Slashdot Mirror

Here is Public Law 107-243 that parent post was referring to. You can see in the first few pages that it talks about the alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

PDF Format

I can't hardly imagine a world dominated by lawyers would consider patent reform.

Are they even allowed to publish this kind of information? Or is it withheld under the PATRIOT act with the rest of our civil liberties?

Depends on you. There have been several hearings, including this notorious one last week. (change link to "rtsp://*" or look for it on cspan.org)

Call your congressman.

I went looking on the CSPAN website for it. And the 1 hour 30 minute video from May 16th 2005 they say they have on it appears to have been replaced with an archived 57 minute video from 2003 instead. WTF?

http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?ResultStart =1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Rogers+Brown

How large our social spending really is is cleverly hidden. Much of it is sliced off the top of incoming tax dollars, what's left becomes the dollars that are 'budgeted', the providing a misleading indication of how much money is going where.

Really, gosh, you'd think that 'secret' 'off-the-top' skim by the godless homosexual judge-loving liberals would have been the first thing the [strike]Chosen Race[/strike] the Bush Administration would have shitcanned.

Let's see the goddamn proof. Let's have reputable statistics from a government budget demonstrating your Fox News tinfoil hat liberal-conspiracy theory.

As for proof: Try this from C-Span. Or this from the Senates own website. Or this from the OMB (Scroll down to table 2-2, the expenses marked 'mandatory' are those 'off-budget' items to which I refer.)

Google on mandatory spending or off-budget and feast on the links.

I'm tired of neofacist right-wing troll bullshit on blogs, on slashdot, on television, and in all the newspapers, of all places. Gimme some proof, or go back to the sewer.

But understanding that requires actually understanding the meaning of the word fascist.

I'm not going into the Clinton deal, but on Iraq and WMDs. Congress isn't going to go after Bush on Iraq because Congress voted to support beating the hell out of Iraq with a B-52 for a wide variety of reasons, WMD wasn't the only one.

It's the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq from 2002 or PUBLIC LAW 107-243--OCT. 16, 2002. Some highlights

"Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;"

And the big point

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush didn't start the War in Iraq on deceit, Congress laid out a list of reasons for the United States to go to war.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20 021002-2.html

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the MGM vs Grokster case today. For those living under a rock, at issue is the legal decision that prevented the movie industry from killing the VCR in the mid-80s (the "Sony-Betamax decision"). In retrospect the Supreme Court did them a big favour since most of the movie industry's revenue now comes from video rentals. Unfortunately the movie industry has not learned its lesson.

"Secondary copyright infringement" is when you yourself don't actually infringe copyright, but you somehow facilitate someone else doing it. I assume that this was originally intended as a way to get at the people that run "swap meets" where people exchange copies of software and CDs in violation of copyright law.

In the 1980s the Supreme Court said that the creator of a technology cannot be sued for secondary infringement if their technology is "capable of substantial non-infringing use", in effect creating a "shield" against secondary liability for technology creators. In the case of Grokster, two previous court judgements have said that this doctrine protects decentralised P2P software, in the same way that it shielded the creator of the VCR. The movie industry would like to see this shield weakened enough that Grokster and similar P2P file-sharing networks are no-longer protected by it.

Their opponents (myself included) fear that any weakening of this shield will create exactly the kind of legal uncertainty that can kill innovations before they have even made it out of the venture capitalist's office (and as a veteran of a number of VC's offices, I can attest to the fact that nothing turns them off like the threat of a legal battle).

If you don't mind Real Video, you can watch a great debate between Fred von Lohmann, Senior Staff Attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Theodore Olson, Former Solicitor General for the Bush Administration (2001-2004) and Representative of the Recording Industry and Motion Pictures Association here.

The argument only took place a few hours ago, but you can read a good summary from someone that appears to know their stuff here. His assessment? It went better for Grokster than he expected, but it is extremely dangerous to draw any conclusions from the oral argument phase of a court case.

It's going to sound lame, but you can get some reasonably good audio from 2600.

2600

Or Sun has their Java evangelists create real audio lectures.

