Slashdot Mirror

How is:

"The ability to understand the secret communications of our foreign adversaries while protecting our own communications..." http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00003.cfm

contemptible?

From what I can see from Executive Order 12333 http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html the NSA is charged with Foreign Intelligence gathering and Information Assurance. The second one is at discussion here. I'm sure they, like every other Govt department, use off-the-shelf software where possible to cut down cost (another goal of all Govt departments). Making that software secure protects your Government AND your people.

Admittedly they may have overstepped the letter of the law (which can be quite grey at times) on a few occasions, but I do believe that, in general, agencies of Democratic governments aren't inherently evil, or made up of evil people. They're just normal people trying to do a job and really are trying to do the best for the people they serve.

Having said that, as others have commented, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Trust your Government, they probably really are trying to do their best for you, but DO keep an eye on them!

Those of you who are paranoid, we know who you are...

People work three months out of the year to pay their income taxes.

Not anymore. In 2008 Tax Freedom Day in the USA is 15 April, 4 1/2 months into the year.

The revolution started because the taxation got to a whopping 3%!

And people didn't like it when President Lincoln had an income tax of up to 5%. They accepted it only because the Civil War had to be paid for.

Yea, the British should have done that to George Washington all those years ago.

They tried. Really hard...

He was a traitorous guerrilla warfare fighting asshole, right?

First, he was not a guerrilla — he headed a national militia/army of the United States. He and his soldiers fought in uniform and had allegiance to a state.

Second, the list of grievances, that caused him and others to revolt, is well documented. Are you aware of the legitimated grievances of the guerrillas we are facing (al-Qaeda, Taleban)?

Nader has done more good for this country than Gore (or most others in politics.)

But in securing Dubya's win he did enough harm to over shadow all the good he has done. It's a safe assumption that if Nader had not run, that the vast majority of those who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, and Gore would have won Florida and the election. Sure 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan may well still have happened, but the Iraq war and the abuse of signing statements and Gitmo and the DHS and the Patriot Act 1&2 and wiretapping would not have happened under Gore. Nader has done a lot of good, but also a lot of damage, he should get back to doing good instead of following his ego and "paving the road with good intentions."

1. We know there's an encrypted file or partition somewhere, you have Truecrypt installed.
   
   • Prove it to a jury. Per Truecrypt: No TrueCrypt volume can be identified (volumes cannot be distinguished from random data).
   
   
2. See 1, and remember, lying to us is a crime.
   
   • 5th Amendment, and bite my sphincter. I have rights.
   
   
3. We know Truecrypt supports hidden partitions, we read about it on Slashdot.
   
   • Ah, but what can you do with that information? Nothing.
   • I know you think reading Slashdot makes you cool, but it doesn't offset the fact that you're a tool.
   
   

Respectfully disagree.

The patent system is *not* supposed to raise the price of security.

The patent system is supposed to:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts [source: US Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8.

Making a profit from something as obvious as putting a filter in a firewall does little or nothing to achieve this goal. The largest patent holders (including IBM and Microsoft) all agree the system needs reform. But patent reform is a lot like campaign finance reform, everyone agrees there's a problem but no one really has anything they can realistically take to congress.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Sigh...

Nobody mentioned Article V except you. They mentioned the FIFTH AMENDMENT in the BILL OF RIGHTS!!! Have you ever heard of the Bill of Rights?

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights.html

A better question is how YOUR comment got a +5???

This is simply incorrect, from http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

How the hell did the parent post get a +5 informative of all things?!

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Obviously, this little detail has been bypassed. Federal Govt has been ignoring this amendment and doing wuddeverdahell it wants for more than a century.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

It's a 4 year old SOP document from just after the prison was created.

The main thing it can be used is infiltration. The secondary thing it can be used for is preparing actual bad guys with what we do. I do agree that congress or others should be able to review prison treatment (and this old document) as they have, but as far as my right to know what it contains as an American citizen... I don't have it. I have to put the trust in my congressmen and women. A local prison is a different story.

