I like porn.

[Tetrad]

No really, I do. So when I read stuff like this, I just have to sit and wonder what some people are thinking.

Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.

...

Drew Oosterbaan, chief of the division in charge of obscenity prosecutions at the Justice Department, says officials are trying to send a message and halt an industry they see as growing increasingly "lawless."

"We want to do everything we can to deter this conduct" by producers and consumers, Oosterbaan said. "Nothing is off the table as far as content."

...

In a speech in 2002, Ashcroft made it clear that the Justice Department intends to try. He said pornography "invades our homes persistently though the mail, phone, VCR, cable TV and the Internet," and has "strewn its victims from coast to coast."

Given the millions of dollars Americans are spending each month on adult cable television, Internet sites and magazines and videos, many may see themselves not as victims but as consumers, with an expectation of rights, choices and privacy.

Ashcroft, a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance, and has fought unrelenting criticism that he has trod roughshod on civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, is taking on the porn industry at a time when many experts say Americans are wary about government intrusion into their lives.

The Bush administration is eager to shore up its conservative base with this issue. Ashcroft held private meetings with conservative groups a year and a half ago to assure them that anti-porn efforts are a priority.

...

The law itself rests on the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision in Miller vs. California, which held that something is "obscene" only if an average person applying contemporary community standards finds it patently offensive. But until now, it hasn't been prosecuted at the federal level for more than 10 years.

...

That tolerance could prove to be the obscenity division's biggest obstacle. Americans are used to seeing sex, experts say, in the movies, in their e-mail inboxes and on popular cable shows such as HBO's Sex and the City. There is no real gauge of just how obscene a jury will find pornographic material.

...

In 2001, though, one interesting case emerged from St. Charles County, Mo., the heart of Ashcroft's conservative Missouri base. First Amendment lawyer Cambria defended a video store there against state charges that it was renting two obscene videotapes that depicted group sex, anal sex and sex with objects.

Cambria won, convincing a jury of 12 women, all between the ages of 40 and 60, that the tapes had educational value and helped reduce inhibitions. They reached the verdict in less than three hours.

How large is the anti-porn lobby anyway? Do they have any sort of major voting power? Or is this more personal, which is what I'm inclined to believe if what the article says about Ashcroft is true.

[Will Robinson]

I'm all for stopping the porn crap that comes unsolicited in the email.
I set up an email account for my wife using just her [three initials+sc.rr.com] and it's incredible the number of hardcore porn emails that account got before it was two days old!

All internet porn should come under a domain suffix like .prn or .sex or something, and be filtered out by default. Let those who want it, turn it on.

The rest of it I don't care as long as you keep it private. These stupid guys who ride around in there pimped out rides with porn playing on the tv screens in plain view should be horsewhipped. And yes I'm serious, f^@#ing flogged in public!

[bash]

A more logical question would be how big is the porn lobby and does it have any major voting power.

[TheCops]

will is right on the suffix thingy. it shouldn't be illegal but i KNOW where to find it for gawds sake.

i used to like porn and strippers but it all got very old. if i ain't feeling it i don't need to be looking at it. but i would never try to step on anyones toes... if you like black anal volumes 1-37 go for it.

[bash]

Funny story on the BBC yesterday about a 15-year-old American female arrested for child exploitation because she was selling pics of herself.

Similar to the swapping argument, a little bit is tolerated, alot will not be. When porn meant a creepy little store at the edge of town with blacked-out windows and a buzz-to-enter doorway, it was ignored mostly by the law enforcement community. I think the general feeling was if those poor homely men have to humiliate themselves like that, that was punishment enough. With the advent of widespread Internet porn you're going to see more interest from law enforcement.


A hilarious story from the other day related how some fool had arranged on the Internet to provide a woman with a *rape fantasy* (ie, show up and pretend to rape her). Only problem was this wanker went to the wrong home and got his geeky azz kicked when he tried to rape the girl living there. I think it was only afterward when the cops were hauling his azz away did he bother to ask the girl her chat name. Turned out she didn't even own a PC. Heh.

[Dedman]

Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography

Dang! Sweet gig. And to think I do it for free now. Maybe I should go freelance.