Also, I purchased Verbal Advantage

Verbal Advantage

When going through DC I listen to C-SPAN Radio, or whenever available.

C-SPAN Radio

When available, I listen to NPR.

NPR

If it's the wee hours, I listen to Coast to Coast AM

Coast to Coast AM

I also like Neil Boortz.

I also purchased "Word Smart" and "Grammar Smart" on Amazon.com, which are published by the Princeton Review.

We're not at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they have not.

Just because the word "war" isn't used in the official congressional authorization, doesn't mean that Congress hasn't approved a state of war. Congress is free to use its power to make a state of war, declared or not, under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution in whatever way it sees fit, including conceding the ability to make war to the President under circumstances prescribed by specific laws passed by the same Congress that has this constitutional power.

May I bring to your attention HJR 114, that specifically authorizes the use of military force against Iraq.

Now, assuming you trust the Marriam-Webster definition for "war", in sense (1), HJR 114 certainly declares "a state ... of open and declared armed hostile conflict" between the United States and Iraq, and in sense (2) we are certainly in "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism" as a result of the actions authorized by HJR 114 being taken.

Just because HJR 114 doesn't say "We Declare a State of War with Iraq" doesn't mean that the United States is not in a state of war with Iraq. It just hasn't been formalized into those words (which activate a sequence of other laws that are entirely unnecessary for our purposes in this conflict.) While HJR 114 does not declare war, and is rather specific on reporting and such as related to the War Powers Act, its overall effect isn't much different from this, except that "the full resources" of the United States and its people are not formally committed.

An interesting take on the "formal" declaration of war and its use (and possible obsolescence) can be found here. More reading material on the subject of war and who can declar it can be found here.

The prisoners held in Guantanamo are mostly "enemy combantants", and no "prisoners of war."

You're right, because as another astute Slashdot reader pointed out, there is a strong argument that those held at Guantanimo are not POWs under the Geneva convention. On the other hand, there are *actual* POWs being held in Iraq that do meet the definition.

c-span showed a interesting talk from the library of congress Digital Future series. There is a link at http://www.c-span.org/congress/digitalfuture.asp (it is the one from Monday, January 24) There were very few really good questions, but a very bright scientist explains the basics. I would have liked to know if there is any P=NP optimism...

Whether or not Gladwell has any stunning insights, one reason for the book being popular is that he writes well and the book is entertaining.

I watched him talk about the book on C-SPAN, and enjoyed the talk. I also read and enjoyed his previous book (The Tipping Point), which was similarly enjoyable without being incredibly insightful or a great learning experience.

It's okay to have nonfiction that isn't dull or stodgey. It's even possible for such popular books to encourage people to read more about particular topics.

Fun is good!

Sorry, but I have to call bullshit. Below is every quote from the address using the word 'free' or 'freedom'. Check for yourself at C-SPAN

First, he defines the terms a number of times in different ways. He also uses them generically occasionally assuming that you know the english language. There is not one time that freedom is equated in any way with making money.

Second, only 6 of the occurences relate to Iraq. So if you want to study the Pavolovian effect, maybe you should look at the blog you quoted so well.

Both of your premises are completely wrong, therefore your argument is invalid. Next time maybe you should think for yourself before passing on every left-wing idea you read somewhere.

Quotes from the State of the Union 2005:
"We've been placed in office by the votes of the people we serve. And tonight that is a privilege we share with newly-elected leaders of Afghanistan, the Palestinian Territories, Ukraine, and a free and sovereign Iraq."

"Small business is the path of advancement, especially for women and minorities, so we must free small businesses from needless regulation and protect honest job-creators from junk lawsuits."

"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society."

"Our third responsibility to future generations is to leave them an America that is safe from danger, and protected by peace. We will pass along to our children all the freedoms we enjoy"

"If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades."

"The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom."

"America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond"

"Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures."

"And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace."

"The beginnings of reform and democracy in the Palestinian territories are now showing the power of freedom to break old patterns of violence and failure."

