Author: Kellie Bartoli

Someone might want to tell Rep. Peter King (R–NY)  about the huge problems facing the nation and world today – maybe then we wouldn’t have to suffer through another worthless proposal.

Recently, King sponsored H.R.414, the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act. Essentially, the bill would ban a silent mode when taking a picture with a cell phone.

The act “requires[s] any mobile phone containing a digital camera to sound a tone whenever a photograph is taken.” Furthermore, such a tone should be “audible within a reasonable radius of the phone.”

According to the market research organization NPD Group, 83 percent of cell phones sold in 2008 were equipped with built-in cameras.

King has not commented publicly about the Camera Phone Predator Act since it was introduced on Jan. 9. His language in the bill, however, speaks volumes.

According to the bill, “Congress finds that children and adolescents have been exploited by photographs taken in dressing rooms and public places with the use of a camera phone.”

Where, may I ask, are these kids shopping?

Every once in a while, you do hear stories about customers being filmed while changing in a store’s fitting rooms. But in those cases, the victims are filmed with a hidden camera that records every movement not a grainy, still shot from a cell phone.

Perhaps King’s heart is in the right place, but his proposal doesn’t do enough. If it really wants to protect unsuspecting children (and adults, I might add), it shouldn’t limit itself to cell phone cameras.

Personally, I’m more suspicious of other recording devices. Almost everyone has a digital camera, and it seems that other digital video recorders, like the Flip Video for instance are getting smaller and more discreet by the minute.

Even King himself acknowledged that the plan isn’t infallible when he said to Congress: “An audible tone can at least help warn people that they’re being surreptitiously photographed. Is it foolproof? No. But it is an extra layer of protection, that warning signal.”

If passed, the United States would join Japan and Korea on the list of countries with such a law.

In an interview with ABC News, Sascha Segan, lead analyst for mobile devices at PCMag Digital Network, explained that in Japan and Korea, the cell phone camera law was passed in response to the growing number of occurrences of “underskirting.”

For those of you who don’t know, “underskirting” is when men, usually on a crowded train or bus, position their camera phone under women’s skirts and take pictures. Segan also says that a similar problem, cleverly called “downblosuing,” is also a problem. (Just a side note – I guess Tracy Jordan was right about “sharking” being popular in Japan. “30 Rock,” anyone?

The frequency of these incidents forced Japanese and Korean governments to act. Apple wasn’t even allowed to sell the iPhone in Japan until the camera’s silent mode was disabled. But, says Segan, in the United States, “this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. …I haven’t seen any reputable source saying that there’s a major problem with secretly taken dirty camera phone photos.”

Don’t look for this law to pass anytime soon, though. King has yet to pick up any co-sponsors in the month-plus since the bill was introduced. It looks as though this act will follow the path of King’s 2007 version of the act - and that’s nowhere fast. 

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Open a newspaper or turn on the TV over the past year, and two things are sure to bombard you: “going green” and the recession. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) certainly seemed to notice the trend, as evidence by her latest proposal, S.224, the “Green Jobs and Infrastructure Act of 2009.” 

The bill aims to invest in national green technology and create green jobs. According to Stabenow, “…We can create good-paying, middle class American jobs. This legislation will invest in green technology, innovation and production, here at home, to ensure we don’t move from a dependence on foreign oil to a dependence on foreign technology.”

Well played, Senator. Bringing together hot topics and the hunger for jobs has garnered much attention for the bill, not to mention outspoken support from Green For All, the Corps Network, the Center for American Progress and many others.

The collaboration doesn’t stop there. Recently, Stabenow led 18 Senators in the drafting of letters to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Senate Appropriations Committee – and one Mr. Barack Obama.

In her letter  to the then president-elect, Stabenow writes: “This investment would create millions of new jobs in the immediate future, help end our dependence on foreign oil, rebuild our manufacturing sector, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions…”

S.224 certainly backs up Stabenow’s words. The bill has some mighty objectives for the next year alone, including $2.3 billion in residential and commercial energy savings, $56.55 billion in federal investments in energy efficiency and green-collar jobs, $120 billion in industry revenue, and 334,00 direct and 908,600 indirect jobs. Listen carefully and I think you can hear cheers from the unemployment line.

Now I know what you’re thinking: “Oh really? I’d like to see that happen.” Well, the bill’s creators anticipated your question, and extensively listed their goals and how to achieve them. 

The 13-page proposal features four key points, the first of which is “Clean Technology Manufacturing Incentives Program.” Under this provision, manufactures would receive loans to produce or improve clean technology and low carbon products and operate more efficiently. This alone would help rebuild American manufacturing and in turn, create at least 250,000 manufacturing jobs and up to 725,000 indirect jobs. And keeping with the times, loans will be given with “priority to those facilities that are located in regions with the highest unemployment.”

The second point in the plan is the research and development of advanced batteries. Nearly $1 billion is appropriated to the production of battery technologies like lithium ion and hybrid electric systems.

S.224 also calls for a “green jobs” training program, and sets aside $6.25 million to provide grants to non-profits and other organizations to train workers on energy efficiency and technology.

Finally, under the energy efficiency and conservation block provision, cities and states can earn grants to promote and develop alternative energy usage and efficiency. This has all the makings to kick start countless projects nationwide and the potential to create 60,000 construction, 24,000 manufacturing and 183,000 indirect jobs – and it comes with a $10 billion price tag.

 Whether the bill passes is anyone’s guess but with Stabenow’s legislative track record, my money’s on her. 

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Video games may soon resemble a pack of cigarettes if Reps. Joe Baca, (D-CA), and Frank Wolf, (R-VA), get their way.

