Slashdot Mirror

Signed into law a bill that would allow for indefinite detention of American citizens.

Senate Vote

HR Vote

Although it doesn't look like it would have many any difference in the bill passing I wish he would have at least tried to veto it.

Signed into law a bill that would allow for indefinite detention of American citizens.

Senate Vote

HR Vote

Although it doesn't look like it would have many any difference in the bill passing I wish he would have at least tried to veto it.

That's because they're already as good as passed. At best, the blackout thing will force them to change the name. There's an anti-"child pornography" bill coming up. If SOPA fails, or only passes without the DNS provisions, they'll just be added to the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act. Except rather than calling it "copyright infringement" they'll call it "protecting our children."

The battle's already as good as lost. About all the blackout did was piss people off. So now instead of being mad about SOPA, they're mad about not being able to access the Wikipedia for a day, and they're mad at "a bunch of nerds who are upset about laws that will stop them from stealing stuff."

Did you watch any of the news about the Wikipedia blackout? All of it put SOPA in a positive light and accused Wikipedia of being "too political."

The battle's lost. The people don't care. They're just mad at the websites that went on strike, NOT the law they went on strike over.

Even if SOPA/PIPA is defeated in congress in its current iteration, the media industry and its lobbying arm likely aren't going to worry in the least. Why? Because they have an ace in the hole: H.R 1981 - The Protect Children from Internet Pornographers (PCIP) Act of 2011. While still in committee since being introduced last summer, and containing questionable provisions about IP logging, It carries with it the same crew of supporters that are pushing the media industries' SOPA agenda. Chances are quite high that they will simply copy/paste SOPA's text onto it, thus giving it the "protecting children" shield from public scrutiny. Any opposition to it will easily be re-framed to wanting to "protect child pornogrophers". This will likely be the next battle and won't be easily won with blackouts and internet stunts. In fact, I'm not sure the public could handle the level of nuance that would be needed to explain why such a bill is dangerous.

Second, if you are referring to the 'newsletters', well, we know who wrote them, and it wasn't Paul.

You mean all those people who were employed by Ron Paul to write things in his name and run his newsletter, people who were so close to Paul that it's completely implausible he never knew what they were doing? Some of them were close relatives, including his own wife! Another (one of those thought to have directly authored some of the virulent racism) still works for Paul, in a prominent position in Paul's current campaign.

Time to drop the Paulbomb, because you can't deny all the terrible things Paul has repeatedly supported in his time as a politician:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..

Once Senator Palpatine's bill is passed they'll be able to revoke your citizenship and throw you in Gitmo (or a domestic camp) as well.

So you can now be detained at anytime for any reason - so long as the "terrorist" label is applied.

Meanwhile, the feds have been taking bids from companies who can setup and run large scale "relocation" camps in 72 hours or less.

The bid is right here: FedBizOps.gov

More info here.

your comment needs modification in a post NDAA United States (habeus corpus has been revoked)

-But in the United States, you may or have no recourse except to go to court.
+But in the United States, you may or may not have the recourse of going to court.

Once Senator Palpatine's bill is passed they'll be able to revoke your citizenship and throw you in Gitmo (or a domestic camp) as well.

TSA does it because cost is not an issue, they're spending our tax money.

TSA has a budget and no blank checkbook. That's not how government works. Congress passed a law saying

(a) Weapons and Explosives.â" The Secretary of Homeland Security shall give a high priority to developing, testing, improving, and deploying, at airport screening checkpoints, equipment that detects nonmetallic, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, and explosives, in all forms, on individuals and in their personal property. The Secretary shall ensure that the equipment alone, or as part of an integrated system, can detect under realistic operating conditions the types of weapons and explosives that terrorists would likely try to smuggle aboard an air carrier aircraft.

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, Â 4013(a), 118 Stat. 3719 (codified at 49 U.S.C. Â 44925(a)).

So that's what they did. Don't like it? blame these guys. Nearly everyone voted for it. You won't want to be soft on terrorism!!!

TSA does it because cost is not an issue, they're spending our tax money.

TSA has a budget and no blank checkbook. That's not how government works. Congress passed a law saying

(a) Weapons and Explosives.â" The Secretary of Homeland Security shall give a high priority to developing, testing, improving, and deploying, at airport screening checkpoints, equipment that detects nonmetallic, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, and explosives, in all forms, on individuals and in their personal property. The Secretary shall ensure that the equipment alone, or as part of an integrated system, can detect under realistic operating conditions the types of weapons and explosives that terrorists would likely try to smuggle aboard an air carrier aircraft.