"the United States will work with our friends in the region to fight the common threat of terror, while we encourage a higher standard of freedom."

"we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom."

"Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve."

"Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq."

"And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror."

"they are trying to destroy the hopes of Iraqis, expressed in free elections."

"We will succeed in Iraq because Iraqis are determined to fight for their own freedom, and to write their own history."

"We are standing for the freedom of our Iraqi friends, and freedom in Iraq will make America safer for generations to come."

"And we have said farewell to some very good men and women, who died for our freedom, and whose memory this nation will honor forever."

"with grateful hearts, we honor freedom's defenders, and our military families, represented here this evening"

"The attack on freedom in our world has reaffirmed our confidence in freedom's power to change the world. We are all part of a great venture: To extend the promise of freedom in our country, to renew the values that sustain our liberty, and to spread the peace that freedom brings."

"The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable -- yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom."

Two words: pocket veto.

How are you using the term "pork barrel," there?

There are tons of examples of one side or another attaching amendments to bills in order to undercut their support. For example, the 1964 Civil Rights Bill eventually included provisions about gender as well as race; the usual social conservatives thought that would take the bill down because the idea was so obnoxious. (Oops! The bill passed.)

So was the proposed legislation loaded with actual "pork" -- meaning costly projects for people's home districts? It doesn't even read, in your version, like a deliberate attempt to undercut it. It sounds more like the bill was an overrreach -- "more anti-gun legislature" (legislation, right?) was on it, and it got voted down.

It's called a representative democracy. Messy process, isn't it?

What? It's easy to get hold of the 2nd presidential debate. It is available on the C-SPAN site, here.

On the occasion that I have been inclined to watch I have found their streams to be clear and of high quality (your tax dollars at work).

Last time I watched their feeds was a Presidential State of the Union Address. I found the forums to be filled with the expectedly colorful people, albiet conversing on a slightly higher plane than many online politcal forums.

On the occasion that I have been inclined to watch I have found their streams to be clear and of high quality (your tax dollars at work).

Last time I watched their feeds was a Presidential State of the Union Address. I found the forums to be filled with the expectedly colorful people, albiet conversing on a slightly higher plane than many online politcal forums.

On the occasion that I have been inclined to watch I have found their streams to be clear and of high quality (your tax dollars at work).

Last time I watched their feeds was a Presidential State of the Union Address. I found the forums to be filled with the expectedly colorful people, albiet conversing on a slightly higher plane than many online politcal forums.

On the occasion that I have been inclined to watch I have found their streams to be clear and of high quality (your tax dollars at work).

Last time I watched their feeds was a Presidential State of the Union Address. I found the forums to be filled with the expectedly colorful people, albiet conversing on a slightly higher plane than many online politcal forums.

'm tired of getting my news spun for me. I just want the goddamn facts, separated from the spin.

All Hail C-SPAN. Sadly, one has to expend a considerable more amount of "thought" when watching C-SPAN as opposed to the Major Media, which is why most people don't.

The only problem with C-SPAN is Washington Journal, on which you can truly discover how incredibly stupid the average American is.

No, check that. You can discover how incredibly stupid the ABOVE AVERAGE American is (since most normal Americans would never bother watching C-SPAN).

CPSAN's 2004 Vote site

Also have live feeds of CSPAN 1-4 in real or windows media linked from the homepage

Let's face it, you don't need bin-laden to tell you we've been screwed by both parties.

If you *REALLY* want to get technical, both campaings could, theororetically, be prosecuted under anti-trust laws for their debate agreement or even racketeering (RICO statutes) for all the legal manoeuvres before, during, and likely after the elections. (Intimidation, voter fraud, extortion [vote for me or else everyone gets it], rigging an election [Nader's woes]...)

Yeah, I know I'm in a "swing state," yada, yada, yada, but I look at it this way: What if? I'll be voting for someone that really does represent my views best, and, if elected, would cause repurcussions in D.C. that would be felt around the world.

Unlike Ralph Nader he is on the ballot in 49 states.