The pair recently co-sponsored H.R. 231, which aims to “require certain warning labels…be placed on video games that are given certain ratings due to violent content.”

Essentially, the congressmen want to slap a Surgeon’s General-style warning on any deemed-violent video game that is rated T (Teen) or higher. There are only two stronger ratings – M (Mature) and AO (Adults Only).

According to the Entertainment Software Rating Board, games rated for teens are meant for those 13 and older, and “may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.”

The bill calls for such video game covers to carry a clear and prominent label that reads: “WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.”

Oh, where to begin.

It seems to make sense at first, but the more I think about it, the more questions flood my mind. 

Number one: Where is this scientific research linking video game violence to aggression?

In November, the Washington Post reported on a new study that claims a link between the two. The article goes on, however, to quote Texas A&M psychology professor Christopher Ferguson, who noted “‘numerous flaws and called into question ‘the meaningfulness of the study.’” I’m personally inclined to agree with Ferguson. How can we accurately measure “aggressive behavior” and in turn, link it to video games? The only correlations I’ve seen are based on a questionable report and a few episodes of “Law and Order: Special Victims Unit.” Not exactly scientific.

Secondly, what is “aggressive behavior” after all? I grew up with two sisters, so babysitting two active boys came as quite a shock.  But, as others have told me, that’s only “roughhousing.”

So maybe my definition of aggression is a little narrower. But a case can be made that many normal activities promote aggressive behavior. Just look at football! So should “Monday Night Football” begins its programming with a warning, just in case children want to recreate what they saw?

Here’s what I really don’t understand. Parents and advocacy groups are quick to blame video games for violence. What then, was the scapegoat before video games were even invented?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy – they terrorized the nation long before the advent of video games, let alone violent ones.

Aggression is an innate sensibility, and it is up to an individual to lash out or not. If seeing violence on a screen will lead to hostile behavior, we better pull the plug on countless television shows and movies – not to mention the evening news.

It is the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children’s activities as they see fit. However, according to the Parents Television Council, “90 percent of teenagers say that their parents never check the video game ratings before allowing them to rent or buy computer or video games.”  So why doesn’t Congress redirect its efforts and work to solve the problems at hand?

Here’s my plan – let’s just stick to the classics like Tetris and Paperboy. Problem solved.

Author: Sarah Riordan

Tim Williams is the safety and security manager at a propane gas facility in Lynn Creek, MO.  Lynn Creek is a tiny town in the center of Missouri, however, Williams is anything but a small-town man.  With two degrees and a passion for the arts, Williams tries to stay current.  This is no easy quest, because Williams only has access to dial up internet.  

 To all the city folks out there, not having high-speed internet is about as foreign a concept as not having indoor plumbing.  Believe it or not, in the year 2009, there are people who, in order to get online service have to use their phone line.  Now you may be sarcastically thinking, “Oh, poor people, they don’t have fast internet.”  If those are your thoughts however, you have clearly never tried checking your e-mail using dial up…you’ll be there all day.

“My internet is so slow, that I can’t even get access to important work files.  There are a lot of safety forms I have to fill out, and at home, my computer is too slow to even look over them.  If I don’t fill them out, I’m fined.   I must travel to my sister’s law office to use her internet,” Williams said.

For those many Americans like Williams out there who suffer through dialup daily, former Congressman Thomas Allen (D-ME) has your back.  He was sponsoring a bill, H.R. 5682, which draws attention to the fact that not all Americans have access to broadband and DSL.  In fact, around 34 percent of Americans still use dial up according to a report conducted by Fox News. 

Usually bills that propose giving something to someone else means that the money given is taken from…the taxpayer.  When reviewing each and every bill, it’s always a good idea to ask yourself if providing this service to others is worth using tax dollars.  In the grand scheme of things…you know…war, roads, police officers, is Broadband really worth using that money? Well, the beauty of Allen’s proposal is that it actually won’t cost the general public a thing.

Allen states in the bill, that Broadband and DSL services should be given tax breaks for going into rural areas.  This way, DSL and Broadband have incentive to expand their horizons. As a result, companies who take high-speed internet to small towns will get a tax break, and more business. 

Granted, not all of America is desperate for high-speed.  MSNBC sites research that states 14 percent of dial up users say they have no desire to switch to something faster. However, the survey was taken in New York City.  Those people already have access, they just choose to torment themselves daily by not using it.  The survey didn’t reach small towns in America where people have no option other than using dialup.  It’s all about providing all citizens with options.

In the end, it’s not a bad idea.   No one is forcing people to use high-speed internet, but for goodness sake, let the people who need it, get it!  

Williams really wanted to read this article, but because he can’t visit websites that have photos or video, he unfortunately, will not be able to.  

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

For the constitutionally challenged, the above paragraph is the 1st Amendment of The United States Constitution. Now, it’s pretty straight forward, but for some members of Congress like Harry Reid the 1st Amendment is apparently a little hazy.

It’s no secret that conservative radio personalities are far more successful than their liberal competitors. According to Rush Limbaugh.com, Limbaugh rakes in 20 million viewers weekly. Air America, one of the few liberal radio stations available failed due to financial difficulties and lack of listenership. Now, Air America is giving it a second shot, and conveniently enough, just in time for liberal members of Congress to push for a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. 

The Fairness Doctrine was enforced by the FCC when radio first came into existence. The Reagan administration found the doctrine to be a violation of the 1st Amendment, and abolished the act.