[roid]

A more logical question would be how big is the porn lobby and does it have any major voting power.

agreed.

they should learn the VHS vs BETA lesson of history.

the porn industry DOES pull a lot of consumer power, and i'd imagine that'd equate to votes.

[index_html]

I'd like to see someone tackle the entire spam problem by creating an entirely new e-mail system myself. It's just gotten ridiculous.

However, this government pr0n crackdown is going to blow up in their faces I think. I'd much rather see them concentrating on the blissed-out islamozoid bent on hooking up with ethereal bimbos than Joe Schlongmeister and his "Sluts 'R' Us" website. Go after child porn, sure, but this is a step that'll lend credence to the Ashcroft iron boot hysteria. Bad idea, bad timing, and bad politics designed to appease the ultra-right. Requiring a .sex domain or the like for all e-mail and websites with sexually explicit content really seems like an easy solution to manage the sleaze empire. Someone needs to send the Attorney General a memo.

[Will Robinson]

...Someone needs to send the Attorney General a memo.

That postage on that delivery would be very expensive, out of my price range unfortunately.

[Tetrad]

I'd like to say that this isn't about porn spam, since spam in general is rather annoying.

A more logical question would be how big is the porn lobby and does it have any major voting power.

Any move against mainstream pornography could affect large telephone companies offering broadband Internet service or the dozens of national credit card companies providing payment services to pornographic Web sites.

Cable television, meanwhile, which has found late-night lineups with "adult programming" highly profitable, is unlikely to budge, and such companies have powerful friends.

Brian Roberts, the CEO of Comcast, which offers "hard-core" porn on the Hot Network channel (at $11.99 per film in Baltimore), was co-chair of Philadelphia 2000, the host committee that brought the Republican National Convention to Philadelphia. In February, the Bush campaign honored Comcast President Stephen Burke with "Ranger" status, for agreeing to raise at least $200,000 for the president's re-election effort. Comcast's executive vice president, David Cohen, has close ties to Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Tim Fitzpatrick, the spokesman for Comcast at its corporate headquarters in Philadelphia, declined to comment on the cable network's adult programming. But officials at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, which Roberts used to chair, said adult programming is legal, relies on subscription services for access and has been upheld by the courts for years.

"Good luck turning back that clock," said Paul Rodriguez, a spokesman for the association.

[Tetrad]

Requiring a .sex domain or the like for all e-mail and websites with sexually explicit content really seems like an easy solution to manage the sleaze empire.

That won't work for the simple reason that there is no way to enforce porn to its own domain. I mean there isn't any enforcement of the whole .org/.com dichotomy as it is. The only thing that could work would be an opt-in child friendly TLD that you can easily limit access to that particular area. People who want to cater to that particular market would have to pay a fee to get access, as well as having their content reviewed, for example. There was actually an iniative to do a .kids.us thing, but I don't know if that went anywhere.

[kurupt]

how naive can a person be?

[index_html]

That won't work for the simple reason that there is no way to enforce porn to its own domain.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "enforce porn to its own domain." But it seems to me that you could make it a law and start fining the crap out of any porn host/server fascilitating non-.sex sites with pornographic material provided they refuse to terminate service once a content provider is identified. The porn biz is all about money ... hit them where it hurts if they don't go along. Foreign sites could be trickier, but I bet there are methods to use against them as well ... their content has to enter the country through some sort of conduit. Instead of what will be perceived as an attack on free speech, turn it into a zoning problem and put the impetus on the porn site owners and their hosting companies to live up to a few reasonable rules. Just give them a fair amount of time to comply and allow owners of currently existing domains to have first dibs on matching .sex alternatives. I'm sure there would be opposition and a fair amount of chaos in the details, but I think it could be pretty successfully done if there was enough resolve. Most would likely comply just to avoid the hassle and keep their subscriber money coming in.

Disclaimer: I'm no lawyer or internet expert so I reserve the right to be "pwned" by anyone with knowledge capable of crushing my brilliant theory.

[Tetrad]

Ask yourself what you're trying to accomplish with this mass exodus of content from one TLD to another. Do you really have so much trouble accidentially visiting porn sites against your will that you want to attempt to censor the entire internet?

Who would run the regulatory body? What actual control would they have? How could they force people that won't go over willingly? Why would the ISPs listen to them? Even if you could answer all that, who would pay for it?