It reminds me of how these were true in 1944.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/hes_watching_you/images_html/images/wanted_for_murder.jpg

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/hes_watching_you/images_html/thumbnails/thumb_somebody_talked.gif

It's a 4 year old SOP document from just after the prison was created.

The main thing it can be used is infiltration. The secondary thing it can be used for is preparing actual bad guys with what we do. I do agree that congress or others should be able to review prison treatment (and this old document) as they have, but as far as my right to know what it contains as an American citizen... I don't have it. I have to put the trust in my congressmen and women. A local prison is a different story.

It reminds me of how these were true in 1944.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/hes_watching_you/images_html/images/wanted_for_murder.jpg

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/hes_watching_you/images_html/thumbnails/thumb_somebody_talked.gif

There are modern mail management systems that remove the user from archive functions. One such piece of software is offered by Symantec as part of a package which filters spam/virus/phishing while at the same time auto-archiving all in and out bound messages. There are other free options that the WH could take advantage of. Qmail has now a wonderful plugin ability that would make auto-archive a snap.

We are talking about GW's staff. These folks, dastardly as they are, are not tech-stupid. They have resources at their fingertips that would make any geek green with envy. They knowingly deleted messages and failed to preserve archives. The Presidential Records Act isn't a new piece of legislation, it's been around since 1978.

The technology exists, and the White House can afford it. The question remains, will the White House obey the courts when told "don't break federal laws" or will they continue to break the law as usual.

...reflecting military, diplomatic, or national security secrets, Presidential communications, legal advice, legal work, or the deliberative processes of the President and the President's advisers...

Article. VI.
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.

(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/eo-12958-amendment.html#1.7

My guess is that some Original Classification Authority (OCA) signed off on a Security Classification Guide that states interrogation techniques used by the FBI are classified.

Then you are being a clarity Nazi rather than a grammar Nazi. "Nazi," by the way, should be capitalized as a proper noun. And "importation" has been a word for longer than you have been a person. It appears in the US Constitution.

our country was founded as a Christian country

BS!!! The USA was founded as secular nation. You can even is it in the country's two most important documents. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson only wrote "God" once, where he wrote "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them". "Lord appears nowhere in it. In the Constitution of the USA "God" never appears and "Lord" is only used once, where they wrote the date it was signed: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names." TJ even wrote that religion was a private matter and that's where it should stay. Fact is is many of the early settlers came to America to escape persecution. Some then started persecuting the "Others" themselves. So at least some of the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure the government couldn't persecute others or used to do so.

"Jefferson wrote voluminously to prove that Christianity was not part of the law of the land and that religion or irreligion was purely a private matter, not cognizable by the state."

I think I have the draft here somewhere .... *rummage*.. ah, yes here it is.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution.html

The only drawback is every few hundred years you need a lot of bloodshed so
people remember why it was started and what it means. It would help immensely
if they would let kids know about this in school.

Given that nondemocratic governments routinely ignore these "rights" indicates to me that the existence of these rights in the US comes from all relevant parties honoring the US Constitution. Not because these rights are self-evident or exist outside of society and its rules, they do not. Nor because the Constitution "gives" these rights to a class of people. But because we chose to do so and because we hold the powerful to this contract.

As someone else rightly pointed out, the idea of inalienable rights is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights enumerates many of these inalienable rights. Even so, the original point is still valid. It is upon this basic idea that the US government was based:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The idea is that these rights are given to all people by our Creator. If government chooses to deny us those rights, that government does so at its own peril.

Given that nondemocratic governments routinely ignore these "rights" indicates to me that the existence of these rights in the US comes from all relevant parties honoring the US Constitution. Not because these rights are self-evident or exist outside of society and its rules, they do not. Nor because the Constitution "gives" these rights to a class of people. But because we chose to do so and because we hold the powerful to this contract.

