Can someone tell me what my Senator is telling me

[still_one]

Here is a response I received from Senator Feinstein on the FCC increasing role in censorship. It is the biggest bunch of double speak I have ever heard:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding radio
and television censorship. I appreciate your taking the
time to write me on this important issue.

In my lifetime, I have watched an increase in
gratuitous violence and its glorification in the media,
indecent sexually explicit material, and the use of vulgar
language on the radio and on television. I believe that
some material is simply not appropriate for all audiences.
Federal law governs what material can be broadcast and
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the
responsibility to enforce those laws.

I understand that you are against any type of
censorship and that you feel that the government is
dictating what people can and cannot watch. Your
opinion regarding censorship in broadcasting pertains to
the balance between two important principles. On the
one hand, Congress and the Supreme Court, as well as
society, recognize that there is an interest in protecting
the well-being of minors. On the other hand, the First
Amendment's protection of free speech makes it difficult
to determine what constitutes "indecency" or "obscene"
material. Thus, although broadcasters may have agreed
not to show certain types of programs in certain time
slots, there is still room for debate between reasonable
and fair minded people about the broadcasting choices
cable, radio and television companies have made.

I want to thank you for letting me know your
feelings on this issue. Please know that I will continue to
monitor the FCC's enforcement of our laws governing
indecent material but I will also make sure that any
rulings and restrictions made will not infringe on the First
Amendment's protection of free speech. If you have
further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my
Washington, DC office at [phone].

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. It's a nice way of saying

she either doesn't know how she's going to vote or doesn't support your point of view. Except in cases where the Senator/Congressman is 100% publicly for or against a certain issue, you're always going to get that kind of letter. Rule #1 of politics: never piss off constituents.

[NuckinFutz]

4. Their nice way of saying

whatever it is doesn't work with this constituent. I'd actually be a lot less pissed if they'd just say they haven't made up their minds or that they disagree with me. Unfortunately, most of them don't have the cajones for that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. NONE of them do

Because that's not how the game is. Maybe YOU would prefer it that way, but you burn a lot of bridges by responding vehemently to every single piece of mail you get (and they get tons). It's not reasonable at all to do what you're asking.

[NuckinFutz]

2. You ought to see some of the drivel I get from Santorum,

Specter, and Holden. They're all really good at using a whole page in being wily and noncommittal. I'd really rather they not respond at all, if that's all they're going to do. It's a waste of resources and taxpayer dollars.

[madfloridian]

3. She and Bill Nelson and Breaux are sponsors of other such ideas.

Not exactly what you are referring to, but shows the tendency to cave in on these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Broadband_and_Digital_Television_Promotion_Act

Can you say Digital Rights Management?

And it all gets carried to extremes. There is more if you do a search on terms from this site.

SNIP..." Some have suggested that the act was deliberately introduced in an extreme form that has little chance of becoming law. This is a common practice in politics: typically the supporters of such legislation later accept a modified version reflecting a "compromise" or a "balanced view", but which attains most of their goals. Possible goals of the CBDTPA would be to distract public attention and encourage hardware manufacturers to support less ambititious schemes. Some confirmation of this was the agreement announced on January 14, 2003 between the Recording Industry Association of America, the Business Software Alliance and the Computer Systems Policy Project (supported by a group of computer hardware manufacturers) in which the music industry would drop its support for compulsory schemes such as CBDTPA in return for the computer industry dropping its support for enhanced "fair use" legislation.

Other U.S. senators named as sponsors of the CBDTPA include:

John Breaux (D-LA)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Ted Stevens (R-AK)

[utopian]

5. It's a whole lotta nothing

Typical politician speak, carefully worded to be devoid of meaning.