[index_html]

Well, as Will previously stated, you could effectively filter the content that way. I don't have a problem with accidentally hitting a porn site, but I also understand how easy it is for kids to land on them (I find the parental supervision argument rather weak myself, since the porno pushers are so agressive and there so much of it).

Rest of the questions:
-The law could be enforced by each state's attorney general's office.
-They'd have the control to file charges for breaking the law if they fail to comply, which would result in a hefty fine if they persist.
-They could force them by making them decide between profit and bankruptcy.
-The ISPs would listen because they would stand to lose money via the fines.
-Pay for what?

The question I have is: why would moving all the porn to a .sex domain where it people would be free to post whatever they want be such a big deal? We've got .gov for government, why not .sex for sex?

[BUBBALOU]

It's hard to argue with Laws and Values Created by a ruling Puritain society in the US since it inception (like a Weed that never goes away) In fact it infects almost all of the ruling bodies here FCC AFT...blah blah blah. Until you understand that you are just as dumb. They live those ideals blindly and atttempt to create more laws based on those values.

Kentucky Bourbon anyone?

[bash]

Why wouldn't the sex biz want to be easier to find? Could it be they feel there is profit in deception? It's been common since the Web's inception that porn purveyors have purchased up many misspelled domain names of popular Web destinations. Hell, Descent.com was even one (although I get a blank page there now). Why do you suppose that is if not in the hope of drawing in surfers who may have inadvertently arrived at their sites through sloppy typing or beleived they would find something less riske? A separate TLD makes perfect sense and I don't see how it could be considered difficult or expensive to implement. People who want porn can find it easily that way, and people who don't can avoid or filter it just as easily. IIRC, distinguishing content and destinations was the intent of establishing TLDs in the first place. Granted, things have become sort of muddled since then but that doesn't mean it's not still a good idea to try to get back to that original desire for clarity.

[roid]

anyone else getting a "war on drugs" deja vu from all this puritan BS?

[disclamer edit: this is not directed at you bash]

[Will Robinson]

It's not puritan nor censorship. It's not a war on porn either.
It's just common sense and decency.
My wife and daughter try to check email to see if they got anything from her sisters daughter and lo and behold...Sheena the shaft princess wants to help her make it big.

Based on the weak arguments I've seen here I'm starting to think it's more about making us accept it than for you to have access to it.
More like a war on morality.

[kurupt]

war on porn... haha

everyone is horny sometimes, and women do masturbate

[Testiculese]

As much as I don't care about porn..Lothar, can you send Ashcroft to hell, please?

[Zuruck]

Don't use your main email for stupid things hwere your address will be sold to spam. I never get any spam in my actual mail address that I use for personal means. i like porn and will kill ashcroft if he bans it.

[Tyranny]

Everyone has a different opinion on what morality is though Will, and the great thing about this country is the government can't force what they want morality and decency to be on the general public.

They keep trying and in some cases they're succeeding, but there is a fine line where the government just does not belong and this is one of them. That has been the basis of adult material for years, that if you want to view that type of material you can in the safety of your own home. It isn't hurting anything at all.

Your own arguement isn't very stable either because we aren't even talking about email spam that happens to have pornographic content. That is just a VERY small portion of the discussion here and also extremely easy to avoid anyways. Get a decent mail client that filters spam, turn previews off and delete anything that doesn't apply directly to you that winds up in the junk folder. Problem solved, lets move on here.

I agree with Bash in the sense that by moving adult material to a seperate TLD it would in a way appease the government in some fashion, even though they will always have some extreme nut trying to take away our liberties as long as this country exists. It would allow those who want to filter it more accuratly to filter it and still be just as available to those who want to view it as it is right now. Even more so when it comes down to it.

Taking away the right to view the material completely is not the decision of the government, but the decision of the individual in his/her own home. Right now, I like my porn. When I have children it will be a different story, but also it is the right of any individual to hear, see, and speak what they want and on this, my opinion will not change. This is the land of the free afterall and there are certain things our govt. needs to stay the hell out of and focus on more important issues then spending millions on porn prevention.