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-458, Â 4013(a), 118 Stat. 3719 (codified at 49 U.S.C. Â 44925(a)).

So that's what they did. Don't like it? blame these guys. Nearly everyone voted for it. You won't want to be soft on terrorism!!!

At this point, shutting down the entire US military sounds like a damn good idea to me. We killed Osama Bin Laden. This war on "terrorism" ought to be considered done at this point. Go home to your family and celebrate.

Instead of shutting down the military, the powers that be have decided that they must keep the war machine running at all costs, even if that means making US citizens the target. Anything to keep the flow of money unimpeded into US Military, Inc. We've created a monster that can not be turned off now, and quite possibly not ever. We now live in a military state. Get used to it.

Both Democrats and Republicans equally voted in favor of the NDAA in the senate, 93 in favor to only 7 opposed. Both parties are to blame for this.
Vote out all incumbents, Republican, Democrat, Independent -- all who are in the back pocket of the US military corporation must go!

The version you have linked to is not the final version that the president signed.

That can be found here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1540

The final version contains no provision whatsoever for US citizens.

From the article; "Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities."
It seems to imply that the law signed by Obama would allow indefinite detention of Occupy movement protesters. This is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Here is the text of the Bill
1. Section 1021a states that detention ends with end of the conflict so the term is not indefinite.
2. Section 1021b defines a covered person as someone involved with the 911 attacks, al-Qaeda, Taliban or their supporters. I do net see how anyone could put Occupy protesters into any of those groups.
3. Here is 1021e
"(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." Again US Citizens, lawful resident aliens, and any other persons who are captured or arrested in the Unites states still have rights as defined in the Bill of Rights. One of which is the right to a speedy trial.

There is a bit of am ambiguity in 1021e. It could have two meanings. Does it mean that the arrest of capture have to occur in the US for the existing laws or authorities to be in effect or does in mean that anybody, including non-citizens and illegal aliens, are still covered by existing laws if they are captured or arrested in the US and US citizens and lawful resident aliens are covered if they are captured ir arrested anywhere. I believe it means the latter.

In summary, the law signed by Obama has no effect on the Occupy protesters.

no the nation has not gone full retard. the military is not looking to get america's ip range blackholed.

this is just yet another story where they took wording from a bill and assuming it is a law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540 has not yet been signed
into law, it has just been passed by both houses and has had differences resolved.

i am not worried.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it passed both houses already. All that's missing is Obama's signature.

List of cosponsors, among other info Copypasta: Mark Amodei [R-NV2] Joe Baca [D-CA43] John Barrow [D-GA12] Karen Bass [D-CA33] Howard Berman [D-CA28] Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7] Mary Bono Mack [R-CA45] John Carter [R-TX31] Steven Chabot [R-OH1] Judy Chu [D-CA32] John Conyers [D-MI14] Jim Cooper [D-TN5] Ted Deutch [D-FL19] Elton Gallegly [R-CA24] Robert Goodlatte [R-VA6] Tim Griffin [R-AR2] Tim Holden [D-PA17] Peter King [R-NY3] John Larson [D-CT1] Ben Luján [D-NM3] Thomas Marino [R-PA10] Alan Nunnelee [R-MS1] William Owens [D-NY23] Ben Quayle [R-AZ3] Dennis Ross [R-FL12] Steve Scalise [R-LA1] Adam Schiff [D-CA29] Brad Sherman [D-CA27] Lee Terry [R-NE2] Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL20] Melvin Watt [D-NC12]

The House of Reps may very well pass this bill since it's currently Republican controlled

You do realize that 16 of the 32 (current) sponsors are Democrats? Source

They passed a constitutional amendment a decade or three ago that prevents them from raising their pay in the same congressional session. Gives you a chance to vote the bastards out for it. Probably the best you can do.

Aside from that, I don't see anything new in this. Salaried employees and people making over a certain amount are the definition of "exempt employee", and the "exempt" means the company is exempt from the labor laws governing overtime for such employees.

It's surprising to me that somehow this doesn't apply to some workers. I'm not sure why IT workers are singled out.