One thing I got from the bin-laden transcript the media seems to miss is he is telling us we --the voter-- have the power to steer our country but our apathy has led us down this road of conflict.

I've voted every year since I was 18. I don't think I've wasted any votes except in the last election.

I won't do it again.

(oh, god, i'm gonna get flamed aren't I?)

It takes 2/3rd to move a bill from the debate stage to voting stage. The Republicans currently have 50-50 with tiebreaker status, so any heavily tilted bill tends to get filibustered, which has the effect of putting bills into limbo.

This was the same argument given to Clinton from 1992 to 1994 when the Democrats had full control of the both the Executive and Legislative branches, but did not have super majority to pass whatever law they wished. Fortunately, we citizens were protected well by this balance...

acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

is consistent with the Authorization for use of military force against Iraq resolution of 2002 (Oct 2002) aka Public Law 107-243.

The letter is cute out of context, but the fact that it isn't frequently sited implies no one else finds it damning. Regime change in Iraq was offical policy under Clinton well before 9-11. It is debatable how signifigant Hussein's support of Al Queda and Hamas was but not its existance.

If you have other debates, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, Presidential and/or VP, or higher-quality of the above, PLEASE POST!

Here are 2000 debates:
2000 three presidential debates and one vice presidential debates

Here too

Address:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
202-456-1111
president@whitehouse.gov

Salary: $400,000

Health Data

And here's his attourney

Translation: For those living "in the public life," there is no expectation of privacy, so to expect those in public life to understand the motivation of those of us who appreciate privacy to keep it is like talking about being poor to someone who has been rich all their life: They just can't understand. Heck, the news media mentiones when the President has a physical. Some congressional districts probably do this for their representatives too. This is probably only one of the reasons privacy advocates have a hard time pleading their cause in the US.

I would suggest using Net Transport to pull the Real Media files from CSPAN's debate page. Their coverage of the debates was the best of any, as it was just the live feeds of either candidate. And when they were over, no jackass pundits!

At first, there was talk among the press of simply ignoring "photo ops" as not newsworthy. But the press caved in. That was the beginning of the end of political reporting.

Today, Bush's press conferences are scripted. Ari Fletcher, the White House press secretary, tells Bush which reporters to call on. Some, although not all, of the reporters ask only planted questions. The whole process is controlled by the White House, not the press.

The overall effect is that there is no moment left in American politics when the President has to answer hostile questions. Even in the recent debates, that was avoided. Read the rules.

CSPAN. I mean it's politics. Shouldn't it be obvious where it's at?

1) TV is a dying medium among intellectuals, especially including tech geeks. The fact that the idea is to fill a niche shows this clearly.

2) As far as advertisers are concerned, low ratings are actually okay if the target audience has a lot of money to spend - which is why a 5.0 rated NASCAR race or WWE pro wrestling show (etc.) will readily be bumped for 2.0 rated tennis or golf tournaments.

Ergo there's no practical reason this couldn't have been done before. Fermi's paradox comes to mind, as does:

3) It's a bad method. The big successes among broadcast and cable networks have all started in local markets, proved successful and moved on to national markets. A top-down approach is an invitation to failure. Unless some major local markets have been established, this is a major risk.

4) The wheel was already invented. BBC Science, PBS and the A&E and TLC networks have tried out every sort of program, from dry hard science to borderline science-fiction. The poppy result you see today, in its "veneer of stupid", is what's called a happy medium, a compromise between unworkable extremes.

5) The audience is guaranteed to be small with a limited ceiling of growth. Instead of wasting resources broadcasting to the majority for the minority's interest, adopt C-SPAN's approach and let your audience self-identify.

At least, the 3rd party candidates (except Nader) all were televised debating on C-span. The video (.rm format) is temporarily linked from the C-span home page, under "recent programs," and can also be found using a search for "third party" on c-span.org.

Does anybody know how to save this video as a more storeable format (i.e., mpeg)?

The Congressperson must be present in order to vote within a small window of time.

I found some more info on the Senate and a lot more for the House of Representatives.