Like um...increasingly high gas prices?, the national deficit?, the debt? Better education standards and financing? better healthcare and financing? the war on terror? better environmental standards? inflation? *insert whatever here*

[Tetrad]

Index, .sex will not work. Simply put, the US does not run the world, so all foreign content would not be under jurisdiction. Also, not all TLDs are ran by the same body, so even if you have one group of people saying "you have to switch to .sex", people will still be running with alternate TLDs. Not only that, but lots of porn businesses see their domain names as very valuable as far as naming is concerned. These people, if you want to take away their domain, rightfully deserve compensation. And when I say "pay for", I mean that.

And of course there's the question, who decides what to censor? It is censorship, don't kid yourself here. Websites with simple nude photography with no sex involved? What about bulletin boards with an adult themed board? Erotic stories? Not every website out there is "100% HARDCORE PORN!!!".

Besides, there already are filtering packages which you can purchase which are ran by people who are basing their business model on trying to do such a thing, and therefore are actually held accountable. Porn sites won't switch over willingly, you can bet on that. And there already is a move by the government to make an opt-in child-friendly domain TLD, which would "protect the children" if you want to use that cliche.

And bash, it's not profit by deception. It's profit by exposure. Unlike the music industry (;)) the porn industry realizes that there is a massive amount of user base out their for their products. The vast amount of free porn out there is put out by profit-oriented companies, in the hope that people will see their stuff, and if somebody gets the initiative to actually pay for something, they'll remember what they've seen before. Free advertising as it were.

But regardless, the main thing that throws me off is not anything really discussed here, but the fact that Ashcroft and co are wanting to sue people simply because something is obscene. Not that it's available to children, not that it's in the middle of public view, but simply because it exists. And that, to me, doesn't make any sense at all.

[Will Robinson]

Don't use your main email for stupid things hwere your address will be sold to spam....

I didn't use it for anything, that's the problem. It was a new account and she never sent a single email from it or registered to any site. She called her sister and told her the email address, because she didn't know her sisters email address she asked her to send her something so they and the cousins could start to email each other...

It's not legal for someone to broadcast that stuff in plain view on the TV, or billboards, or any number of other public media. why should it be my problem that the porn merchants don't constrain themselves the same way in the internet medium?

I think that's a reasonable request, not puritan or censorship.

Which leads to Tyranny's point, I don't necessarily want Ashcroft to define what is or isn't obscene but if the porn users and porn merchants want to flaunt their stuff in my face then they will reap what they sow....an Ashcroft will take the initiative and try to ruin their gig!

Show some respect, that's all. I can enjoy erotica without showing your children what fisting looks like. If you refuse to do the same then you will have people, many people...the largest body of voters, etc...giving an Ashcroft the leeway he needs to reign down some puritan values on your porn parade.

[Testiculese]

Just think, you are taxed for existing.

Ashcrofts idea makes perfect sence. Remember, if it what someone in gov doesn't make sense, just think "how can this make someone in office money?", and suddenly it becomes a little clearer. Just think of the money that can be made. Ashcroft uses your money to sue the porn industry for billions, and where does the money go? I'll bet he sets up a special administrative branch for this, and all the money goes into that budget, which, unsurprisingly, would have 'very high administrative costs', and Ashcroft and his criminal friends suddenly all have new 60' boats.

[Tetrad]

It was a new account and she never sent a single email from it or registered to any site. She called her sister and told her the email address, because she didn't know her sisters email address she asked her to send her something so they and the cousins could start to email each other...

Simple technical solution: Set up white list filtering. Namely, only allow e-mails from a set of addresses you specify. Problem solved.

[fliptw]

xyz@blah.com can easily be brute forced.

she getting spam because someone simply generated an email addy, and poof, it went somewhere.

[bash]

It's not censorship at all. Porn brick and mortar stores have restricted zoning, porn magazines have regulations as to where they can be placed in convenience stores, so what's the big panic extending these same sort of limits of exposure to porn sites? I see it's a way for businesses like Thunderbunny's new gaming center (and Internet Cafes, Libraries, etc.) to reassure parents that their kids won't be exposed (and won't expose themselves) to content inappropriate for kids.

[Tetrad]

Fine, whatever. Zoning, big deal. We've had this discussion before. But that's not what I'm talking about.

Taylor, who has been involved in the prosecution of more than 700 pornography cases since the 1970s, including at the Justice Department in the late 1980s and early '90s, declined to be interviewed. But he did talk to reporters for the PBS program Frontline in 2001, when he was president of the National Law Center for Children and Families, an anti-porn group.

