Slashdot Mirror

Congress for years has been delegating authority to agencies to make their own rules.
It has been argued that this is a violation of the US constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The higher courts also defer to the agencies to interpret their own rules and don't review them for constitutionality.
That's apparently known as the Chevron doctrine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....

Benjamin Ginsberg wrote a book about some of that stuff.
What Washington Gets Wrong: The Unelected Officials Who Actually Run the Government and Their Misconceptions about the American People https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01E...

He was interviewed recently on C-Span.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?...
http://podcasts.c-spanvideo.or...

see also:
Is Administrative Law Unlawful https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00K...
Terms of Engagement https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00F...

Give everyone a basic income. Stimulate their natural creative instincts and capacity for wonder with free education (MOOCs), challenges (Google bug bounties, Xprize, Netflix prize, challenge.gov), and open source collaborative efforts (wikipedia, linux, free open source languages like python, ruby, etc.).

The focus should be on innovation and the advance of technology, because knowledge is what is likely to raise survival fitness the most by better enabling us to predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic change.

As long as we keep advancing knowledge and technology, we can create as much money as we want.

Right now, banks create as much money as they want (see Q&A with Neil Barofsky, from about 50:35 to 51:13, where Kevin Puvalowski testifies that $23.7 trillion was created after the 2008 crash), but they automatically attach debt and interest to it. They've created a situation of artificial scarcity where, to pay back your loans, you have to make someone else default on theirs, because there isn't enough money in existence for everyone to pay back all their loans.

Debt-free money is exactly what we need. As Lincoln realized, when he printed over $400 million greenbacks to raise money without increasing taxes or borrowing it.

I call the Justice department the ringmaster in violating the civil rights of The Press.

I call the Justice department the ringmaster in agenda driven gunwalking cover-ups.

I call the Justice department the ringmaster in whistleblower persecution.

Price fixing e-books? Yippie disposable income doesn't actually rate at this point; we have bigger problems.

I really hope concern over the glasses will read to people being more conscious of data privacy, but to be honest I have to wonder why people are just now concerned about data privacy. A former senior executive at the NSA was persecuted for trying to speak out against sweeping surveillance against ALL americans and had the espionage act used against him, yet awareness of this issue has remained close to zero. Face it, people, we already live in a surveillance society. Everything you do is associated with you. Here's a video of the former NSA exec speaking: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/311537-1 This is already a really important issue.

Sorry, so many typos I'm going to repost:

Wow that quote sure gets a lot of play. I'm guessing if she said it she said in the context of "this is what they are afraid of, but it's not what we are doing." Context please? Link to the full article? I have found two things: a 30-minute press conference she gave on 1993-12-09, and an Associated Press report on the following day. An A.P. report is the one commonly cited in association with this reputed quote. It says nothing like that, except that Pres. Clinton wanted to "go further" than the waiting periods and background checks in the Brady Law. Reno goes into her personal views, which are that licensing gun owners is more important than registration of guns themselves. Here she is drawing a distinction between her own views and those of the White House, which was proposing registration. Reporter: "what do you thing about registration?" Reno: " I don't think [she stops, then] I don't like it." She was very blunt and clear, and generally you won't find too many news conferences like this by officeholders on C-SPAN nowadays, especially on gun control. So the quote make no sense and does not appear in the video or the A.P. articles.

Janet Reno and Clinton were both against firearms for felons. She was for owner licenses, with no registration of firearms. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/52917-1 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Clinton-Talks-Tough-on-Crime-Mrs-Clinton-Joins-In/id-480dfa18d1c3d9f5149edd6177bb85d4 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Majorities-Back-Clinton-s-Gun-Control-Efforts-but-Oppose-Gun-Ban/id-58d85cfe2b91165518244c1d16cefa25

That is all an AP search turned up. It did say she appeared on all three major networks. "Attorney General Janet Reno said today she favored states taking action to restrict gun ownership. Reno, appearing on ABC, CBS and NBC, repeated her argument that gun ownership should require licensing just as driving a car does." She is in a sense more conservative than the White House, trying to leave the job in state hands, through the rubric of licensure.

