will touch it.  The people
with the power (money) drive SUVs and wouldn't get on a bus/train/tram
with "those" people anyway, so nothing happens.  (In GR, the mayor
doesn't even have to be elected, unless he has a 'significant'
opponent,  but don't even get me started on that).

>But you gotta love W. and all the spending he's doing.  

I'd be happier if his spending didn't involve indiscriminately killing
people.

>Basically Gore v. W. was the same deal, both
>from old money.  Except you've got one guy who's a hypocrite and too
>self-promoting, and another guy that was spoiled, but man enough to
>admit he's made mistakes.

So which is which?

>Ack, I didn't even like the Libertarian candidate, Harry Brown.  If the
>Republicans would put up Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes or Jack Kemp (in that
>order of preference), I'd vote for them -- let alone Powell.

Yes, you guys really need to dump Mr. Brown.