As someone else rightly pointed out, the idea of inalienable rights is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights enumerates many of these inalienable rights. Even so, the original point is still valid. It is upon this basic idea that the US government was based:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The idea is that these rights are given to all people by our Creator. If government chooses to deny us those rights, that government does so at its own peril.

Given that nondemocratic governments routinely ignore these "rights" indicates to me that the existence of these rights in the US comes from all relevant parties honoring the US Constitution. Not because these rights are self-evident or exist outside of society and its rules, they do not. Nor because the Constitution "gives" these rights to a class of people. But because we chose to do so and because we hold the powerful to this contract.

As someone else rightly pointed out, the idea of inalienable rights is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights enumerates many of these inalienable rights. Even so, the original point is still valid. It is upon this basic idea that the US government was based:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The idea is that these rights are given to all people by our Creator. If government chooses to deny us those rights, that government does so at its own peril.

Despite uncontradicted statements attributed to Rush Limbaugh that Mr. Clinton issued more executive orders than any prior president, his numbers are at the low end for recent presidents, despite questions about content. Mr. Clinton has averaged 45.8 executive orders a year, the least among the last eight presidents except for Mr. Bush, who averaged 42 per year.

364 Total Executive Orders Issued, 381 Total Executive Orders Issued, too bad he hadn't more time.

Despite uncontradicted statements attributed to Rush Limbaugh that Mr. Clinton issued more executive orders than any prior president, his numbers are at the low end for recent presidents, despite questions about content. Mr. Clinton has averaged 45.8 executive orders a year, the least among the last eight presidents except for Mr. Bush, who averaged 42 per year.

364 Total Executive Orders Issued, 381 Total Executive Orders Issued, too bad he hadn't more time.

Despite uncontradicted statements attributed to Rush Limbaugh that Mr. Clinton issued more executive orders than any prior president, his numbers are at the low end for recent presidents, despite questions about content. Mr. Clinton has averaged 45.8 executive orders a year, the least among the last eight presidents except for Mr. Bush, who averaged 42 per year.

364 Total Executive Orders Issued, 381 Total Executive Orders Issued, too bad he hadn't more time.

"Now is not the time to experiment. They can certainly perform experiments of this type using unmanned vehicles and gain the information they need that way. That is how they tested heat shield materials in the olden, golden days."

A few points:

1. "Now is not the time to experiment."

   Better to run an experiment now, when if the patch doesn't work, its not going to lead to a catastrophic failure.

2. "They can certainly perform experiments of this type using unmanned vehicles"

   This will not give them information on how well humans can do the patching in a space suit, and on whether the procedures worked out are optimal, or even possible. Here they can call it off if reality doesn't conform to their expectations. You can't test this without humans.

3. "That is how they tested heat shield materials in the olden, golden days."

   And even in the olden, golden days, you needed people in the loop to make decisions and act on them. Remember the warning light that said Glenn's Mercury capsule's heat shield was loose?.

   Even today, its too bad there's nobody around to wipe the dust of the Mars rovers' solar cells ... humans are the best general-purpose tool ever.

This being the case, I don't see how he can legally suspend the elections next year to avoid a transfer of power. Even in a state of emergency, it isn't legal or even constitutional to suspend elections.

You'd *think* that the President would be bound by the Constitution. However, Presidents have come up with this little thing called "Executive Orders" which are, basically, monarchial fiats. They can't be overridden by anybody -- even Congress. "Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government." (From Executive Orders FAQ's.)

Considering Bush's theory of the "Unitary Executive" and his flood of signing statements, in which he declares that he need not follow laws that Congress has passed, and his endless cries of "Executive Privilege", it would not surprise me at all to see him issue an Executive Order *suspending elections* due to some crisis or other.

Maybe that is what is needed to get the Democrats into an impeachment mood -- assuming they are not, by that time, cooling their heels in some military stockade.