As I've said other places (not actually the best summary but the only one I can find right now), simply acknowledging God as a civic leader does not mean you're establishing a theocracy. Watch this interview (\. screws up the direct link), you'll see he says the same thing. Rather, I believe you'll see your 1st Am. freedoms better defended by someone who sees it as a religious obligation to do so.

"Separation of church and state" is a misstatement of what our freedom is. That phrase was used by Jefferson, IIRC, only as an analogy. The 1st Am. actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof [...]". The Founders were religious people of diverse denominations. It was because of their religious beliefs, and their acknowledgment of God as the giver of liberty, that we have a Constitution that protects those freedoms. Peroutka will not establish any one religion as official nor compel anyone to worship any special way or even worship at all. I believe he would, however, remove many of the restrictions gov't has placed on religious groups.

To summarize, the "wall of separation" only means that gov't is not going to dictate your beliefs to you, nor is any church going to run the government. There is no direct influence from one to the other. It does not mean a complete divorce of God from one's civic service. These indirect effects, such as a leader's personal attempts to govern in a moral and godly way, are completely permissible.

On one "thin premise" ... NO ... one would not lead "a coalition of the willing" into war on one "thin premise" ... not with standing Saddam having actually used WMD twice before against the Iranians and Kurds ... BTW, please do not cheapen their painful WMD deaths by calling those two Saddam WMD use events "thin evidence" of Saddam's capacity both to construct and to use WMDs

However, combining a "thick premise" (i.e. actual use of WMD twice before) with twenty-two (22) additional "thick premises" one could and should lead "an international coalition of the willing" into war ... in other words, twenty-three "thick premises" for why we went to war with an "international coalition of the willing"

We have not yet invaded Iran because Iran has not yet violated twelve (12) "UN Security Council Resolutions (i.e. Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677)" over the course of twelve (12) years.

Hopefully you will agree that a nation (e.g. Saddam's Iraq) that repeatably violates twelve UN Security Council Resolutions over the course of twelve-years is engaging in "Darwin Award" behavior

Furthermore, we have not yet invaded Iran because democratic forces (e.g. students) are actively working inside Iran to change the theocratic political system in Iran ... you are informed of current events? You do chat up the international students and immigrants from the region?

Why invade when covert CIA support to the Iranian Opposition might change things? ... see also Azar Nafisi's "Reading Lolita in Tehran"

If John Kerry does not rush us into war (grin) with Iran then things might turn out alright in Iran

Unfortunately, Saddam's Iraq was too much of a police state for such opposition forces to exist inside Iraq. Some examples of how Saddam's Iraq controlled dissent ... video clip illustrate the difference between Saddam's Iraq and Iran

Oh, but apparently I'm wrong: according to you, everybody and his brother read the thing.

You are onto something if you step further back from the issue 'de jour' (sic) ... basically the MainStreamMedia ( MSM) does a very poor job keeping the public informed ... hence the explosion of blogs by subject matter experts.

Read the about the Mainstream Media vs Kid Internet "battle in the clouds" happening in the background of the current political campaign ... this is an Alvin Toffler event.

Here's one of the twenty-three (23) reasons we went to war:

true aim at the outset had been to help the Iraqi people???
Whereas in December 1991,Congress expressed its sense that it ''supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Public Law 102 -1),''that Iraq 's [Saddam's] repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,security,and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means [war???] to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

If you have time then you might also read yet another one of the twenty-three (23) reasons we went to war:

Enforcing UN Security Council Resolutions???
Whereas Congress in the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces [war???] pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

There is no mention of this debate on the C-SPAN Debates web page. It appears that C-SPAN is giving this about as much attention as the major networks, which is a shame considering that C-SPAn claims to be non-partisan.