So I went and read the bill, and the act it's modifying (look for section 213 paragraph (a)(17) if it doesn't take you straight there), and you know what? Not much is changing.

What it looks like it's doing, rather than adding IT workers, who were already "exempt", if they were salaried or were paid hourly over the limit amount, is clarifying that IT managers and trainers are also to be considered "exempt employees."

What we learned here today: Eyeballs are useful tools.

Sponsoring a build doesn't always mean you support it.

Harry Reid (D) sponsored President Obama's Job bill in the Senate, then voted AGAINST it.

This is done to bring the bill up to a vote, so it can be voted down.

To be fair, so far this bill has only been referred to the Judiciary Committee; it is not yet on the floor of the House of Representatives as a whole. The vast majority of bills die in committee, so let's hope this one does as well. You can track the progress of the bill at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-3261.

"Also - can someone post a link to this supposed 1994 law?

It was part of a spending bill covering foreing relations for 1994 and 1995:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h103-2333

Section 410 is the part in question. It's described in the legislative summary at:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h103-2333&tab=summary

Text:

Section 410 -
Prohibits U.S. contributions to any affiliated organization of the United Nations or to the United Nations if they grant full membership as a state to a group that does not have internationally recognized attributes of statehood.

The final law is actually P.L. 103-246 Title IV US Code.

Digging down into convoluted listings of the US Code is best left to someone with more legal-researcher-fu than I. But that should help someone else get started.

"Also - can someone post a link to this supposed 1994 law?

It was part of a spending bill covering foreing relations for 1994 and 1995:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h103-2333

Section 410 is the part in question. It's described in the legislative summary at:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h103-2333&tab=summary

Text:

Section 410 -
Prohibits U.S. contributions to any affiliated organization of the United Nations or to the United Nations if they grant full membership as a state to a group that does not have internationally recognized attributes of statehood.

The final law is actually P.L. 103-246 Title IV US Code.

Digging down into convoluted listings of the US Code is best left to someone with more legal-researcher-fu than I. But that should help someone else get started.

How about the specific items OWS would like to see changed:

1. CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT.

2. USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis

3. CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections.

4. CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE.

5. CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected.

6. CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

7. CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED.

8. ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS.

I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make, but I hardly see where concepts like the 8 above are "fooling" anyone into doing something bad for this country.

Again, you're putting words in their mouthes. There is nothing anti-corporate about their agenda...they simply want to hold the gambling house that is Wall Street accountable to its debts, which for some reason, all of society (except them) had to pay.

Here is a list of their demands from their website; they basically try to remove as much conflict of interest and "sign my own paycheck" activities as possible from banking and, to some degree, government as well:

1) CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT.

2) USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE WALL STREET CRIMINALS

3) CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION

4) RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON.

5) CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE.

6) CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

7) CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED.

8) ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS.

We have Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska (R) and Ed Towns (D) of New York to thank for this terrible legislation. Well, at least there's something we can get a bipartisan consensus on: screwing over the American people.

Tell ya what, let's have a contest. Everybody agrees this bill is lousy, so Republicans, try to talk Terry into withdrawing HR 3035, and Democrats, try to talk Towns into doing the same. If you claim that your party is the one that listens to its constituents, here's how to prove it.

I haven't supplied email contact info for them, as it's probably useless to email them about this issue without being able to attach hundred-dollar bills to your email.

We have Representative Lee Terry of Nebraska (R) and Ed Towns (D) of New York to thank for this terrible legislation. Well, at least there's something we can get a bipartisan consensus on: screwing over the American people.

Tell ya what, let's have a contest. Everybody agrees this bill is lousy, so Republicans, try to talk Terry into withdrawing HR 3035, and Democrats, try to talk Towns into doing the same. If you claim that your party is the one that listens to its constituents, here's how to prove it.

I haven't supplied email contact info for them, as it's probably useless to email them about this issue without being able to attach hundred-dollar bills to your email.

I bet there is a strong correlation to using sewage sludge on farm fields.

http://www.sludgefacts.org/
http://vimeo.com/24854061
http://www.sewagesludgeactionnetwork.com/

Its amazing what you never knew. This bill has died in committee for 8 sessions of congress in a row.....

I thought government was there to keep us safe?