While many would think those are fundamental rights, many would not want the government ot be responsible for ensuring all have those rights, at least amongst many US citizens. These reasonable disagreements is why we have the Constitution, which is what we have to hang our hats on, and is why we have Article V to change it when we need to. And sure, someone will probably point out the 10th amendment, but that talks about people retaining power, not asserting rights, which I believe is a subtle but important distinction.

Anyway, with all the energy I see here that goes into asserting fundamental rights, (one of privacy in this case) I was glad to see an entry that alludes to the basic problem. I would contend though that an assumption that it can't be changed because of "corporate America" takes away so much of its potential. If the world really is different because of technology, and this InterWeb thingy, then go the grassroots route. It is done here on many issues. And I think that I sense a defeatist attitude because of past failures (for instance, in securing a fundamental fair-use right interpretation that would be favorable to end users). If you don't like how laws are being intepreted, then fight for new legislatoin to clarify in explicit detail what is needed. Grass-roots campaigns that are against major money interests have shown signs that they could be very effective in a relatively short period of time. Take the story of Porkbusters, for instance. While all of its goals have not been met yet, in a short order of time, they have raised awareness and gotten promises (but to little action yet unfortunatley) that their "demands" are met.

And I think people should aim higher though. I would love to see a grass-roots campaign emerge from a place like Slashdot, that would push for something like a right to "privacy" . For instance, something like "The right to privacy, being fundamental to a right of free though, shall not be abridged, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing . . . " (I would guess something about the time of the records in which one searched, but I just can't make it concise, like I think all rights should be stated) Maybe one could not get to the point of passing a Constitutional Amendment, but I could easily envision a movement centered around such a right to be embraced by a large group of people. From there, given that much of the audicence would be techno-philes, and this InterWeb thingy, you have the seeds of an inevitable Viral Marketing campaign which would almost inevitably result in some senators and congressment sponsoring at least to strenghten privacy in our laws.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Sound familiar?

PFT, the people running the government are the same timid assholes that are your neighbors. If we all stood up and said something, did something, they would take notice and the changes would ripple. The problem is we the people are complacent, lazy, we are followers. We expect one man, a new president perhaps, or Jesus or whatever, will save us from ourselves. That is false. That one man can only lead us, inspire us in the right direction, but it is we the people who have to change. We've let them fuck us, despite the fact that there were warnings all along. I've got news for you people, they are WEAK, you have nothing to be afraid of. There are only maybe 2 million evangenical christians total in the US, yet they seem like a much bigger group because Bush is their mouthpiece and has been running our country for them, and not in a legal way. He's been ignoring the representatives and using executive orders and "homeland security presidential directives"...it's okay, we've had to suffer a little but I think the damage can and will be reversed. It's not too late. Hopefully.

I think the GP was referring to the measures in the constitution allowing for the states to amend the constitution without intervention from the national level. See Article V for the procedure.

I suppose it is possible that if the states got together intending a large enough change that it would effectively strip the federal government of power, in other words, a legal non-violent revolution. The federal government could still choose to use military power to stop that, but it seems unlikely and the public would (hopefully) be outraged.

Further, some form of copyright is ensconced within the US constitution, so to achieve the ideal you propose would require a successful constitutional amendment.

No copyright laws are mandatory. Copyright laws are entirely elective and must meet Constitutional goals to be valid. The basis of US copyright law comes from this innocent looking grant of permission:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To ... promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

If at anytime authors and inventors are hindered by copyrights or patents, the laws are unconstitutional. Perpetual copyrights and patents are unconstitutional. Any law which limits your freedom and fails to promote progress of science and useful arts is unconstitutional. A person who believes in minimizing government intrusion would conclude that most current copyright laws are unconstitutional and that real rights have been trampled to protect private and public revenue.

Yet, sadly, no idea who to vote for, and really no guarantee that your vote will matter, presidentially speaking.

Why would you want to tax someone without letting them have representation.