In a post Fairness Doctrine world, talk radio has become predominantly conservative. It’s not because the air waves have a strong bias, but because there is simply no audience for liberal radio. The world may never know why, but that’s just the case.

A Preemptive Fairness Doctrine Initiative

Republican Congressmen and women have joined together to present a bill that will prevent anything similar to the Fairness Doctrine from being instated. The bill, H.R. 2905, is short and to the point. It simply says in one extended paragraph that under no condition should the Fairness Doctrine or anything that sounds similar make it as law.

Reasons for opposing the bill go beyond freedom of speech (Though that alone should be enough). Reinstating the doctrine would also cause a virtual accounting nightmare. Imagine radio stations having to hire people simply to track how many hours, minutes and seconds are dedicated to a specific political party. The notion is ridiculous beyond comprehension. The fact that the government would be monitoring what a radio station is allowed to put on the air screams a word hated by all Americans, “Censorship!”

That’s why H.R. 2905 is an extremely important bill. It’s all about the slippery slope. If we give Congress the power to monitor what goes on radio and television stations, Congress should also be able to monitor and control the editorial sections of all newspapers. For that matter, why shouldn’t Congress be able to control everyone’s opinion? I better stop writing now before I’m cuffed and taken away. This is just another example of the government becoming entirely too large, and sticking its hand in places where it doesn’t belong.

So, the Conservatives are attempting to slap that hand away, and pass a bill that will protect our first amendment rights. This bill goes back to the founding fathers who hoped to prevent a future where citizens were unable to speak openly. The fact that anyone could even consider promoting such a direct violation of the most treasured Amendment to the United States Constitution is simply devastating.

Author: Sarah Riordan

You’re in a clothing store in the middle of winter, and you walk into the dressing room to try on a pair of jeans.  As you’re walking into the dressing room, you notice the man taking a shirt he just tried on, and stuffing it under his coat.  You’re the only one who witnessed this, so you tell an employee, and let the robber face the consequences of his less than honorable actions.  You did the right thing, and as a law abiding citizen, you then pay for your jeans and head home.

When you get home, you sit down to check your e-mail.   As Long as you’re online, you head to Pirate Bay or Limewire, and download some of the songs you feel your iTunes library is missing.   You don’t even think twice about the act of downloading music and movies because it doesn’t feel wrong.  No one will report you, and you’re certainly not going to be arrested.  So you now have your music, and you go about your daily business.

There is a massive disconnect between stealing something from a store, and downloading music from your home.  In truth however, the two are not all that different.  So why is downloading so acceptable?

Though Congress cannot be blamed for law enforcement failing to prosecute downloading offenders, they can be blamed for making unenforceable laws.  Because the bills that have already been passed are so broad in definition, they are possible to enforce.  Therefore, stealing and downloading are not considered synonymous. 

Though Congressman Keller  (R-Fl) may have the best of intentions outlined in his bill, H.R. 1689, like nearly all other laws regarding downloading, it will most likely be a law issued, but never enforced.

Keller’s bill focuses more specifically on college campuses.  He suggests in the bill that colleges start programs that will prohibit the downloading of music and movies.  The bill states that there has recently been a drastic increase in downloading on college campuses.  Though this seems to be a likely assumption, it distracts from the real problem at hand; everyone is downloading and no one is doing a thing about it.

Aside from downloading, there is the massive problem of file sharing.  When bills prohibiting downloading music first came before the courts, file sharing was not included in the list of illegal activities.  This makes sense because file sharing can have many different definitions.  The courts most likely didn’t want to face cases where a daughter makes a mix CD for her parents and is then arrested for sharing her music files.  The fear of having to very specifically define file sharing however, has allowed websites like Limewire to get away with…well…downloading.  That’s another thing that Keller’s bill fails to define.  Though file sharing is included in what should be prohibited, Keller never defines what file sharing is. 

If Congress is truly serious about stopping the downloading problem, they need to stop making petty little laws that have a lot of bark, but no possibility of a bite.  Congress needs to sit down and carefully go over the problem.  Asking our legislators to actually think something through as a group seems unlikely, but that’s really what needs to be done.  Millions of people are stealing daily, and the government can’t quite figure out what to do about it. Until they do, people will continue downloading.    Sure, Congress can put out hundreds of bills saying that something is illegal, but until they make laws that can be acted on, Keller’s will just be a waste of paper. 

Author: Jared Fallon

America’s passenger rail system is failing. For such a vast nation that can be considered the Saudi Arabia of coal potential, it is surprising that the “largest and most technologically powerful economy” in the world has dreadfully fallen behind nearly all of the world’s most advanced economies. It is far too common to find questions similar to freelance writer Ben Jervey’s: “Europe and Asia have figured it out, so why is the American rail system still so unspeakably awful?” Despite the fact that gas prices are at an amazingly low point, most experts agree that this is most likely the last time Americans will see such prices.  Senator John Kerry (D-MA) believes he is about to start a revolution for change – a long-time-needed proposal known as S.3700.

According to Kerry, there are a host of problems that need to be addressed. The most immediate is lost efficiency due to widespread highway congestion. According to his findings, this “…congestion, which is increasing every year, annually costs our Nation’s economy $78,000,000,000, 2,900,000,000 gallons of wasted fuel, and 4,200,000,000 lost hours of productivity.” When considering that many EU nations spend nearly 20 times more than the US on intercity rail, one should question why policymakers wouldn’t wish to address such a massive structural imbalance. Kerry considers the environment to be the other most significant reason for change.