"Just about everything on the Internet and almost everything in the video stores and everything in the adult bookstores is still prosecutable illegal obscenity," he said.

"Some of the cable versions of porno movies are prosecutable. Once it becomes obvious that this really is a federal felony instead of just a form of entertainment or investment, then legitimate companies, to stay legitimate, are going to have to distance themselves from it."

These people want to make the porn itself illegal.

[Will Robinson]

Fine, whatever. Zoning, big deal. We've had this discussion before.
But that's not what I'm talking about.
These people want to make the porn itself illegal.

Right, and what I'm saying is they will succeed if the porn merchants and users don't police themselves, because in addition to puritans like Ashcroft, more moderate people like myself who normally don't support such draconian laws will see it as a lesser of two evils and the Ashcrofts of the world will prevail.

Right now I'd vote for Ashcrofts solution because the alternative is to let the inmates run the asylum.

[Lothar]

Word to what Will said.

Given the choice between complete censorship and an inbox filled with pr0n, I'd vote for complete censorship.

Nobody would care one bit about pr0n if it wasn't thrust in our faces all the time -- I can't imagine Ashcroft or anyone else going after pornographers if regular people didn't run into porn on a regular basis. The problem is simple: the industry has decided to fill my inbox and pretty much any domain it can get its hands on with nekkid people, with the hopes that they'll get normal people who accidentally find their sites hooked. I have no problem with people being able to find pr0n if they actually go looking for it -- I just have a problem with regularly finding it when I'm *not* looking for it. Given the current state of affairs, I'm all for a ridiculously overblown solution, since the industry isn't regulating itself with a sensible solution.

Now, of course, Tetrad's question is relevant -- does a site with a few pr0n pictures count? What about erotic stories, or Michaelangelo's David? It's a question that needs answered...

[bash]

*shrug* I really don't see it as all that dire. From a strategic point of view it sounds like the Justice Dept is merely doing a little saber rattling to put porn merchants on notice that they've crossed a line. Same as what the anti-spam bills and no-call lists have done to an even greater extent and where is your outrage over those?

Let's take it out of cyberspace for a moment. Would you find it acceptable to go to the mall and have hardcore pics strewn about on the benches or folks running up to you and shoving pics in your face? Of course not. So why should Internet busnesses be given a free pass to do just that? As has been stated, they've gone beyond simply offering pornographic content for people who want to find it and into the realm of active harrassment.

I think Ashcroft & crew are simply letting it be known that you either regulate yourselves or we'll do it for you. It hardly qualfies as *THESE PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO JERK-OFF! AHHHHH!!1*

[Beowulf]

I agree with the fact that porn should not be thrust (no pun intended) upon those who don't want it. If you want porn, (which is probably a majority of men, ugly or not) you can easily find it. You have to be pretty dumb to not be able to find porn But if you don't want it then you shouldn't have to have it sent to you all the time. But here's my beef

The FCC is going nuts lately trying to censor everything. Now Ashcroft is trying to take away another freedom. People should be able to have their freedoms (within the law). Those who don't want porn, don't watch it. Those who do, enjoy yourselves. Its freedom damnit!

This country was founded on the God-given right to masturbate while watching two or more people have sex. Men have fought and DIED for that freedom. Can you masturbate in China? North Korea? HELL NO! So when you look up at our flag beating...beating...beating PROUDLY in the wind, think of what that flag stands for! It stands for our rights, our freedom, our penii! The red, white and spooge...err..blue.
[/heh]

[Tetrad]

Let's take it out of cyberspace for a moment. Would you find it acceptable to go to the mall and have hardcore pics strewn about on the benches or folks running up to you and shoving pics in your face? Of course not. So why should Internet busnesses be given a free pass to do just that? As has been stated, they've gone beyond simply offering pornographic content for people who want to find it and into the realm of active harrassment.

Active harrassment eh? I haven't seen any of that myself. I don't get any spam e-mails, I don't get forwarded to pornographic sites when I have no intention of viewing said material. As far as I'm concerned, the two realms are completely seperated for me. Except on usenet, but I doubt anybody who isn't terribly computer savvy still uses that nowadays.