The quote is commonly grouped with a bunch of other specious quotes, like gun control advocate Sarah Brady, whose entire career in the 1970s was working for Republicans, calling for a "socialist America."

Wow that quote sure gets a lot of play. I'm guessing if she said it she said in the context of "this is what they are afraid of, but it's not what we are doing." Context please? Link to the full article? I have found two things: a 30-minute press conference she gave of 1993-12-09, and an Associated Press report on the following day. An A.P. report is the one commonly cited is association with this reputed quote. It says nothing like that, except that Pres. Clinton wanted to "go further" than the waiting periods and background checks in the Brady Law. Reno goes into her personal views, which are that licensing gun owners is more important than registration of guns themselves. Here she is drawing a distinction between her own views of the White House, which was proposing registration. Reporter: "what do you thing about registration?" Reno: " I don't think [she stops, then] I don't like it." She was very blunt and clear, and generally you won't find too many news conferences like this by officeholders on C-SPAN nowadays, especially on gun control. So the quote make no sense and does not appear in the video or the A.P. articles.

Janet Reno and Clinton were against firearms for felons. She was for owner licenses, which no registration of firearms. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/52917-1 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Clinton-Talks-Tough-on-Crime-Mrs-Clinton-Joins-In/id-480dfa18d1c3d9f5149edd6177bb85d4 http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1993/Majorities-Back-Clinton-s-Gun-Control-Efforts-but-Oppose-Gun-Ban/id-58d85cfe2b91165518244c1d16cefa25

That is all an AP search turned up. It did say he appeared on all three major networks. "Attorney General Janet Reno said today she favored states taking action to restrict gun ownership. Reno, appearing on ABC, CBS and NBC, repeated her argument that gun ownership should require licensing just as driving a car does." She is in a sense more conservative than the White House, trying to leave the job in state hands, through the rubric of licensure.

The quote is commonly grouped with a bunch of other specious quotes, like gun control advocate Sarah Brady, whose entire career in the 1970s was working for Republicans, calling for a "socialist America."

I saw a program a while back interviewing an author about a book called "Crashing Through", where the main character looses his sight when he is very young, and then has it restored to him later in life. The problem was that because his brain had not learned to interpret the signals coming from it, he was unable to get "Normal" vision. From what I remember of the interview, a lot of people who have been in a similar situation get very depressed because they know their vision will never be restored and they are overwhelmed by the amount of new and useless info their brain is receiving.

As I recall, at the time in Sept 2007 theinterbank lending market was severely depressed, effectively meaning that banks wanted to wait out the ax dropping on other banks (ie, the next Leiman Brothers) before lending out money to other banks. But, interbank lending is the primary means of allowing banks to overcome short-term shortfalls in money supplies--as they pay out in cash for payroll just to have it redeposited by the same person or someone else a few days later. Something like a bank run on one bank without an ability to borrow money for the next day? Yea, that'll ruin an otherwise healthy bank. Meanwhile, sure, the unhealthy banks would fail along the way, but there'd be most (all?) of the collateral damage the GP mentioned.

So, while it's a conjecture on whether a bank run would happen (IIRC, it did on WaMu) or that it would spread out in a fashion the FDIC couldn't handle (IIRC, the FDIC was at least strained after all the bank failures that *did* happen so I don't exactly expect they'd be able to contain a domino effect alone), it seemed important at the time to bandage the problem and fix the problems behind the scene instead of trying to "endure the pain" when that pain would translate into potentially millions of people suddenly have substantial and instantaneous economic troubles of their own instead of a multi-year but painful transition--and no matter how you look at it, it's a multi-year transition when millions of peoples are suddenly or semi-suddenly effected by something.