And this is an associated piece of legislation:
Data Breach Notification Act of 2011
It uses a lot of the same language, but has different dollar penalties attached to breaches.
I haven't really given it a good read-through, but it seems to provide the caps on damages like the other bill

Personal Data Protection and Breach Accountability Act of 2011

SEC. 303. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Civil Penalties-

(1) IN GENERAL- Any business entity that violates the provisions of sections 301 or 302 shall be subject to civil penalties of not more than $5,000 per violation per day while such a violation exists, with a maximum of $500,000 per violation.

(2) INTENTIONAL OR WILLFUL VIOLATION- A business entity that intentionally or willfully violates the provisions of sections 301 or 302 shall be subject to additional penalties in the amount of $5,000 per violation per day while such a violation exists, with a maximum of an additional $500,000 per violation.

"Stiff" penalties my ass.

SEC. 312. EXEMPTIONS.

(b) Safe Harbor- An agency or business entity will be exempt from the notice requirements under section 311, if--

(1) a risk assessment concludes that--

(A) there is no significant risk that a security breach has resulted in, or will result in, harm to the individuals whose sensitive personally identifiable information was subject to the security breach, with the encryption of such information establishing a presumption that no significant risk exists; or

(B) there is no significant risk that a security breach has resulted in, or will result in, harm to the individuals whose sensitive personally identifiable information was subject to the security breach, with the rendering of such sensitive personally identifiable information indecipherable through the use of best practices or methods, such as redaction, access controls, or other such mechanisms, which are widely accepted as an effective industry practice, or an effective industry standard, establishing a presumption that no significant risk exists;

Motherfuckers. Breaches of security are just as relevant to the public as loss of data.
My suspicion is that by the time this comes out of committee and works its way to Congress,
it'll be so watered down that private businesses will be clamouring for it to be passed.

When asked about HR645

"Yeah, thatâ(TM)s their goal, theyâ(TM)re setting up the stage for violence in this country, no doubt about it" - Ron Paul.

The National Emergency Centers Act or HR 645, first introduced in January 2009, mandates the establishment of âoenational emergency centersâ to be located on military installations for the purpose of providing âoetemporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster,â according to the bill.

The legislation also states that the camps will be used to âoeprovide centralized locations to improve the coordination of preparedness, response, and recovery efforts of government, private, and not-for-profit entities and faith-based organizationsâ.

The bill also states that the camps can be used to âoemeet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,â an open ended mandate which many fear could mean the forced detention of American citizens in the event of widespread rioting after a national emergency or total economic collapse.

Here's the Senate vote on final passage of that bill. It was 100-0.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2001-295

They've been talking about it for the last couple years... I haven't seen much press on it lately, but a bill was introduced to reduce delivery to 5 days.

‘(h) Nothing in this title or any other provision of law shall be considered to prevent the Postal Service from taking whatever actions may be necessary to provide for 5-day delivery of mail and a commensurate adjustment in rural delivery of mail, subject to the requirements of section 3661.’.

Excerpt from the bill (Title I, Subtitle B, section 111(h))
Read this as "allows USPS to move to 5-day delivery" not "mandates USPS to move to 5-day delivery"

- Washington Post article
- from the horse's mouth
- the bill....112th Congress H.R. 2309 (Postal Reform Act of 2011) sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA]
- Press release on Rep. Issa's page with a decent summary

They've been talking about it for the last couple years... I haven't seen much press on it lately, but a bill was introduced to reduce delivery to 5 days.

‘(h) Nothing in this title or any other provision of law shall be considered to prevent the Postal Service from taking whatever actions may be necessary to provide for 5-day delivery of mail and a commensurate adjustment in rural delivery of mail, subject to the requirements of section 3661.’.

Excerpt from the bill (Title I, Subtitle B, section 111(h))
Read this as "allows USPS to move to 5-day delivery" not "mandates USPS to move to 5-day delivery"

- Washington Post article
- from the horse's mouth
- the bill....112th Congress H.R. 2309 (Postal Reform Act of 2011) sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa [R-CA]
- Press release on Rep. Issa's page with a decent summary

I'm surprised to see Al Franken on the sponsors list ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-968 ). He appears to champion net neutrality, and I would think fighting this kind of thing would be on the same agenda.

