My concern about the bill has nothing to do with the website with red Xs. It has to do with a reading of the text. It's not a big bill, so it doesn't take too long to read and think about, and see the potential.

For your worry about bias and all, the links you provide are from Santorum's comments and from the weather companies. Gosh, wonder what side they would present...

So again, read the bill, forget cults of personalities and who's on what side. Read the bill, read both side's comments, take into account their biases (both sides ARE biased), and make a decision. How about a link to the two other bills you mention? I can't say whether or not there are sites trashing them without doing research. I assume you did that research before making the claim they don't exist.

By the way, the links provided in the original posting did eventually lead to the content of the bill - one link for it was bad, but then later the contents of the bill were posted directly in one the areas. I re-read the text of the bill by following paths from the orginal posting.

Not enacting these bills (or any bill for that matter) does not necessarily mean negligence. It may simply mean that none of the bills fit what is needed and more work needs to be done to figure it out. If they are not considered and debated, then you have a case for negligence. Deciding they are the wrong solution and not enacting them, essentially allowing the status quo to stay until a better solution is figured out is not negligence. Enacting legislation simply because you feel something needs to be done and its the only bill in hand is negligence.

You seem way more interested in the political side of this and venting your problems with the web site and its bias than considering the contents of the proposed legislation.

"Real honest inteligent diologue is needed with factual complete information in able to grasp all aspects of problems we face as a nation and world to enable us to solve the numerous problems we and future generations face."

For sure. But one of the things inherent in societies with free speech is that you yourself get the final responsibility of figuring out what is meaningful from all the voices. It's the messy side of a free society, and can be disconcerting at times, but anything else leads to censorship. Some things will be patently offensive to you, but then your views may be that way to others. So, again, read the various sources, consider their biases, and move on. Railing against everybody who has a bias (other than your own) only means you'll be perpetually pissed.

For me, I would not support this bill as written. But that's just me, I could be wrong...