As for not getting wasted in the future? Well, I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. But it's the process of good regulation to catch/stop "Too Big to Fail" and not wait and just let massive failure and economic hardship to occur as if that magically would prevent it from happening again--helpful hint, that ten years of seeming prosperity at a bank with the CEO receiving hundreds of millions of dollars and shareholders seeing years of record profits/dividends just to see their bank fail and at least the latter to lose most of it doesn't do a lot to prevent the pattern from happening again. Most "investors" are blinded by greed and not involved enough to make good decisions--blame 401ks and mutual plans marketed on high returns. And most "investment banks" shouldn't exist, but that's not something you can suddenly fix--reinstating Glass-Steagall would help.

But since actually fixing problems isn't what most politicians nor voters are about.... I mean, even during the crisis the whole "don't get wasted in the future" only came in the form of "punish the banks" which misses the point. There's nothing to stop us from fixing the actual problems right now. And punishment is just a matter of due process that should already exist. If those parts aren't there, then all that is really showing is a visceral anger.*

*Off-topic, I know, but it always reminds me of GWB's visit to the WTC site on 9/14/2001 and how all you could hear was the calls for vengence. And look what it lead to. And ask yourself was the problem fundamentally solved. I don't think so. :~(

denialists (like Jim Inhofe) will build a snowman and say, "What climate change? Nyuck, nyunk." People are conflating climate with weather. Climate is an average of what has happened over a period of years, decades or even centuries.

Scientists can't definitively say that Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming any more than doctors say that one particular home run by Barry Bonds was as a result of steroid use. What both can say is that the likelihood of either is much increased by their respective underlying conditions.

I see little difference between Creationists who think the Earth is 6,000 years old and global warming deniers who think that humans aren't responsible for changing the climate by burning millions of years worth of sequestered carbon in less than three centuries. I'd really like to know how releasing gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere in the geologic blink of an eye doesn't have an effect. On a separate note, humans have altered the nitrogen cycle through the Haber-Bosch process by removing nitrogen from the atmosphere and put it into the biosphere. That amount of nitrogen in the biosphere hadn't changed in over a hundred million years.

You mean like when Jill and some random Libertarian candidate faced Mitt Romney for the Massachusetts gubernatorial election?

The Boston Globe called her "the only adult in the room."

I think she should get arrested more often. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you...

Mod parent insightful.

As I am sure /. is unaware, the Green Party candidate for the Presidency this year is Jill Stein. Ten years ago she debated Mitt Romney and a Libertarian candidate for the gubernatorial race. This year neither she nor Mr. Johnson of the Libertarian Party have been able to debate Mitt. If this is how the national party representatives are treated, is it surprising that a House candidate is also given short shrift?

A sensible political system might indeed include mandatory airtime or debate privileges. As the parent poster has stated, this would require government action. Are you in favor of such a system? How do you justify telling a private company what to do? Why aren't you demanding this same privilege for your party at the national level -- did I miss that slashdot article?

P.S. : If any libertarians want to take up the gage, I have some general comment on your philosophy here.

Better than that shit video, the problem with Islam is not the fundamentals, but the fundamentalists!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKv7xudLE

Longer version:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EndofFa

More fun facts from the source itself:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

I just ask people to stop blaming the video and start blaming the Muslims themselves.

No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons. It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

The actual trailer is just stupid. Better is Sam Harris Fundamentals of Islam (9 min):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKv7xudLE

or the full version (82 mins):
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EndofFa

Careful now. I got modded to death the other day for daring to suggest the same thing.

No, let the assholes see it and get used to it because it's here to stay. And fuck the US Governent condemning it like it did with those cartoons. It started with Bush's bullshit that Islam is the "religion of peace" and continues to this day. It's not.