(from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-978)

sponsor:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]

co-sponsors:
Chris Coons [D-DE]
John Cornyn [R-TX]

Supporters:
Newspaper Association of America
National Association of Broadcasters
Motion Picture Association of America
American Intellectual Property Law Association
AT&T
Business Software Alliance
Association of American Publishers
Recording Industry Association of America
NBC Universal
American Federation of Musicians
Directors Guild of America
National Music Publishers' Association
National Collegiate Athletic Association
Graphic Artists Guild
Writers Guild of America, West
Magazine Publishers of America
Software & Information Industry Association
Entertainment Software Association
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists
Screen Actors Guild
Viacom
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States
Ultimate Fighting Championship
US Chamber of Commerce
Independent Film and Television Alliance
National Association of Theatre Owners
Sony Pictures Entertainment
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Association of Independent Music Publishers
American Photographic Artists
Broadcast Music, Inc.
CBS Corporation
Church Music Publishers Association
National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing
National Basketball Association
News America Holdings
Picture Archive Council of America
Professional Photographers of America
Professional School Photographers Association
Reed Elsevier
PPL & VPL
SESAC
Time Warner
Universal Music Group
The Walt Disney Company

Secondly, now that the US is "first to file" we could adopt this very system too --

Yeah, no... not yet. House vote yet to go. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-23

Are you kidding? People from China and India who attempt to immigrate into the US, *despite getting a PhD degree even in science/tech/math from a US university* face uncomfortable, restrictive wait times of 6--9 *years* to even get a green card. This despite the fact that the PhD granting US university typically spent a quarter million dollars (usually from DARPA or NSF---tax payer money) on the student as a part of funding their PhD. Legislative acts to make this better (see [1]) have been around for a while, but the US political machinery doesn't allow bills like this to make progress.

So no, don't come to the USA unless you want to be involved in a seemingly never-ending, uphill struggle.

[1] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-399

The bill is sponsored by 2 Ds and 1 R: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-978 And remember, the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Not everything is partisan; People from both parties are equally capable of bad law.

This one has more D's than R's in the sponsorship list.

At this point, I expect it to pass unanimously.

Mostly dead on, a couple changes/additions.

1) You're talking about United States House of Representatives seats. Each House district nationwide is supposed to have roughly the same number of people in it. So that CA-5 and NC-1 and LA-2 should represent roughly the same number of people. I believe currently districts are supposed to be about 600k people.

2) These districts have to be redistricted every 10 years (a few states only have 1 district, making it easy)

3) Then many states also have state districts. That is, my state has both a State House and a State Senate. Thus state legislative districts have to be drawn as well, and do not have to coincide at all with the US House districts.

4) In some states the legislature draws the lines. In some a non-partisan panel draws the lines. In some the legislature draws the line but the governor also has to approve. Some states (Florida pops to mind) have adopted rules that districts should--so far as possible--make sense geographically, so you don't get the absolute partisan monstrosities you find in states like North Carolina or Illinois (and many other places--those two are particularly egregious looking).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=NC -- check out NC-12
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL -- check out IL-17

5) Finally, a large number of southern states are still be punished for civil rights abuses, and face extra scrutiny and rules when drafting districts. Rules that, for instance, require districts that are majority minority (primarily meaning majority black, increasingly majority hispanic).

Mostly dead on, a couple changes/additions.

1) You're talking about United States House of Representatives seats. Each House district nationwide is supposed to have roughly the same number of people in it. So that CA-5 and NC-1 and LA-2 should represent roughly the same number of people. I believe currently districts are supposed to be about 600k people.

2) These districts have to be redistricted every 10 years (a few states only have 1 district, making it easy)

3) Then many states also have state districts. That is, my state has both a State House and a State Senate. Thus state legislative districts have to be drawn as well, and do not have to coincide at all with the US House districts.

4) In some states the legislature draws the lines. In some a non-partisan panel draws the lines. In some the legislature draws the line but the governor also has to approve. Some states (Florida pops to mind) have adopted rules that districts should--so far as possible--make sense geographically, so you don't get the absolute partisan monstrosities you find in states like North Carolina or Illinois (and many other places--those two are particularly egregious looking).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=NC -- check out NC-12
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=IL -- check out IL-17

5) Finally, a large number of southern states are still be punished for civil rights abuses, and face extra scrutiny and rules when drafting districts. Rules that, for instance, require districts that are majority minority (primarily meaning majority black, increasingly majority hispanic).