“Rail travel could potentially reduce the effect of greenhouse gas emissions generated by travel between cities that are between 100 and 500 miles apart… by 80 percent with airplanes…and by 21 percent compared with automobiles.” Additionally, railroad systems are statistically less dangerous in terms of fatalities than automobiles – estimates claim railway use to be as much as 96% percent safer. After reviewing said findings in S.3700, most Americans would be hard put to offer quality arguments against such a proposal.

Kerry seeks to establish the “Office of High Speed Passenger Rail”, which would reside under the Federal Railroad Administration. The office would be responsible for consulting with the Secretary of Transportation to determine the financing of such a large proposal. Despite the fact that Kerry’s proposal is extremely vague (i.e. lack of specified location, guarantee of technological standards) the Massachusetts Senator wishes to maintain two hefty spending limits: $10 billion for “super high-speed intercity rail facility bonds” and $5.4 billion for “rail infrastructure bonds” – leaning on a multi-faceted strategy of utilizing free market innovation and government panel findings. To review the specific provisions, follow this link.

Yes, these numbers are extremely high – especially as America is facing the worst unemployment numbers in nearly three decades, but drastic problems call for drastic solutions. America’s railway system will need to be addressed sooner rather than later, and would most beneficially be addressed before fuel prices spike once again and being to create financial panic among such an automobile-dependent nation.  Even though Americans have never been too fond of public transport, an updated, technologically advanced, and dedicated railway system would not only help provide a stronger American infrastructural backbone, but would also produce many short term benefits in terms of American productivity and air quality.

Author: Jared Fallon

At a time when many parents are concerned about the widespread and increasing amount of video game use, a major state-sponsored video game initiative is about to take place. Beginning in 2010, the US Army plans to pour $50 million dollars into developing battlefield simulation videogames in order to help prepare troops for combat. The idea behind such a program is certainly nothing new, but when considering the sheer amount of investment the Army is going to make, it is certain that many companies within the industry are doing back flips with the increased potential for private contracts for merely making shooting your cyber enemies as life-like as possible.

Currently, there is a lot of support in the House to conduct research initiatives into the health affects video games have on children. Such video game legislation is largely viewed as polar opposites to military policies like these. Such bills include Joe Baca’s H.R.2958, a bill that has support from many legislators who feel there is far too heavy an imbalance favoring first-person shooter and violence-based games. Furthermore, many parents advocate groups are pushing bills to tighten industry standards for video game ratings and their lure to teens – most notably including games that often are criticized for encouraging violence as a solution for domestic issues. For advocates in this realm, the $50 million dollar initiative is seen as an extreme set-back for these efforts, only strengthening the mind frame of American children to incorporate such violent games into their everyday lives. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition for the term security states it is “the quality or state of being secure: as A: freedom from danger: Safety b: freedom from fear and anxiety”.  We all strive for a secure environment. A place safe from predators and anything else that may cause us harm. Generally, we are able to live our lives without too much fear of our safety being compromised.

Some of that security has been shaken, however, in recent years due to events such as 9/11 and the recent economic crisis, which has created a feeling of insecurity for those who may lose their homes.  Although a breach within our secure parameters has usually been of physical or mental form, today’s technology allows that breach of security to go one step further into the virtual plane. As most people today own a cell phone or subscribe to the internet, many of us are vulnerable to the curious and even dangerous minds within the virtual world. The President-elect remains no exception.

Recently, Verizon Wireless had to fire an undisclosed amount of employees, who were connected to a breach of records from a cell phone that was used by President-elect Barack Obama. According to Verizon, the employees are “hired to take care of customers” and Verizon’s standards for taking care of customers do not include employees snooping through phone records when they are not authorized to do so by the customer. The phone was a simple flip phone, which is no longer used by Obama. Although the employees could not read any text messages or listen to any voice mail that the phone may have received or sent out, they probably had access to the dates and times of calls, the lengths of the phone calls, and telephone numbers.

There is an investigation currently underway to determine whether the information acquired was shared only between the employees or if any of the information leaked outside the company. Employees will face the “appropriate disciplinary action…up to and including termination”, as indicated by Lowell McAdam.  Ars Technica stated that the employee’s actions fall outside the coverage policy of privacy laws because the laws generally only cover the content of communications, such as voicemail, and not the type of data they were able to access. The security breach follows speculations and concerns about security risks and compliance with federal laws, such as the Presidential Records Act, within the new administration. 

Author: Jared Fallon

US automakers have been falling behind foreign competitors at an increasingly rapid rate over the past few years. Once the Japanese engineering genius Toyota was able to conquer the SUV/Truck market in the states Detroit’s Big Three began to see drastic decreases in sales, customer loyalty, and ever-needed funding for a host of projects. These issues of concern include greatly needed energy-efficient technology research and development (such as hybrid or renewable fuels) and increasing numbers of US employee layoffs, early retirement packages, and decreased healthcare benefits. At a time when the looming financial crisis is threatening the prosperity of the world’s economic growth and a host of US industries, one US legislator is seeking to throw taxpayer money at encouraging people to buy automobiles made within the US.

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has a bill currently pending in its respective committee as of last Friday “To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a one-time, $1,500 credit against income tax for an automobile manufactured in the United States.” H.R.7303’s official title is the “Consumer and Automotive Recovery Act of 2008”. The idea behind the proposal is along the same vein of the massive amounts of government bailouts requested since Mac and Mae, much like the $50 billion in loans Detroit is asking Congress to provide. Louie’s proposal is strong in good-natured intent, but only achieves three primary goals: helping US consumers in the short run, helping ALL automaker companies that manufacture within the US, and offering partial assistance in the preservation of a small percentage of auto manufacturer’s American employees. Furthermore, much like Bush’s stimulus pack, the bill would be funded merely by taking money away from Americans in order to reward the Americans that choose to spend their money on a new vehicle.  

As Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrystler continue to lead the initaive for the proposed bailout one should question the effect such a proposal would have that offers no safeguards for the $1,500 tax credit to be used for the purchase of foreign companies manufacturing in the US. The two plants that come to mind immediately is Toyota’s hyper-green 2,000 employee San Antonio plant or the Japanese company’s 7,000 employee plant located in Georgetown, Kentucky. While Louie’s efforts would help ensure the American workers’ jobs within such plants, it would be counter-intuitive as to the progress and assistance that US auto manufacturers truly are need of in today’s increasingly hostile climate.

At this point, greater economic benefit would be seen by redirecting our collective efforts on helping regain the once-famous Detroit company supremacy companies such as Ford and GM once had. While Gohmert’s idea may be well intended, such policies should be aimed more towards increasing US companies’ research, development, and overall competiveness before they begin supplying unneeded momentum for foreign automakers. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Most Americans would agree that the FDA has failed us in many ways, from overregulation of products to under-regulation of many more.  On one side, researchers claim bad reactions to FDA-approved prescription drugs kill or seriously injure many Americans every year. On the other side, pharmaceutical companies are quick to push the FDA to approve their new drugs. Without effective research and studies on the long-term effects of these products, the consumer becomes the lab rat under the FDA stamp of approval.

Senator Judd Gregg is sponsoring S.596, a bill “To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of Internet Pharmacies.” Certainly, unlicensed people have web sites that are unregulated and could be contaminated or modified. Some online hoaxes could cause more harm to the patient, and is why this bill would increase enforcement on licensing laws and inspection requirements. However, many more internet pharmacies verify the prescription and prescribing doctor, are more convenient, more affordable, and follow up on the patient than walk-in pharmacies are commonly criticized for.

“The FDA serves as the pharmaceutical industry’s watchdog, which can be called upon to attack and destroy a potential competitor under the guise of protecting the public,” says James P. Carter, M.D. The FDA’s new focus on these internet pharmaceutical providers seems to become interference for competition of pharmaceutical pharmacies than if they were left to their own devices. The FDA’s new focus on these internet pharmaceutical providers not only would cause uproar among online pharmacies, but would also set precedence for a new level of government intervention across the web. This bill would leave the door wide open for other governmental agencies to step-in when deemed most convenient and regulate other areas of commerce, most likely including EPA-related affairs and online tax consulting companies by the ever-efficient IRS. If S.596 were to pass, be prepared for widespread adoption of increased government intervention across the net and yet another example of where the FDA becomes exactly what it claims it claiming to defeat.  

Author: Jared Fallon

Back in 2008, many journalists’ predicted that other states would start following New York/Amazon’s decision to start charging tax for all citizens within the state ordering from Amazon.com, which, in turn, would lead to possible Federal taxes for such purchases. New York’s policy began on June 1 of this year and marks the supposed end of tax-free e-commerce – a movement that began taking full momentum at the beginning of the year. The approach for states’ efforts for charging an e-tax has been proposed and debated over the two most recent National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and has been reviewed with favor from influential people such as Neal Olsten, federal affairs counsel for NCSL. When asked about an pro e-commerce tax policies Olsten was quoted saying “We’ve heard encouraging words from the Democratic Leadership in the House.”

More recently, tax-advocacy groups and lobbyists have pursued such actions, largely claiming that states need the potential millions of dollars in profits that they are missing out by allowing such purchases to continue being tax free. Verenda Smith, associate of the Federation of Tax Administrators, takes a more absurd humorous patriotic route. “Do you want to be a good American, or do you want to be an American who wants to cheat your government deliberately? It’s a harsh way to look at it, but it’s true.” Considering the fact that being a “good” American has a direct correlation with a pay raise for Verenda,  she should read Carnegie’s “How To Win Friends and Influence People” next time she decides to make public comments that are more embarrassing to herself than condemning of the general public. One senator aims to limit such restrictions, and hopes to help keep the internet free, at least to some degree.

Kentucky’s Jim Bunning (R) is proposing S.3670, a plan to regulate certain State and local taxation of e-commerce. Despite the fact that Bunning’s proposal does not address taxation for citizens making purchases within their respective state, it is refreshing to see bills that do not encourage such legislation. More dialogue must be created about such proposals to help encourage online purchases to remain free of such impositions. In recent times, other proposals to limit e-commerce from being taxed are gaining as little momentum as Bunning’s, receiving few (if any) co-sponsors. Action must be taken to, at the very least, limit the amount of jurisdiction states have over such transactions.  

Bunning, a former Major League Baseball pitcher, seems to have been batting 100 in the realm of e-commerce for consumers…we need more with the same mindset in Congress if there are any hopes to keep taxation from reaching the invisible but intrinsic borders of e-commerce. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite the fact that it can be fun to find you’ve won $5,000,000 inheritance from your now deceased uncle in Nigeria or are offered to buy a 2008 oil tanker, there is currently a bill on the table that would make such emails a civil crime. According to Gartner, Inc., an IT industry research and advisory company, “between August 2006 and August 2007, roughly 3,500,000 United States computer users were victims of phishing scams, and suffered losses totaling $3,200,000,000.” Spam is something we all hate to love, but despite the fact that it can be…fun… several US senators are trying to make such acts worthy of a conviction and hefty crime.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME), backed by Bill Nelson and the convicted felon/Congressmen Ted Stevens, are proposing S.2661, a bill that would allow the FCC to determine and enforce whether or not you’ve been “phishing”. Senator Snowe estimates that 59,000,000 phishing emails are sent per day with nearly 1/6 actually being opened by the recipients. Under section 3 of the bill, “Phishing; Related Deceptive Practices” the enforcement outlines up to $2,000,000 in penalties if a person is found knowingly identifying false or misleading information. The bill seems to weigh especially heavy if a person is found misrepresenting a government division, despite the fact that non profits, business, and other entities are covered. In addition, the jail time for such a conviction can last up to 5 years – a long enough time to make people think twice as to whether or not it’s truly worth the risk to offer Viagra at cost. Even though it’s always nice to see you can make free long distance calls to your aunt in China or that Mike Smith (a long time friend of everybody’s) has found a new job for you and only requires your birthdate and social security number in return, your inbox may not be quite as full a year or so from now.

