Monday, May 05, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
My Congressman doesn't accept e-mail any more
I was on a Web site which allowed me to send what was basically a form-letter in opposition to a bill to my Congressman. I added a few lines of my own, put in my name and address and clicked send. Very simple, very easy. Well, here's the response I got:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me! It is important to hear from you about the issues facing the First District of Nebraska.
In order to better serve you, I am redirecting all e-mail correspondence to my official website at http://fortenberry.house.gov. This is an unattended e-mail box. On my website you will find information regarding Constituent Services such as assistance with federal agencies, Washington D.C. tours, and flag requests.
You will also be able to access links directly to all of the legislation that I have sponsored and cosponsored while I have been in office, as well as to my voting record as your Representative. Additionally, my website provides resources on issues important to the First District of Nebraska such as strengthening national security, creating small business and rural economic opportunity, and promoting family life and culture.
Should you still wish to email me, please use the webform located on my website. I sincerely appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the United States House of Representatives and my goal is to individually respond to each email (or letter or fax) in a timely manner. Due to the often complex nature of the issues and the volume of mail and e-mail I receive, please allow 4-5 weeks to receive a written response to your inquiry.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to contact me again using the above link if you have additional concerns regarding a federal matter.
Sincerely,
Jeff Fortenberry
Member of Congress
Well, isn't that special?
So basically, in order to "better serve" me, I'm forced to go to a particular Web site in order to voice my opinion and not be able to participate in e-mail campaigns without having to take several extra steps. Thanks Jeff.
Labels: politics
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Nixon reincarnated
He's sounding more like Richard Nixon ever day. Now Bush is claiming executive privilege on documents.

Labels: politics
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Apple 1984 commercial remix
I'm not getting into politics here. I'm not supporting a particular candidate at the moment. However, I have to share this video supporting Obama (though the Obama campaign denies they had anything to do with it,) just due to its creativity for those that remember the classic Apple commercial.
Friday, March 16, 2007
RIP Pandora
Pandora is dead due the the recently new (retroactive no less) Internet radio royalty rates. As Doc Searls put it:
"In a move that recalls the Vogons' decision to destroy Earth to clear the way for a highway bypass through space (a thankfully fictional premise of Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), the judges comprising the Copyright Royalty Board have decided to destroy the Internet radio industry so the Recording Industry won't be inconvenienced by something it doesn't know, like or understand."
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Why Mommy is a Democrat
I worry when the principles of any political party can be reduced to the level of a 4 year-old.
Labels: politics
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Porn at my hometown library
Yes, folks, it's happening again. Another local TV station has done an "undercover investigation" (video available through the link) to catch people looking at porn in the library. (I grew up in a Rochester suburb and used the library in question regularly so that's why I'm posting this story.) What makes this story extra interesting is that County Executive Maggie Brooks is now threatening to cut $7.5M in funding unless the library changes its policy. The policy is the one that was upheld by the Supreme Court under CIPA in which filters are installed but are turned off for anyone 17 and older without being asked why. (It is not clear whether the library is required to follow CIPA or is just doing it anyway.) Because of this the ACLU has criticized Ms. Brooks stating “What real significant difference is there between denying an adult patron access to these sites and denying patrons access to Catcher in the Rye?” The most interesting part of all this, which isn't mentioned in any of the articles: Ms. Brooks used to be a reporter (even an anchor if I recall correctly) for the TV station that started all this. I smell a setup.
Labels: library, policy, politics, pornography, rochester, video