And what happened to H.R. 2766 and S. 1215? They never made it out of their respective committees, which at the time, were in a Democratic majority.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2766
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1215

I'm with you. I think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and I commend the Democratic lawmakers for starting the process by submitting bills, but anyone can submit legislation on just about anything. Hell, Cynthia McKinney once submitted a resolution (H.R. 4210) to demand the release of all intelligence records related to the murder of Tupac Shakur in an attempt to uncover a conspiracy. Her bill ended up the same way the FRAC Act ended up, stuck in committee. (For those interested: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4210)

And what happened to H.R. 2766 and S. 1215? They never made it out of their respective committees, which at the time, were in a Democratic majority.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2766
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1215

I'm with you. I think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and I commend the Democratic lawmakers for starting the process by submitting bills, but anyone can submit legislation on just about anything. Hell, Cynthia McKinney once submitted a resolution (H.R. 4210) to demand the release of all intelligence records related to the murder of Tupac Shakur in an attempt to uncover a conspiracy. Her bill ended up the same way the FRAC Act ended up, stuck in committee. (For those interested: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4210)

And what happened to H.R. 2766 and S. 1215? They never made it out of their respective committees, which at the time, were in a Democratic majority.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2766
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1215

I'm with you. I think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed and I commend the Democratic lawmakers for starting the process by submitting bills, but anyone can submit legislation on just about anything. Hell, Cynthia McKinney once submitted a resolution (H.R. 4210) to demand the release of all intelligence records related to the murder of Tupac Shakur in an attempt to uncover a conspiracy. Her bill ended up the same way the FRAC Act ended up, stuck in committee. (For those interested: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-4210)

The real truth of the matter is, the Democrats while in power refused to pass a budget for this fiscal year. Worse they refused to even submit one to the floor all because they were afraid of the ramifications of doing so before the election. In other words, if they had submitted their budget they would have had to campaign with that large deficit number hanging over their heads.

I note the new Congress has yet to pass a budget either. What's their excuse?

Congress didn't but the House passed HR1 to fund the government through FY2011 on Februrary 19th.

Or are you talking about the FY2012 budget, which isn't due until October 1?

Let me just point out the "original article" here is pointing to a news editorial site run by Tucker Carlson. The actual website run by the government dealing with bullying is http://www.stopbullying.gov/

There is legislation pending in congress to make bullying more serious

Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act of 2010 - Amends title IV (Student Assistance) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require each institution of higher education (IHE) participating in a title IV program (except foreign schools) to include in its annual security report a statement of policy regarding harassment that includes: (1) a prohibition of harassment of students by other students, faculty, and staff; (2) a description of its programs to prevent harassment; (3) a description of the procedures that students should follow if harassment occurs; and (4) a description of the procedures it will follow once an incident of harassment has been reported. Defines "harassment" to include certain conduct undertaken through technological means that limits a student's ability to benefit from the IHE's programs, or creates a hostile or abusive educational environment at the school. Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants to IHEs to initiate, expand, or improve programs to: (1) prevent the harassment of students; (2) provide counseling or redress services to students who have been harassed or accused of subjecting other students to harassment; and (3) train students, faculty, or staff to prevent harassment or address harassment if it occurs. Directs the Secretary to publish a report of best practices for combating harassment at IHEs.

(Full Text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-540)

Save your praise: most of the Republicans actually supported extension. It only failed by seven votes, and that because almost every Democrat and some of the Tea Party newcomers opposed it.

Democrats did better in this case, but don't give them too much credit. "Almost every" in my mind means 90-99%. Republicans overwhelmingly supported it, but so did 35% of democrats. I just want to point out that if each party had half the house and 1/3 of democrats supports a bill: 1/2 + 1/3*1/2 = 2/3 (enough to pass). The bill only lost by rounding error.

Directs any actions against domestic domains to be in the judicial district where the domain name registrar or registry is located or, if such a domain is located or doing business in more than one judicial district, in the judicial district of its principal place of business. Allows any actions against nondomestic domains to be brought in the District of Columbia if: (1) such a domain is used within the United States to access an infringing site; (2) the site directs business to U.S. residents; and (3) the site harms U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Requires a court determining whether a site directs business to U.S. residents to consider factors including: (1) whether goods or services are being provided to U.S. users; (2) intent; (3) prevention measures; and (4) whether any prices for such goods and services are indicated in U.S. currency.