Author: Jared Fallon

Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) has a proposal on the table aiming to “prohibit text message spam”. Smith gave his bill the name the “Do-Not-Text Act of 2008” – a rather strange title for a proposal that aims at cutting down the nuisance frequently mirrored in your inbox. The bill’s enforcement is accomplished by amending the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, which allows The Department of Justice to fine up to $11,000 per violation, as overseen by the FCC.  Smith also seeks to amend the Communications Act of 1934, using the Act as grounds for prior authorization for sending “service commercial messages”. The seven page bill currently has 3 cosponsors, including Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Olympia Snowe – the latter currently proposing similar legislation to make sending spam over email a civil crime punishable up to $2,000,000. Smith’s bill is currently in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and certainly is worth reviewing.

For those following Senator Smith’s GOP track record, despite the fact that he received 70% of the primary vote when re-running for office in 2008, he was rumored supporting Senator Obama in the presidential race. Accusations were first made after Smith tied his campaign to several of Obama’s ads in the attempt to reach young voters in Oregon. Regardless, Smith’s track record shows an overall trend of being more issue-oriented, as evidenced by this proposal being endorsed by 1 republican and 2 democrats.

Author: Jared Fallon

Solar energy developments have been extremely rampant as of late across both the private and the public sector. Over the past few months the state of Hawaii has made solar water heaters mandatory beginning in 2010, The Department of Energy’s contracted company Boeing-Spectrolab achieved a world-breaking 40.7% sunlight-to-electricity conversion efficiency, and IKEA has announced plans to dedicated $77 million to its GreenTech energy fund. Developments have taken off and a plethora of proposed legislation have hit the ground running. Older concerns for lack of interest in solar energy seem to no longer be given even a passing thought as investment has increased from both foreign and overseas entrepreneurs and companies alike. The next groundbreaking development may be about to unfold.

The US Army announced its intentions to build the most powerful solar energy power plant in the world. The push for development has come about as a part of the United State’s increasing worries over its addiction to foreign oil and all around fossil fuel dependence. Despite the fact that this push is long overdue, it is refreshing none-the-less to see such an increase of interest from the DOD. On October 6, 2008 the US Army announced it would “partner with the private sector to construct a 500-megawatt solar thermal plant at Fort Irwin, California, in the Mojave Desert, that will provide renewable power on the grid and provide the sprawling Army post with added energy security against disruption of power supply.” Seeing that the Department of Defense is the world’s largest energy consuming entity, any relief from up to $400 per gallon fuel costs would help give it an edge in deployment and operational capacities.

The policy is paired with other plans on the part of the US government to boost its solar energy development and production. Other legislative topics of interest on the solar energy front include a host of renewable energy research and development plans, a bill to “authorize the National Science Foundation to award a monetary prize for achievement in electricity storage” (H.R.6882), and a proposal to establish a joint cooperation program with the Department of Energy to fund joint ventures with the Israeli government and various businesses and academic institutions (H.R.2229). Policies that are passed should aim to work in conjunction with the Department of Defenses’ sense of urgency to spur solar energy use and encourage the transfer of government developments into the private sector, enabling venture capitalists to do what they do best and help spur innovation. As pending legislation on solar energy development is getting increasingly intense make, sure to have a reliable source to track all updates that occur for this developing energy source.

Author: Sara Hilbert

For many years, both parties have focused their energies to work towards building free-market capitalism. More recently, larger companies and taxpayers alike seem to be more receptive to government regulation. With the scare of the current market situation, opinions dramatically swing, my advice, think carefully. Some bills are engaging those fears to gain re-regulation rights. I will say it again: think carefully.

The aviation de-regulation era began when Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 with one goal in mind: less regulation, more growth. This one act rippled through many other sectors including energy, trucking, telecommunications, and financial services. Now we are entering the era of re-regulation. There are several pending proposals on the table that demonstrate this but, again, aviation started it all.

The Aviation Investment and Moderation Act of 2008, S.2972 is under chief sponsored by Senator Kay Hutchison (R-TX). The senator feels that pulling back the reigns of these companies will force airlines to focus on the customer service and economic impact of its surroundings, instead of consolidation of companies. Introduced to congress 2007, the committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has it under review.

S.2972 would reinstate the supervision of the Federal Aviation Administration, who will then add use their research and development plans to increase airport planning, decrease noise, and negative environmental output. This plan would put a spotlight on developing plans to provide passengers with necessities when undergoing a substantially delayed flight departure by giving clearer timeframes for delays. In addition, it would give consumers the option to deplane for a three-hour period delay and would require air carriers to publish and update monthly on its website a list of chronically delayed and canceled flights prior to the customer purchasing an airline ticket. It also would attempt to make Afghanistan-Iraq war veterans eligible for the veteran’s hiring improvement project, like construction parking pads for mobile re-fuelers.