Besides, Ashcroft and co. aren't talking about setting up porn only tlds or anything like that. They're not talking directly about porn spam. They're ordering a video off a website to be delivered to wherever, and then trying to convince a jury that their ordered copy of Frenzied Fisting 5 is obscene material, and therefore illegal. How does that help you guys at all?

[Lothar]

Tet, you want to know how it helps us?

Simple: it lets those who are porn-spamming my inbox know that the justice department is targetting pornographers... now, it's quite likely that Ashcroft isn't going to be targetting little out-of-the-way porn shops down highway 13 just past hicksville. He's likely going to be targetting the ones he gets the most porn-spam from.

The justice department isn't going to shut down all porn in the universe. That's absurd. But what they are going to do is at least attempt to make porn sites stop calling attention to themselves. To stick with the porn-shoved-in-your-face-in-the-mall analogy, it's like if a bunch of undercover cops walked into the mall and started arresting whoever they saw displaying porn. Chances are, in the first 10 minutes, they'll arrest a bunch of the porn-in-your-face guys and maybe 1 or 2 legitimate merchants, and pretty soon the porn-in-your-face guys will go away. I seriously doubt, if that problem was dealt with, they'd keep targetting the legit merchants.

They're not looking to take your porn away. They're just looking to target the people who seem to think it's their right to stick porn all up in my shizzat. It just so happens that obscenity laws are the only legal measure they have by which to attack porn spamming companies (since it's pretty hard to actually prove who sent the spam.) If a company calls attention to itself by sending out porn-spam, it'll likely be targetted for pwn4g3 by the obscenity laws, even though the *actual* offense is spamming. The obscenity laws are just a mechanism by which to attack those who refuse to police themselves -- like bash said, it's saber-rattling to let the porn merchants know it's time for them to back off. You won't lose your precious freedom to view porn over this; at worst, you'll lose a few of your favorite sites that choose to call attention to themselves.

[Tetrad]

Call me a sceptic, but I don't see any hint anywhere that these suits have anything to do with spam. I see senseless obscenity suits. Most of them dealing with old media.

[fliptw]

They're not looking to take your porn away.

I think thats exactly what Ashcroft wants to do.

The article Tet posted explicity states Ashcroft is a puritan, and there is no mention of any spefic targeting. I don't think Ashcroft would be spliting hairs in this instance. I don't think he's ever split a hair on any issue.

[Will Robinson]

Well, for the sake of discussion, I'll accept the premise that Ashcroft is out to cleanse the world of porn. I still believe if the porn merchants weren't so agressive Ashcroft wouldn't stand a chance of succeeding because he wouldn't be able to sustain his jihad without political support.
Support he'll likely get from the lawmakers whose constituants are getting fed up with the onslaught of porn.

I can tell you, if your a young guy you probably don't have a peer group who shares my view, but young guys don't usually vote either. Why send a letter to your congressman when you could download 'Girls Gone Stupid'

On the other hand, I'm hearing more and more from my peer group and associates and customers and fellow parents that they are sick of the lines being crossed, in all medium, and my peer group is not only 'likely voters', they are actively sharing their views with their representatives.
Those representatives will be the ones to stop, or sustain Ashcrofts 'war on porn'.

[TheCops]

will makes a valid point.

we can caulk off and debate all day on "The Descent Bulletin Board" about whatever topic you like, but it's mental gymnastics in reality... you are doing exactly nothing.

what are you gonna do about it? are you gonna type to 200 hundred people on the dbb? or are you gonna go out and hit the streets, for real, really bring awareness to your cause? even if i don't agree with you.

i've had a relationship with a card carrying democrat for a while... it ain't serious... but i like and respect her. her endless "tiny violins" for some americans (who are not commemorating the 10th anniversary of a 90 day genocide in 1994) makes me ill at times... it's non-stop whining especially in an election year. but i respect her... because she DOES call our state representatives, she does call the governor, she does hand out fliers on the street about our cities current public transportation strike. i get sick of hearing about it, but at least she does it. i respect that.

in my years of posting on the dbb i have never seen evidence of anyone doing a damn thing but theorizing and regurgitating a bunch of attitude they got from reading http://www.TheOtherPointOfViewIsWrongAndHereIsMyBuzzWordImUsingToDiscreditThem.com

you want to make a difference?

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!