Directs any actions against domestic domains to be in the judicial district where the domain name registrar or registry is located or, if such a domain is located or doing business in more than one judicial district, in the judicial district of its principal place of business. Allows any actions against nondomestic domains to be brought in the District of Columbia if: (1) such a domain is used within the United States to access an infringing site; (2) the site directs business to U.S. residents; and (3) the site harms U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Requires a court determining whether a site directs business to U.S. residents to consider factors including: (1) whether goods or services are being provided to U.S. users; (2) intent; (3) prevention measures; and (4) whether any prices for such goods and services are indicated in U.S. currency.

The AGW community ... refuse to look at green technologies like nuclear because they’re ignorant. ... [ShakaUVM]

Already discussed, but note that nuclear plants do generate small amounts of CO2 due to current enrichment and mining methods, as well as the curing of concrete containment domes. Averaged over the projected life of the reactors, this CO2 is only a few percent of the emissions from an equivalently powerful coal plant. Pebble bed reactors might be capable of safe operation without containment domes, but that unfortunate incident in Germany makes it unlikely that they'll be built that way for a while. Nuclear power is our best hope of maintaining a prosperous civilization. Please don't oversell it by making claims it can't live up to yet.

... It is possible to reduce our CO2 by 50%, maily because we can attack the problem in a centralized way at the power plant level. 0 CO2 emission is simply not on the table, but the fact that climatologists think it is doable is yet another bit of evidence for the fact that being good at science doesn’t make you good at policy. [ShakaUVM]

Dr. Knutti's emissions graph makes it clear that he's examining a scenario in which CO2 emissions only drop to half of 2010 values by ~2030, and a quarter of 2010 values by ~2070. That doesn't seem too different from the Lieberman-McCain "Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007" which seemed doable.

Because much of the CO2 emitted by nuclear plants is emitted in a pulse as the concrete dome cures, any nuclear plants built in the next few decades won't be emitting CO2 past ~2070 (unless we still haven't perfected mining and enrichment in the next ~60 years.) As you say, centralized power plants are easiest to upgrade, but we've got ~60 years to perfect electric cars in order to hit Knutti's target. They certainly can't universally replace gasoline vehicles in time (especially in developing countries) but biofuels can be produced carbon-neutrally (albeit inefficiently at present) in a centralized fashion. Distributing biofuels just like gasoline will avoid the need to make and sell billions of electric cars by 2100. Even if that fails, I'd be astonished if ~60 years isn't enough time for humanity to devise and implement a carbon sequestration program capable of making up the difference.

In fact, the only way the human race could possibly fail to tackle climate change would be if there were legions of crackpots arguing that climate "scientists" are actually just deceitful, shady, laughably dishonest, perverting, badly reeking, dogmatic, anti-scientific, idiotic, disingenuous, scurrilous, nefarious, damned, indefensibly guilty, laughably wrong, fundamentally rotten, self-discrediting, fraudulent, bullshitting partisan hacks with something to hide who do bad things, don't fucking know

Wikileaks is the news recovering from decades of chicken-shit ownership and/or FuckUS Plutocratic Corporate Souls controlling the news in the USA.

The USA Congress could have increased protection for whistle-blowers, but decided the real enemy of the STATE is any public-responsible press sustaining our citizen right to know when politicians, diplomats, generals, C*Os, clergy commit crimes, lie, steal, murder, and/or act stupid by personal nature/whim.

As long as the politicians... cannot, or refuse to, protect The USA Constitutional interest of our nation, then they should be greatly concerned the every USA Warrior and Civil Servant swears an oath to "protect and defend The USA Constitution (as TOP priority) from all enemies both foreign and domestic." IOW-IMO all USA Warriors and employees must consider that their sworn oath, prison, and death will all to frequently define a path of life, honor, and authentic-self. If I am ever on a jury in such a big-brother STATE propaganda trial I will acquit our heroes and indite Big-Brother.

There are far to many good citizens protecting US on our streets and remotes battlefields, while a proportional very few (know it all) megalomaniacs and sociopaths seek to manage and control US Citizens with extortion and exploitation policy and law.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Whistleblower-Protections-by-Joan-Brunwasser-101229-343.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-devine-whistleblower-20110110,0,5483256.story
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-985
http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/