The actual trailer is just stupid. Better is Sam Harris Fundamentals of Islam (9 min):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YDKv7xudLE

or the full version (82 mins):
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/EndofFa

That's not the full context either. Tsk. Look, the conversation is difficult to parse but you can see the entire ten and a half hour session here:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/198841#program302754-1

The discussion in question begins after the quorum call at 14:15. They're discussing several things: one is the mandatory military detention of terrorism suspects, one is a provision that allows the president (or the secretary of defense) to grant a waiver for that military detention which would send the suspect to the civilian courts, one is the ability to transfer prisoners (the extraordinary rendition that Bush did), and one the relevance of the location where the person is captured (within the country or without).

They're trying to phrase the mandatory detention in terms of weakening our ability to combat terrorism, because that's the politically savvy thing to do, but it makes the conversation more confusing.

Regarding the original clip that you linked, I'm not entirely sure what senator Levine was referring to when he said that they removed language at the president's request. When he says, "and that we removed it at the request of the administration that would have said that this determination would not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful residents" he clearly isn't talking about military detention because when you look at the bill that they were discussing:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=BillText (search for bill number S.1867.ES)

that language is still there. It says quite clearly that section 1031 does not apply to citizens or lawful residents. I suspect that he might have been talking about the waiver language - that there might have been a version of the bill that required a waiver for citizens, but I'm just guessing. That draft, as far as I know, is not publicly accessible.

Regardless, the article I linked gives another quote from earlier in the session: "The administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision the day before our markup and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the administration request that the provision apply only to detainees who are captured overseas." (This is part of Levine's longer speech at the 11:45 mark, if you'd like to watch it) That at least should have made you pause for a second.

"Clearly," you should have said after reading that, "there's more to this than that one minute clip suggests."

"After all," you should have said, "Levine seems to be indicating two contradictory things at two different times during the same session of congress. Maybe this warrants some further investigation."

The president has come out pretty strongly in favor of due process in the past. He did make a pretty solid effort at closing Gitmo, an effort that was stymied by congress. I think it would be uncharacteristic of him to support a provision for indefinite detention so when I see these sorts of statements I try to dig a little further.

but I don't think anyone has hard evidence

The gray market for drugs in the US is alive and well and entirely understood. The operate quietly by fax and email, reselling drugs to doctors and hospitals. They anticipate shortages, buy stocks of drugs and sell high when normal channels run dry.

Many drugs have few or even only one qualified production facility. When change-overs interfere with production or unanticipated events occur (regulatory action, facility damage, sudden new demand, etc.,) shortages appear. Last year Congress investigated medical drug shortages. Gray market drug resellers were publicly discussed as part of this testimony.

Typically seniors on Medicaid don't buy their drugs out of the back of El Camino

They don't need to. The drugs are sold through doctors and hospitals that have contacts with gray market resellers.

The parent is largely correct. Counterfeit parts get into the DOD supply chain by way of the suppliers of suppliers (of suppliers...,) some of whom obtain and resell parts that have been salvaged in China and other hell-holes, or repackaged from lower cost/capability parts elsewhere. There are Chinese villages, such as those in Guiyu, that do nothing but dismantle and salvage electronics in open air cesspools. Some fraction of these gets refaced and imported, duty free, into the US as counterfeit.

When the DOD investigates suppliers to determine the origin of counterfeit components they typically uncover a chain of 4-5 or more suppliers leading back to China. The Senate Armed Services committee held a hearing on this about 10 weeks ago. Video here.

Almost no one is ever prosecuted for anything. Those few importers that are caught will fold up and re-appear under new names. The big contractors that ultimately source and install counterfeit parts pull whatever strings they must to minimize consequences to their business. They'll typically negotiate some replacement schedule and pay a nominal fine. Sometimes they even get to bill the US for the cost of placing counterfeits they installed.

I will have to read this book; I want to see his methods and analysis section. It's hard to believe that the entrance of evangelicals into politics and their influence is not largely responsible for the rejection of global warming. You have only to consult a political map and a map of denierland to see that where evangelicals have power is the same territory as denierland.