A corporation is not a "someone." You and I are each a "someone." Corporations are financial entities established to consolidate and control capital for a specific purpose, pooling responsibility and profitability. At least, they were, until successive dubious interpretations of Santa Clara County v. South Pacific Railroad Company established the legal fiction that a corporation is a person in some important respects.

Isn't that one of the rallying cries of the revolutionary war? No taxation without representation?

Yes, referring to the "natural rights of man." Thomas Jefferson, for example, was certainly no corporatist.

When you tax a company, person or whatever, it should be able to receive representation of some sort. and if this means funding a politician who favors their position, I don't see the difference.

Sorry, but the only method of influence over government provided for by the Constitution is the electoral process. And legal entities are not granted the franchise. That right is reserved by "the people," an entity whose bounds have been increased by the 15th and 19th Amendments.

Other wise, stop taxing them.

Why, because they'll stop using the public and natural resources of the country? The owners and employees of corporations already have the vote. Suggesting that money should equal political power is to deny the role of rights-based democracy in the United States government. There's already a term for a government run by a small, moneyed ruling class, and it ain't "democracy," no matter what the news might want you to believe.

Ron Paul is a Republican. He is under consideration by the Contitution Party as a potential nominee under their party, and it appears the people in the party strongly desire his transfer.

Libertarians believe in individual rights as well as social responsibility; furthermore, every Libertarian with whom I associate believes people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Libertarians desire the return to the fundamental Constitution of the United States. Before disparaging all people who beleive the best approach for the U.S.A. as a nation of freedom and liberty lies with the Libertarian Party, you should review the Libertarian Platform.

Wow, I thought this was a troll for sure, but it's true

My favorite picture of Valenti. Can you find him?

Oh, that's right... it's better to have half a million people in Washington DC with no voting representation in our federal government.

There's a process they could follow if they cared enough to do things the right way. That they don't says much about them, none of it good...and to think they accuse their opponents of "shredding the Constitution!" Pot, meet kettle.

...in fact the Declaration of Independance and the US Constitution are printed on paper made from hemp...

This is not correct. Those documents were written on parchment. Stop spreading this myth.
(References:
  http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a8.html - Question 145
  http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/treasure/declaration_facts.html - second question)

What happened in Missoula County is similar to how the Electoral College works. Voters in the US do not directly elect the President and Vice President, but choosing the electors. Electors are members of the Electoral College who actually elect the President.

From http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral -college/faq.html, "In the early 1800's, the term 'electoral college' came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as 'college of electors.'"

"It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes."

Why do we have an Electoral College? Because back in the 1800's, it took too long to count the popular votes. In addition, from http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a /electcollege_3.htm "The Founding Fathers feared the direct popular election option. There were no organized national political parties yet, no structure by which to choose and limit the number of candidates. In addition, travel and communication was slow and difficult at that time. A very good candidate could be popular regionally, but remain unknown to the rest of the country. A large number of regionally popular candidates would thus divide the vote and not indicate the wishes of the nation as a whole.

On the other hand, election by Congress would require the members to both accurately assess the desires of the people of their states and to actually vote accordingly. This could have led to elections that better reflected the opinions and political agendas of the members of Congress than the actual will of the people.

As a compromise, we have the Electoral College system."

Actually what ever the circumstances of the first election, his second term proves my point completely. The Republicans turned out way more voters than the Democrats expected and won fairly. Personally I felt it was a mistake to reelect Bush but again the voters had their say when they realised their mistake and the Republicans got creamed in the Congressional and Senatorial elections, so the voters are the final arbiters.

Your statement "the voters are the final arbiters" is correct in a sense - the voters in question are those who make up the electoral college. But the citizens of the United States are not the final arbiters - their voice was heard, and ignored. This is an inherent flaw in the structure of our government.