He was talking about the statements made by other people. From the transcript:

I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Please read the transcript (hell, skim it) before coming to any conclusions about Kerry's actions in '72. The 'media' sure ain't going to clarify any of this. We need to do it ourselves.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.--The President is authorized to use theArmed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessaryand appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States againstthe continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Councilresolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIALDETERMINATION.--In connection with theexercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use forcethe President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafteras may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercisingsuch authority, make available to the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate hisdetermination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomaticor other peaceful means alone either
(A) will not adequatelyprotect the national security of the United States against thecontinuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to leadto enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Councilresolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistentwith the United States and other countries continuing to takethe necessary actions against international terrorist and ter-rorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, orpersons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the ter-rorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WARPOWERSRESOLUTIONREQUIREMENTS.--
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.--Consistent withsection 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congressdeclares that this section is intended to constitute specific statu-tory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of theWar Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.--Nothing inthis joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the WarPowers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) REPORTS.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days,submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this jointresolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise ofauthority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for effortsthat are expected to be required after such actions are completed,including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq LiberationAct of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)PUBLIC LAW 107-243--OCT. 16, 2002LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.
(b) SINGLECONSOLIDATEDREPORT.--To the extent that thesubmission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides withthe submission of any other report on matters relevant to thisjoint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congresspursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolu-tion (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted asa single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) RULE OFCONSTRUCTION.--To the extent that the informationrequired by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of MilitaryForce Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included inthe report required by this section, such report shall be consideredas meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

I am the AC parent poster. Someday, I'll sign up for an account.

According to the bill the way it is...

I was responding to the original story submission which suggested, Here's an idea - make the broadcasters pay to use the airwaves. I hear this idea thrown around from time to time - auctioning off the RF spectrum. My comments were directed toward that general idea. I was not commenting on the bill, since I have little idea what's in it. Sorry if that was unclear.

NPR is a radio service and the stations do not have to move their frequency allocations.

Again, I'm responding to the idea of selling the entire RF spectrum as suggested by the original submitter.

CSPAN is a cable service and does not broadcast.

Yes, I know. I figured someone would bring this up. I wonder why CSPAN is running this story: FCC rules could force the C-SPAN networks off your cable system. Learn why, and how you can get help.

I find it very interesting that most PBS stations will have been compliant sooner than their commercial counterparts.

I guess it's because their audience is much richer than the average antenna user. They will be much more able to afford new digital sets.

And, of course, the government never has to pay for radio spectrum. The government is the allocator, not the payer.

But does that make sense in the context of the "sell the spectrum" proposal? The government pays for postage. Is it paying itself when it buys stamps? Government agencies pay the National Archives to store and manage their records. Then is the government paying itself? So how is it different to propose that the Forest Service pay the FCC for spectrum? It's tru that the government is the allocator, but it should be acting as an agent for the public who is the owner of the commodity.

Please understand, I don't necessarily agree with spectrum auctioning because money does not account for all my goals of allocation. If your goal is for the government to take in as much money as possible, then auctions might the fit the goal. But if your goal is the greatest public service, a pure auction will probably not do the trick.

I don't know if people missed it when the interview with Badnarik came up or what, but I think people should watch the debate between Cobb and Badnarik available from C-SPAN before they post a question here.

RTFA, or rather WTFD, so to speak.

Michael Badnarik debates David Cobb (the Green Party presidential candidate) on C-SPAN

We wouldn't be in war if say someone like John Kerry had won the 2000 election?

You mean Gore?

If you haven't, I'd suggest watching the speech he gave in May (the one Republicans harped on as crazy ranting) titled Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore Speech on Iraq Policy linked from here on C-SPAN. I watched the speech and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be in Iraq if he had won the 2000 elect... if Gore was president. ;)

My biggest complaint with liberals is that they are emotional and reactionary. The liberal philosophy appeals to the heart not the sense.
I feel the same way about conservatives (substitute emotional for manipulative), so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Where has Kerry stated how he would handle this war he would inherit?

That's one of the biggest problems I see that Kerry has: a weak, all-talk-no-action Iraq policy. Iraq is the biggest election issue today, and to take a cursory look at his website, you wouldn't know that we're at war there. His "plan".

But what about Bush? Where has he laid out his plan? It's his war, shouldn't he lay out his plans? Maybe here? Nope, no plan. Nobody knows what they're going to do with Iraq, but Bush should actually be doing something right now. Right now, Bush is the President of the United States. He stirred up a hornets nest in Iraq. What is he doing about it right now? He's not telling you.