This bill requires a minimum discretionary funding level of $520 million for airport improvement programs per fiscal year. The government will also share in almost the entire cost for an airport improvement projects at a medium hub airports. Other funding will come from Passenger facility charge. Others bills that are very similar are S.1300 The Aviation Investment and Moderation Act of 2007 and H.R.2881 FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. Both of which reinstate the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration.

A better solution would be a little innovation and an adjustment of internal management. Let us remember Southwest Airlines in the early 2000’s. A powerful example of employee relations and out of the box thinking that took the company off the ground when competitors were folding; they were one of the only airlines that made a profit. Perhaps instead of giving regulation a second chance with the airlines the companies at hand should try to embrace the “Southwest Spirit.” When de-regulation began, the airlines lowered airfare and improved their services. As with any industry, it experiences highs and lows, but in general, de-regulation has shown real progress.

Author: Jared Fallon

Amidst the increasing concerns and negative effects of the United State’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels proposed legislation to ease the pain at the pump and on national security risks are increasing. One of the most interesting proposals yet hails from Senator Louie Gohmert (R-TX). In his H.R.6882 he outlines his plans to create the “Electricity Prize Act of 2008” – a lamely entitled proposal but one worth looking into none-the-less. The bill’s text hopes to mandate the National Science Foundation to award a prize of $300,000,000 to the first group or company that can “develop the ability to store multi megawatt electricity for 30 consecutive days with less than a 10 percent decrease in the electricity stored.”

While Gohmert’s idea to lure free-market forces to work towards a sizable goal is not unique, it does outline several unique ideas. According to H.R.6882 dramatic advances have been made for the development and storage of fossil fuels and various forms of alternative energy, but not in the “manner and means of storing electricity, so electricity, when produced, must flow and be used promptly or lost.” Gohmert believes that if the 30 day storage minimum can be met drastic national security and energy benchmarks would be achieved, including satisfying America’s energy needs almost entirely by solar, increasing the chances of capturing lightening for energy use, and would free the US from reliance on foreign energy.

The Senator’s proposal thus far has only reached committee status, where it has been tied up since September 17. The 4 page proposal overall is sound but does not offer any sort of timetable, deadline, nor runner’s up prizes – characteristics that are rather unique for this sort of monetary-incentive plan. Due to the large sum of money Louie is requesting it’s a sure bet that the lack of specifics will be the most heavily debated aspects of the proposal, followed closely by his briefest of brief reference to a completely unexplored idea of energy , stating that his plan “may even lead to capturing lightening.”

Author: Crystal Fontaine

It boggles the mind to see people driving down the road while doing things other than completely paying attention to their surroundings. I suppose we all have the ability to multitask, right? Despite our confidences in doing more than one thing at a time, your risk of having an accident skyrockets if you are trying to drive while doing tasks such as applying make-up. We’ve all made excuses: I’m careful, I can still see what’s going on, I know this road like the back of my hand, etc. You may know the road well, but the drive isn’t exactly the same every day. Perhaps that is why there is an increasing, overwhelming concern for drivers talking and texting on their cell phones.

Several states have taken the initiative of banning talking on the cell phone and text messaging while driving. Recently, California Governor Schwarzenegger signed a law, SB 28, banning text messaging while driving. The bill was introduced by Senator Joe Simitian (D-CA). The legislation specifically prohibits the use of any electronic wireless communications device “to write, send, or read a text-based communication”. Motorists will be fined twenty dollars for the first offense and fifty dollars for each subsequent offense. A previous Californian bill passed in July requiring that motorists who use cell phones must use hands-free devices. In addition, drivers who are under 18 are not allowed to use their cell phones period. California is not alone in their quest to make the roads just a bit safer. For example, the states of Louisiana (SB 137), Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington have all passed similar legislation.

However, there are some that believe the law is a bit excessive. It treads on people’s right of choice and the ability to make the decisions they feel are necessary despite what consequences may arise. Republican lawmakers have argued that the measure is another illustration of adding superfluous legislation to the Vehicle Code when there are already adequate regulations on the books. Assemblyman Chuck Devore, R., stated that there is “…already a blanket law that says reckless driving is illegal and if you cause an accident while recklessly driving, it’s a misdemeanor”. Regardless of opinion, no one is completely focused on their driving or, more importantly, on the other people driving around them when they are talking on their cell phone or sending a text message.

Over 200 million people in the United States use cell phones. In a 2004 MIT survey, it is just one invention that no one can live without…even if you hate it. The cell phone offers a variety of features that are fantastic and coincidently annoying, especially when you receive that 3 A.M text messaging from the Democratic Presidential nominee. However, we rely heavily on that little communications device despite its faults. As many have questioned before, is it really necessary to create a law banning it or certain features while driving? How easily would the law be enforced, especially since so many of us use the cell phone in our cars? What has the world come to if there is a need to make laws on simple, common sense issues?

Author: Crystal Fontaine

In less than a century, people advanced from horses and carriages to automobiles and airplanes. The turn of the century brought about a technological explosion with advancements emerging in every direction as demand for more efficient and swifter ways of doing things increased exponentially. Computers arrived with the internet not far behind, providing more fruitful ways to communicate across the boarder and file documents.