The electoral college was ostensibly instituted to prevent mob rule from selecting our president. Yet this is an extremely unusual occurrence;

"In a multi-candidate race where candidates have strong regional appeal, as in 1824, it is quite possible that a candidate who collects the most votes on a nation-wide basis will not win the electoral vote. In a two-candidate race, that is less likely to occur. But it did occur in the Hayes/Tilden election of 1876 and the Harrison/Cleveland election of 1888 due to the statistical disparity between vote totals in individual State elections and the national vote totals. This also occured in the 2000 presidential election, where George W. Bush received fewer popular votes than Albert Gore Jr., but received a majority of electoral votes." (How is it possible for the electoral vote to produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote?)

In fact the original principle behind the original electoral college (we're on something like Mark III now) was that the most knowledgeable individuals from each state would select the president. This is not democracy. But then, neither is the system we have today.

Communications into and out of a country - contact with foreign destinations - has ALWAYS been a target of governments, and rightly so. It's always been the stance of the courts as well that international communications is fair game - you do not need a warrant.

In fact, US law specifically ALLOWS intercepts of international communications, handwringing notwithstanding. Title 18, part I, chapter 2511, section 2 (specifically subsections f and g) state it is legal to intercept such transmissions. No need for a FISA - or any court - warrant.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Marbury vs Madison
Marbury vs. Madison 5 U.S. 137, 174, 176. (1803) states: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

Miranda vs. Arizona
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 p.491. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

One night at a conference, though, up in the hotel room after a good deal of beer, one of them apologized to my jewish collegue for the holocaust. (To which my friend replied, in typical fashion, "Hey, no problem."). This guy clearly felt very bad about it, although not from anything anyone actually said or did.

The thing about the holocaust, however, was the way it sucked in the entire german culture. It wasn't that there were a few mass murderers; rather, the whole society became geared towards the genocide of "outsiders" within it. Yes, there were heroes among the people of germany, but something terrible happened within the society as a whole. The feelings of guilt are collective because the society as a whole acted. And the culture doesn't disappear, it's transmitted through the generations. It wasn't the case of a small group of individuals.

From my rather distant vantage point, and from meeting these two post docs, it's clear that as individuals and as a society, a great deal of soul searching has been done in germany. (Again, I'm sure there are plenty of individuals there who would be Nazis if the whole thing started up today.) It seems to be important for german society. And it seems to be coming from within german society - I don't see it much being imposed from without. There are plenty of German tourists in Israel- I even stayed in a German run kibbutz when I was there several years ago. Whatever Germans are doing, they are doing for their own reasons.

And the Holocaust is not yet completely in the past. There are still Nazis being hunted down today. There are still problems with people recovering art, money, and bank accounts that were seized by the Nazis. Claims are still being fought over to this day.

If you want to see societies which have NOT acknowledged their complicity, just look at Austria and the extreme right wing politics on the rise over there. The Germans seem determined not to do it again. Given the opportunity, Austria might. Look at Hungary, which was only occupied at the tail end of the war - but thanks to help from the local population, over two thirds of the Jews there were killed. Millions died in Poland. There has been no widespread acknowledgment of complicity, and there's plenty of antisemitism in both of these countries.

I have met plenty of Germans, and had no problems with any of them. But I am pleased to see Germany still grappling with their past, of their own accord. Perhaps we could learn something.

Executive orders... They're unconstitutional as Hell but Congress and SCOTUS are not doing a thing about it...

Can you please cite where Executive Orders have been ruled unconstitutional? According to the National Archives, the first order was written in 1849. I would expect that in all the administrations, Houses of Congress, and Supreme Courts since that time SOMEONE would have pulled the plug if this was really unconstitutional. You may have issues with individual decrees, but that does not invalidate the entirety.

"The developers clearly had good intentions when designing this."

Hmmmm... A military that not only monitors peaceful protesters, but aims to inflict non-lethal, excruciating pain on them.

Among the 'Oppressions' mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independance:

'He <the King of Great Britain> has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.'

Original text from NARA
Wikipedia

Microsoft Word say:

3 pages
8 paragraphs
111 lines
1338 words
6782 characters
8114 characters (with spaces)