...how else can you explain thousands of liberals being explicitly anti-Bush while supporting Kerry, a candidate that supported the same policy they cite as grounds to get rid of Bush for?

Liberals, I guess including me, rally around Kerry because he's the only hope we have of getting rid of Bush. We're pragmatists that way. That's why we're against Nader running. To be honest, I didn't vote last election. I wasn't a Democrat or a Republican. I wasn't even registered to vote. But you can bet I'll vote in this election. I'll vote to change the course, because I see us headed over Niagara Falls, and I want to try and turn the boat around.

Come to think of it, I dont' remember the liberals denouncing the fall of communism as a result of Reagans coldwar hedge bet. Amazing though, they sure as hell knew that spending was wrong at the time.

Do you still beat your wife?

Personally, I believe that deficit spending is almost always wrong, and deficit spending on defense when there is not a clear need for it is even more so. Having been very young at the time when this all happened, I can't give you more than that.

I can answer that. In his debate with David Cobb of the Green Party, Badnarik made it clear that he could not vote for either Bush or Kerry and stand to look at himself in the mirror. If he thought either one would be a good president, he would not be running.

Search C-Span for the debate and see it for yourself.

Here are some videos from C-SPAN that might be useful for coming up with questions for Badnarik. It's always more interesting to question people about things they've actually said!

Third Party Debate

Badnarik's Acceptance Speech

Libertarian Party Agenda

LP Canidates Debate

All these links are RTSP, so you need some kind of special client for them. I personally was not able to watch them online (I did catch them on TV though). If someone knows of a location of MPEG2 or AVI+MPEG4 encodings that would be better than special protocols that don't seem to work with the linux clients I've tried.

Neither are really happy with the situation, I think, because neither are entirely right nor entirely wrong. Additionally, it's a complicated enough problem that it's hard to make people understand during a speech or for that matter a debate. Here's a page with a link to Alan Greenspan's Testimony on the budget and Economic Outlook. It's 2 hours long, but illuminating. For those of you with comission-ADD, I'll try to summarize.

1) The retirement of Baby Boomers will begin by 2008 and will be a real concern by 2012.

2) At this point it's NOT a good idea to pay for SS with borrowed money.

3) Generally speaking, tax cuts are not a good way to bring about economic turnaround in the short term.

4) In this case, it turned out that these tax cuts did help bring about economic turnaround.

5) It is never true that the improved economic situation brought about by tax cuts will fully pay for the loss of tax revenue by improving the tax base; it is, however, always true that it will pay for some. Additionally, no one knows just how much.

6) It is true that more jobs have been lost during this presidential term than any other, it is also true that productivity is it's highest ever. Moreover, it appears that the 2nd is in part causing the first.

7) The government does not sequester SS funds, it spends them.

8) We are indeed on tract towards complete instability. We are nowhere near this however, and have plenty of time to remedy things. But, things must change. As one would expect, the longer we wait, the harder the problem becomes. The ultimate situation of instability has never happened in the United States and it is unlikely it will this time, we can however revisit stagflation of the 1980's if we are not careful.

9) PAYGO is a good idea.

10) The tax code of 1986 is a good idea.

11) It would be best to cut taxes AND cut spending.

12) Ask another economist and he might say something different.

Now, both the Democrats and the Republicans embrace different aspects and reject others of the above points. Democrats don't like the fact that Bush's Tax cuts actually brought about change for the good. Republican's don't like that it's nevertheless not sound and not all rosey. Rebuplicans don't like PAYGO, Democrats don't like (I guess) the 1986 code as it was drafted under the previous Bush administration. Dems don't like 6) because of the productivity increase makes things look good for Republicans, Republicans don't like 6) because job losses make them look bad.

As for my opinion, I'm going to side with the Democrats on this one. There's no reason to not reinstitute PAYGO and to obstruct it is unwise.

I mean, c'mon, two skull and bones white male connected elite globalist millionaires as the "choices"? How blatant does it have to get?

