Posted by Adam de Angeli on 11/20/09
Last updated 11/20/09

Both of Michigan's representatives on the House Financial Services Committee voted for the Paul/Grayson Amendment to overwrite the Watt Amendment that gutted key provisions of the Federal Reserve Transparency Act.

Thad McCotter's (R-11th district) vote improves his record on issues the Campaign For Liberty has taken a position to 7 votes for Liberty and 5 votes against. McCotter has stood strong against bailouts and Federal Reserve secrecy, but voted for increasing regulations against natural food and medicine, voted for a $2 billion taxpayer subsidy for "clunkers", and voted to expand economic war with Iran, despite Iran's continued adherence to Non-Proliferation Treaty terms of peaceful nuclear development.

For freshman Gary Peters (D-9th district), his vote to restore the Federal Reserve Transparency Act was his first vote for Liberty of his career. Previously, Peters had voted against Liberty each and every time we looked.

More about the HR1207 Amendment here.

C4L Congressional dossiers for Michigan's Congressmen is found here.

Posted by Adam de Angeli on 11/18/09

People often ask why I don't have any Facebook or MySpace page.  Basically it's because I don't care to provide enormous amounts of personal information to these companies and their visitors.  There's just no privacy at all. 

Even if you do nothing but approve friend requests, you can be profiled by what your friends say and do. 

Plus, these websites are essentially competitors with the Campaign For Liberty.  I don't want people organizing on these other websites (which aren't the least bit geared for political mobilization); I want them organizing right here!

Here is what a privacy guru says about social networking sites, commenting on the article, Social Networkers Risk More Than Privacy | Privacy Digest

Here is another story about how bad people can use your social network presence against you. In this case, it is about home burglars using information about travel and vacation plans. This really demonstrates why I have this ambivalent relationship with social networking. On the one hand, I love being able to find and reconnect with old friends. On the other, I feel unable to use more than a tiny fraction of the capability because of the identity theft, privacy, and physical security issues associated with really opening myself to the world.

I even agonize over whether I should only "friend" real friends, so only they can see some of the content on my page. The other option is to accept everyone so analysts can't tell who my real friends are from looking at my network.

In general I have opted out. Even anonymity is a tricky thing in this context. If I go in totally anonymously, then I really get very little benefit from the site. If I try to be anonymous but still connect with friends, the anonymity will be tissue thin and instantly penetrated by anyone interested.

Check out the privacy blog.  

And here a lot of great privacy blogs.

Posted by Adam de Angeli on 11/18/09
Last updated 11/18/09

From Imgur.com:.

Minor criticism: Huxley was not "afraid" of his distopian scenario; it was actually his fantasy. Huxley was an elitist and he wrote his book as a compass for elitists.

Still, very thought-provoking!

Posted by Adam de Angeli on 11/13/09
Last updated 11/13/09

Remember this?  "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."

And then there was his promises of transparency and to give the American people time to review a law before he signs it.  Even the major media has written that one off.

I'm sure there are more than these.  Comment on this if you'd like to help compile them...

Posted 11/14/09 Linda APO AP, Japan

How about the one posted earlier where he said the difference betweeen his and Hillary's health care plans was that he wouldn't have single-payer?

Posted by Adam de Angeli on 11/08/09

Note: This has not been approved by the Campaign For Liberty and is not to be used.

I am just posting this as a draft for comments.  It may be far too narrow that candidates will just be afraid to respond.  Or maybe it actually lacks probing questions in certain areas.  Or maybe it raises too many issues that we aren't really fighting for; or maybe one of its issues is controversial among C4L members.

Or maybe it's perfect.

At any rate, it's just a draft and I am only publishing it because I'm curious what people think of it.  I removed the C4L name from the document so it is not attributable to C4L.

Let me know what you think...

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/user/Adam_de_Angeli/draft_Federal_Candidate_Qu
estionnaire.pdf

Posted 11/08/09 Robyn Hamlin Saint Louis, MO

I think that allowing more than one answer is needed in many cases. Robyn.

Posted 11/08/09 Adam de Angeli Ann Arbor, MI

Robyn, please specify which cases; I would like to know! Thanks, Adam