Furthermore, the basic message of evangelicals - that "man's knowledge" is limited and wrong but what appears in the bible written in the Bronze Age by people who had a only pre-scientific understanding of the world available to them is right, directly prepares the ground for denial on ANY scientific matter whatsoever.

There's a direct line to be drawn from the anti-evolution and the "young earth" hypothesis.. err sorry that's "young earth certainty" and the rejection of science generally including the science behind AGW, a rejection with the capacity to deconstruct the basis of civilization despite who changes their minds about what later on or what anyone living through it wants to do about it then.

Sure, libertarian psychopaths like the Koch Brothers and the sociopaths who helped Philip Morris murder hundreds of millions of people (and yet they walk free) are behind the tactics and methods of the denier movement,

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/09/chart-climate-change-spin-cycle

and yes they're funding it also, but it couldn't carry the day if it were not for the millions of evangelicals and the much smaller number of sick dominionists who believe in creationism and self serving narcissistic theories like "the prosperity gospel" (god wants you to be rich!) etc. etc.

This culture of scientific rejectionism is a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States of America and needs to be dealt with like the clear and present danger that it is.

Under what other lethal threat to not just the US's but to civilization itself, would we just stand by and do nothing? Would we do that if al Queda where in control of US politicians and a significant swath of the voting electorate?

The consequences for some events are so bad their eventuality has the power to re-write the rules of engagement, or more precisely, cause society to invoke and apply the existing rules of engagement in a manner which, while legal most people naturally find odious. But the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and it does provide the President - and by implication the direct action of the national security apparatus to its full effect under the Presidents' command - with the power to defend the nation against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Denierism is domestic terrorism in both intent- conspiracy:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/294714-1

and in effect-

http://global-warning.org/main/intelligence/

hundreds of millions dead and starving, billions homeless and wandering across borders, international chaos and lawlessness orders of magnitude larger than we have now, civil strife tending toward national disintegration and economic collapse.

It is an imminent threat to the national security of the United States of America and I call on the President of the United States to take ALL necessary measures to counter, undermine, disable, disband and otherwise stop the collective action of this group of American domestic terrorists using whatsoever force he deems necessary.... and may god have mercy on their souls.

But he gets 600 million in loans from the U.S. Government for a car company. Go figure. No undue influence there! Oh no!

The original poster oversimplifies what was said at the actual Senate hearing. Fast forward to 1:21:50 here: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301681-1

Herbert Kohl: but you do recognize that... in the words that are used in antitrust kind of oversight... your market share constitutes monopoly...dominant - special power dominant for a monopoly firm. you - you recognize that you're in that area?

Eric Schmidt: um i would agree senator that we're in that area um again with apologies because i'm not a lawyer my understand of monopoly findings is that it's actually a judicial process so i'd have to let the judges and so forth actually do such a finding...

Weight is already taken into account when you register and get a license plate from your state, as is the age of the vehicle, size of the engine, and other factors.

My 5 year old motorcycle costs as much to tag as my ten year old sports car, but the bike gets 50mpg highway and can still go 200+ (take that Prius!), and the impact is negligible compared to any four wheel vehicle, even a "smart" car. Only federal highway systems are eligible to get federal funding for road work, the state and local governments front the cost of the majority of infrastructure. Now, if you really wanted a high MPG car that beats the pants off of pretty much all hybrid and electric vehicles out there, the Ford Fiesta with its 65.5+ mpg engine would be the way to go, but alas it won't be sold here in the US

Anyways, this is nothing more than another attempt by Uncle Sam to grab at more money rather than trimming the fat in our government and cutting the costs of redundant and unnecessary departments.

"A tax is a fine for doing right, and a fine is a tax for doing wrong."

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/297544-1

Worth watching in its entirety to get a good idea what Israel is up against.