Indeed. And where does the difference of opinion lie? They bluster and they talk on "major points of difference" but what are they exactly?

Let's start with the major ones.

The Republicans are the party of small government and responsible fiscal policy. Really? The current Republican president has grown the government by 7.5% and created the largest budget deficit in history. That's just Bush? Interestingly it was the last Republican presidencies, under Bush Snr. and Reagan that were responsible for the previous record for a budget deficit. Don't tell me the federal government didn't balloon overr that era too (I unfortnately do not have figures for that).

The Democrats are the party of progressive social policy. That would be why John Kerry doesn't actually support gay marriage then? That would be the Democrats are as supportive of the War on Drugs in its various forms as the Republicans. They are good at scaremongering over social policy - in 2000 we were warned that a vote for Bush would see legal abortions repealed. Bush has had 4 years, and the Republicans have been exceptionally dominant during much of it - is abortion illegal? No.

And for those Republicans who want the more conservative social policy - has Bush actually done anything about abortion? No, not really. For all his bluster about constituitonal amendments, has Bush actually done anything about gay marriage? No, he supported the single action that was the least likely to succeed, and have any real effect. It was all rhetoric - all for show.

Okay, so on the major issues, where the parties claim they are different, they turn out to be very similar in practice. Then surely there are plenty of differences on minor issues? Sure, if you dig around you can find plenty of reasons why the Democrats and Republicans differ. If you look at most of the broad issues that matter however, you'll find they agree. They argue so vehemently over the trivialities, they polarise their supporters into an "Us v. Them" mentality so well, that people have come to believe these are the only issues that matter - that they aren't as trivial as they appear.

Take some time out. Watch a debate between a couple of the major third parties and see all the other important issues that come up - issues that are usually not even discussed by Republicans or Democrats, but when you hear them, truly are worthy of at least having a discussion about. Whether you agree with these candidates or not, they have views that are certainly worthy of being heard and discussed.

Jedidiah.

I have hunted around for some statistics and haven't found anything yet. He usually votes with Democrats, rarely with republicans. I don't think that there has been a case where 'neither' was an option since a vote for a bill is either one side or the other unless it is an abstention. It is easy to identify his voting when you do come across any data; He is an Independent and you can see the only 'I' listed there and where he lands. If you want to see what he is all about see his web site. He is progressive, much like Ralph, on the issues. But he talks about topics at many levels: from milk compacts to fix prices for small farmers in New England (the same was done in the mid-west) to be able to compete with larger producers, to sitting on the Banking Committee (second clip down). If you want to see him give his history go here. Note: His accent isn't Vermont; it's Brooklyn. I gave his autobiography to my father-in-law (a conservative) and he liked it. He still thinks Bernie is a nut, but he now respects him for it.

Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, Gore wouldn't have cut hundreds of billions in capital gains taxes while proclaiming we were at war.

Neither would Nader have done so. Neither would Brown have done so. Neither would have most of the third party candidates. And oddly enough, most of those candidates would have actually set about dealing with some real issues, like health care, like social security, like electoral reform, like reforming foreign policy, like considering the question of whether we wis to grant corporations the full rights of individuals. What you believe should be done about those issues - well, that may vary, but I suspect, if you stop and think, you'll agree that something ought to be done (the current system does not appear sustainable). The difference is that most third parties would actually seek to address those issues (in various ways).

Sure, there are some differences between the parties, but the are few and far between, and a great many issues of real significance are being largely ignored. Try listening to third party candidate debates (there's a very good one between Badnarik and Cobb here) and listen to the variety of important issues you won't hear the major parties talk about.

Jedidiah

The Badnarik-Cobb debate, also called the "third-party" debate although I believe they also sent invitations to the two establishment parties, was aired on C-Span. It is still in their online archives for a limited time here (or just search c-span.org for "badnarik cobb").

In particular, note the carefully crafted parallelism of "We saw...[injustice, atrocity, etc.]", repeated not as quotations from a group with whom Kerry had met, but as things he himself had seen with his own eyes.