Unfortunately, Governor Palin does not show much of an opinion concerning the issue of technology and the internet. Perhaps it is not exactly high up on her priority list. As Governor, Sarah Palin record comes up short of incorporating any kind of technological policies. Nevertheless, Governor Palin has taken advantage of the internet some by creating an online training program for the workforce. The program, Alaska Career Ready, gives users the capacity to take a set of surveys to discover what abilities they have or may need for an assortment of preferred jobs. In addition, these users may select online courses for developing weak or under-skilled areas. This program allows for a faster and more efficient way for workers to evaluate their own skills and it provides a way to help them improve weaker areas. Despite these details, however, Governor Palin has not really taken any initiative on broadband policy. Unfortunately, Alaskans connect at a slow rate. She has also helped Alaskan residents’ access affordable healthcare through the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act. The act provides tele-medicine and tele-health initiatives that provide care to Alaska’s most remote residents. According to Palin, it is vital to the economy to improve and expand more efficient transportation.

Senator Joe Biden looks to have taken a bit more interest on the subject. Biden is a supporter of clean technology, co-sponsoring the Senate Bill 1177. The legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to establish a nationwide uniform air pollutant rigid program for the electric generating zone. In a 2006 hearing, Biden proved to be a skeptic of net neutrality as he questioned the need for preventative measures when no evidence presented itself. He believes that if everyone who felt those rights were being violated and were given a hearing, it would be impossible to handle every case. Senator Biden is also a strong supporter of copyright. In 2002, he asked the Justice Department to take a harsher position on copyright violation. A noteworthy effort on Biden’s part is the PROTECT Act of 2003, which made it a felony to forge keys to use for counterfeit software or to operate unauthorized computer programs. He also co-founded and co-chaired the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus. Other noteworthy legislation on Biden’s repertoire includes S.1738 and S.223. Biden sponsored Senate Bill S.1738 to increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, among other things. S. 223, which he co-sponsored, requires senate candidates to file designations, reports, and statements in electronic form. Senator Biden was also a challenger of the FISA reform bill, strongly opposing warentless wiretapping.

On one hand, we have the fresh face of Sarah Palin, who seems more concerned about oil than technological and internet issues. On the other hand, there is the well-known face of Senator Biden, who seems to have realized the importance of these issues. Who will have your vote?

Session after session politicians continually craft new ways to get more control on the last free media frontier we have – the internet. The latest bill to pass is the worst one to come along this congressional session. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) S.3325 states its reason for existence is to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.

Among the bills’ 63 pages includes the creation of “Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” – an Internet Czar empowered to help the government sue for copyright infringement. The actual bill text states that the main goals of the act are to “enhance the efficiency and consistency” with Federal Funds in order to “enforce, investigate, or prosecute intellectual property crimes”. Consistent efficiency should never be valued above free, unrestricted journalism but as we all know, money talks. The supporters of the bill from the private sector include a handful of Hollywood personnel, the recording industry, various labor unions and the US Chamber of Commerce. On the con side we find hosts of freelance journalists and groups such as Public Knowledge, a Washington DC public interest group working to defend the future of the media frontier.

Other related pending legislation that also should be tracked includes H.R.4279 and S.522. The first seeks to create an IP Dictator at the Department of Justice while the latter aims to further increase intellectual property rights enforcement. For the most up-to-date information available on the web for this and other pending policies click here.

It will be interesting to see how this policy not only affects the future of current copyright infringement laws but future proposed legislation as well. To those spreading the word and maintaining dialogue out there don’t give up, this is an uphill war that just lost a battle.

Can the US keep up with China’s recent progress? No doubt America’s interest and funding in space programs are not as strong as the days of the Apollo Project, but where does America currently stand? For the most part, it appears that the overall US strategy is in trying to expand its support of science and math programs through education while improving general interest among the public for aerospace R&D. This direction appears to stems from the culturally different approaches the youth of the US and China are growing through. Around the time of America’s first space-walk NASA was in their prime in both funding initiatives and public support for the race to the moon – a unifying momentum that has no rival in present times. In terms of youth and education, the US is severely falling behind that of its rivals while China seems to be improving by leaps and bounds, driven by a popular urge on behalf of Chinese students to become the next Bill Gates. In contrast, the average US youth now seems more consumed with becoming the next pop icon than trying to pursue a career in nuclear engineering or physics.

Legislators around the nation are trying to remedy this situation from a ground-up approach by pursuing greater education opportunities in math and the sciences. Proposals include the massive 134 page H.R. 2272, a bill “To invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.” This bill, much like several other pending proposals, outlines a comprehensive plan that includes coordinated efforts by NASA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, The Department of Energy, and other agencies in order to build momentum and public support for greater space initiatives. In addition, H.R.6063 – the authorization of “the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration” – lists a very detailed approach for NASA’s future. Both bills are currently being debated and will greatly impact the future of American aeronautics if either is passed. For other aerospace-related bills, click here.

Author: Jared Fallon

The words we have all feared for so long are increasingly becoming a reality day after day. As forewarned at the 08 Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference by Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet”. Change is in the wind, and several key legislators are busier than ever thinking of new ways on how to use legislation as a tool to regulate the only true free frontier for media we have left.

At the time being, the two main federal bills to keep an eye on are: H.R.4279 and S.522. The first, sponsored by John Conyers Jr., (D-MI), would create an IP Dictator at the Department of Justice while attempting to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws, and for other purposes.”  S.522, on the other hand, is one of Evan Bayh’s (D-IN) bills and clearly only keeps the best of all of our mutual interests in mind by improving “…the effectiveness of domestic and international intellectual property rights enforcement…”.  It is no coincidence that both of these congressmen have sponsored several bills together and have many friends of reciprocity. More dialogue must be created about these bills for the future of the internet and free media as we know it.