The Taliban have this bogus justification that they explain to farmers that they persuade or force to grow poppy. Islam, of course, bans any use, traffic, or trade in narcotics or alcohol. So, their justification for it is that it's OK because because this is a jihad against the infidels and we're selling the drugs to the infidel west. But as I said before, very little Afghan heroin actually reaches the United States. It's about 70% of the heroin sold in Europe and the UK comes from Afghanistan. But the vast majority of Afghanistan's drug crop ends up in - stays in Afghanistan, or ends up in Pakistan, Iran, central Asia now; countries like Kazakhstan have huge huge heroin problems. So it's a totally bogus argument - completely hypocritical.

If you have time, I recommend the entire video,and her book Seeds of Terror. Ms. Peters is sharp.

Gretchen Peters: Seeds of Terror - BookTV start at about 37:00.

The Taliban have this bogus justification that they explain to farmers that they persuade or force to grow poppy. Islam, of course, bans any use, traffic, or trade in narcotics or alcohol. So, their justification for it is that it's OK because because this is a jihad against the infidels and we're selling the drugs to the infidel west. But as I said before, very little Afghan heroin actually reaches the United States. It's about 70% of the heroin sold in Europe and the UK comes from Afghanistan. But the vast majority of Afghanistan's drug crop ends up in - stays in Afghanistan, or ends up in Pakistan, Iran, central Asia now; countries like Kazakhstan have huge huge heroin problems. So it's a totally bogus argument - completely hypocritical.

If you have time, I recommend the whole thing. Your post has motivated me to get her book from the library, so thanks.

You're sure there are abuses? well so am I. In fact I have no doubt personally that the abuses far outweigh any possible good that can come of the classification system. Time after time throughout history the US government has classified information for the sole reason that it's embarrassing to those currently in power. Until we require a judge to review every classification for legality (and I mean every one from presidential orgies to black ops) the abuses will continue. The government's record on this is absolutely unacceptable.

Rock Lyrics Record Labeling Skip to Zappa at about 80 min, and hate the RIAA all over again.

You forgot the quotes "series of tubes" brings this up.

That looks like the actual bill text, I'm looking for the transcription of what was actually said on the house/senate floor. The procedural dialog, debates on bills, and speeches would be very interesting to have on tap and data mine.
 
Someone already found the transcripts on the cspan website and emailed me directly about it. Maybe someone else can jump in here too and we can scrape the site.
 
How do i write a wget script that access http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/ajax/ajax-transcript.php?progid=221083, except it starts at progid=000000 and goes to prodid=999999, and saves each page as progidxxxxxx.txt into directory Y? I'd love to run that script, tarball it up, and post the .torrent right here in this thread.
 
I'd love to run a word cloud for each legislative year; Imagine doing a word cloud for the Regan era, particularly the savings and loan crisis, and compare and contrast word clouds for the months of august-march of 2008-2009
 
The text of the bills is important, but from a history standpoint, you can put those bills into context if you have the voices behind them to read.

Stephen colbert in C-span : 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner

Check out the rights page. All of the footage of Congress and various Federal events is under the Public Domain. It's annoyingly still flash video, but you can legally rip it from the site and do whatever you want with it. Same with the subtitles.

It's nice to see copyright law working correctly for once.

C-SPAN isn't my first choice for comedy, but this was kind of a fun watch -- Al Franken poking at Bill O'Reilly. Franken starts at 27:00, and really starts to annoy Bill not long after.

It's no Colbert dinner presentation, mind you, but it was still a pleasant surprise from BookTV.

Transcripts are searchable...

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/search-results.php?keywords=series+of+tubes

...however it is not working for me at the moment.

Someone above me mentioned Metadata - the Closed caption data is already included in a search-able form, this we don't need to regenerate the metadata.

Also now I can direct link to Obama saying "It helps in Ohio that we got Democrats in charge of the machines" (relating to the election infrastructure).

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/280876-1 (34:31)

How about a link: http://c-spanvideo.org/