Congressman blacks out his official .gov website | Hacker News Reader

Congressman blacks out his official .gov website

blumenauer.house.gov

587 pointssethbannon38 comments

That's Earl Blumenauer, who represents Oregon's 3rd congressional district, which encompasses the east side of Portland (where I live): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0oD5oF4... (link to Google cache since Wikipeida is down of course)

I say this mostly facetiously, but being represented by Mr. Blumenauer and Ron Wyden in the Senate almost makes me feel left out of the protest -- I can't really write an angry letter to my representatives because they're both on the right side of this issue!

EDIT: Thanks all for the prodding. I just sent a note to both Blumenauer and Wyden and thanked them for their stance on this issue.

Contact them and tell that you're a voter in their area, and you are damn proud of what they are doing. After all, they took a risk, and if they think no-one noticed it then they are unlikely to do it again.

One should criticise when politicians do things you don't like, but complement them when they do something you approve of.

Seconded.

Showing your appreciation makes them much more likely to stick up for you in the future. If these bills do get shot down, they'll inevitably return in a different form in the future.

Yes, I agree. I've 'protested' my two senator's stance for PIPA, but I made sure to call and thank my House rep for opposing SOPA.

I did the exact same. I wasn't aware before calling that my representative opposed both bills, but I made sure his staff knew I appreciated it when they told me.

Yep. Or if you're a redditor, send them a pizza :)

replace('complement', 'compliment')

Let them know you support what they're doing. They need to know their actions are supported, appreciated, and are noticed.

We can't only draw attention to their negative actions, right?

Do write them a supportive letter instead.

where's the URL for donations?

Rep. Anna Eshoo (of California's 14th District, which includes much of Silicon Valley) also blacked out her home page: http://eshoo.house.gov/

They're starting to see "internet people" as a significant voting block.

To solidify the deal, I suggest all who can vote, do so at the next opportunity. The long term gains for rewarding this "internet aware" behavior will be massive for us all.

"I hear there are rumors on the internets..."

> They're starting to see "internet people" as a significant voting block.

I'd say "they've started" more than "they're starting", I remember having seen a few AMAs and campaign presence on reddit in the last 6 months or so, mostly by kind-of-internet-aligned challengers.

On the other hand, if the current efforts fail it may significantly set this trend back.

Still, it's pretty great being able to witness a transition of this magnitude (if it succeeds). We truly live in interesting times.

I saw a presentation at RailsConf two years ago where they took it to the next level. It was the Spanish Internet Party. If they got members in parlament, you could actually vote yourself online, and the MP would just vote based on the constituent votes. You could even delegate your voting power to causes you care about (for example, the EFF or PETA) so that you could have your views represented without having to spend hours or days researching every single issue.

That sounds terrifying really. You'd undoubtedly end up with people only bothering to vote for things they feel really passionately about, which usually falls on the wrong side of rationale.

You don't think that's how people vote anyways?

What's more terrifying - Having no control over what your representatives vote on (except to vote them in or out) or having binding veto power?

Too many people confuse direct democracy with majoritarianism. The same checks and balances that exists with representative democracy can also exist with the direct kind. The constitution & the courts can still limit popular will.

One thing is for sure, there is no way SOPA like bills could pass with direct democracy or popular veto.

(disclaimer - I'm not an expert)

This kind of democracy is what killed Socrates. No, really, the old Athenian system allowed citizens to participate much more directly, so when a moral panic started they could do really nasty stuff.

Now, perhaps I'm being unfair. If you dig a bit deeper, you'll learn that Socrates was officially killed for impiety, and corrupting the young. Unofficially, he was killed for inspiring the Thirty Tyrants. It's debatable whether or not he was in any way responsible for their actions - Plato says no (though Plato was heavily biased) - but it seemed probable to a lot of people at the time. They couldn't get actually punish him for inspiring the Tyrants, because immunity was granted as part of a peace treaty, but when Socrates went ahead preaching his military dictatorship to a whole new generation, people got a bit upset.

Sortition is actually quite a good idea - get a representative bunch of people, and let them debate the issue. It's a jury system. You don't want politicians to decide things, because they are the worst kind of decision makers (or so some people say). You don't want the uninformed populous to make decisions, because they are uniformed. So you get a sample of the populous, let them gather information, and then they can make an informed decision. Sure, Athens did some barbaric shit. But so did practically every other civilization at the time. The only thing to watch out for is people protecting their franchise - Athens stayed quite xenophobic and misogynistic, as the old Athenian men were the only ones who could vote, and didn't want their power being diluted.

It's not either or. After all, isn't spreading the power to many institutions the philosophy behind the American take on democracy. You could have citizen referendums, give the citizenship veto power (one should probably require more than 50% of the voters for vetoing though). Many other solutions are also possible.

I was just watching Blumenauer on C-SPAN (deficit debates) - out of the 10 or so people I saw speak over the past hour, he was the sane one. (My own rep. was an embarrassment.) Same district Sen. Wyden came from, too. Apparently, Oregon's third district knows how to elect competent people.

I'm pretty sure most members of Congress blacked out their sites today whether they meant to or not. My friends working in the Senate tell me that today's been a pretty long day for them.

It's a great statement, but it does make me laugh a little to think that on a day when everyone is being urged to contact their senators... he has blacked out his contact details.

No need to call him as he's already on side, of course. But still.

he has blacked out his contact details.

His DC and OR phone numbers are still shown on the site (at the bottom in case you didn't scroll down far enough)

Ah, I hadn't seen that. I take back my little laugh.

It's Earl Blumenauer, from Oregon's 3rd Congressional District.

He's also blacked out http://www.earlblumenauer.com

A good deal of PIPA opposition is from Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. Makes me glad to live in Oregon!

Wyden was originally from the same district, in fact. You guys are good.

It's no longer blacked out, but you can see his post about it (with a screenshot) here: http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&...

From http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/ , it looks like the PIPA majority in Senate is still huge: 41-13. Unless it can get to something 30-24 today, it's a done deal. Here's hope that PIPA will never make it through the House.

Best link I've read all day, what a winner.

This guy needs to be invited to come hang out with us in the Valley.

Leave Portland for Smug-n-Con Alley? Why on Earth would he want to do that?

Given that there's no smugness in Portland, that makes sense.

I'm happy that he opposes SOPA, and happy that he darkened his site. But isn't it gratuitous for a congressman to act like some internet activist when he possesses REAL influence on the law in Washington?

Rather than blacking out his site, I'd love to see one of his staffers post activities that the congressman is engaged in to convince his peers to block or vote against measures like SOPA.

At least one of those activities is blacking out his website on SOPA blackout day.

Sure, but let's hear about the meetings he's holding with contributors, committees, or industry. Blacking out your site tells us where you stand on an issue but telling people what you are doing with your elected position to move that stance forward is even more powerful.

In any event, I applaud the congressman for his position.

While I do wholeheartedly agree with you, lets keep in mind that these are politicians we're talking about.

Baby steps. This week, get them to oppose SOPA/PIPA, next week, get them to be more transparent.

How much can one representative do? I think you're overstating his power. He is one of 435, and while he does have influence over the law in the fact that he can vote against it, I don't think one representative has the power to completely block a bill if he doesn't have people standing behind him.

The best way to get other representatives to stand behind him is 1. passionate appeals on the House floor and 2. getting voters to make their voice heard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com