Slashdot Mirror

House Resolution 1020 is a bill that will address this kind of forceful arbitration. However, the bill is currently in committee and if people do not get the members of this committee to move this resolution to a floor vote, then this is all pretty moot. Please take a look at the members of the House Committee on the Judiciary. If one of the members is your Representative, write them. Otherwise this thing will most surely die in committee since this is not the most pressing matter on the public's mind.

If your Representative is not listed as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary but you live in the same state as a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary. Write your Representative to urge the member to move the bill to the floor, so that your Representative can get a chance to help you out. Usually, members of the same state know each other pretty well and talk to each other about broad topics that affect the state as a whole.

If you live in a state that has no members on the committee. Check to see if your Representative or a Representative from your state co-sponsored the bill. If so, make your case using that point; if not, write your Representative asking why they did not co-sponsor the bill and make your point about how not having legal recourse affects you and your community in general.

Always remember one big point when you write your Representative...Always make sure you make it entirely clear what it is you expect your Representative to do, and make sure it is within their power to do so. If you just tell them about HR 1020 and that they should support it, then all you are going to get back as a reply is, 'their sorry but it must make it out of committee before they can do anything about it, but if it does make it to the floor they'll be sure to consider it carefully. Yours truly, Rep. Blah Blah Blah (X-Your state).'

"What does 'source' mean when you say open source? If you mean creative commons or some other open licensing scheme, don't refer to it as 'source', which specifically refers to software."

No, the use has expanded in publishing and academia.
See here in California -- http://www.opensourcetext.org/
See here in the Federal government -- http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1464&tab=summary

H.R. 1020 is an attempt to put some reasonable limits on mandatory arbitration. It's not doing too well, but write your congressman.

There is also a bill being pushed through the House (H.R. 1464) to create open source textbooks at a college level.

The idea is that there are plenty of retired professors who would love to write chapter seven of the official (say) thermodynamics textbook. There are worse things you could do today than e-mailing your congressman and telling them you support this..

Who is discussing abolishing private ownership?

You really don't see it?
To answer your question, no one is "discussing it". It's being done without actual discussion.

First was the deregulation of the banking/mortgage industry. While this happened under GWB, it was the brainchild of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. (Dodd, BTW, just got a very sweet deal on a mortgage... illegally. You won't hear about that either.) John McCain tried to stop it as seen HERE. Dodd and Frank blocked it from ever leaving committee. Basically, what happened was that banks were forced to provided loans for low income buyers, and in exchange, they were allowed to dump those high-risk mortgages off on investors on Wall St. So when the walls came crashing down, there was suddenly no one buying these poisoned mortgages, which meant that Fannie/Freddie didn't have money to loan, which meant banks had no money to loan and without money, economies fail. Anyway, back on the off-topic, since Obama has taken office, many banks are being forced to take the bail out money, even if they didn't do the whole sub prime thing and are perfectly solvent. Other banks are not allowed to pay it back now that they no longer need it. Why? Because with the money comes government control. In other words, the government is trying to take over the banks.

Next, there was the insurance failures, AIG was the biggest, but there were others. The government bailed these companies out without actually buying them, but they are still under government control, even though it's not specifically spelled out. Remember the outrage over bonuses and nice, company paid "conventions" to Las Vegas? Notice that those aren't happening any more. Is it because the stockholders said so? Nope. It's because the government told them not to. So if the government can dictate what these companies can do, does that not mean that the government is in charge?

Now we have GM. This was a privately owned, publicly traded company. The government took it over. Sure, they never said they were taking it over, but that didn't stop Obama from firing the CEO. Not the board, not the stockholders, but Obama himself, without so much as consulting congress. So if the President has the power to fire the CEO, doesn't that mean he is in charge? Seriously, read that again. OBAMA FIRED THE CEO OF A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY, ALL BY HIMSELF!!! Also, the government also FORCED Chrysler to bought by Fiat. Again, not the board or stockholders, but the president! Seriously! The President fired the CEO of a private corporation. Where is that power listed in The Constitution. And you really don't see it?

Finally, comes health care. Obama and Democrats swear that it won't be so expensive because they will "lower the price". How will they lower the price? Simple! They won't pay high prices. So rather than paying full price for, say, an MRI, they will pay a cut rate. Who do you think will make up the difference? Everyone else who gets an MRI, of course. This will cause PRIVATE insurance rates to go up because they will be the ones paying the higher prices to make up for the government paid shortfall, just like with what happens with Medicare/Medicaid today. Oh, and doctors will be MANDATED BY LAW to take patients, at the government rate. Eventually, private insurers will go out of business because they simply won't be able to compete against a tax-payer subsidized competition with the backing of US Law. This means that the government will be the only real insurer in town (plus a few private companies for the very wealthy). So, without taking over the insurance companies, they will have taken over the medical and insurance industries.

So, what's left. They will have the American auto industry (read: Unions/jobs), the banking industry (your money and home), and the health industry (your body).

What's left? Did I miss anything?

Jesus fucking christ, thomas.loc.gov sucks.

Here it is at govtrack (I should have known to go there in the first place):
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454

The pdf comes in at 1092 pages. I'd post the TOC, but even that is 6 pages long.

Keep an eye on the bill. If it makes it past the committee, be sure to inform your representatives about your opinion on this bill.

> The truth is it's going to result in massive tax increases which will go
> toward paying many times the original outlay for decades to come

No it won't. Tax hikes are politically difficult. Inflation is easy, because no one give enough of a fsck to understand that it's the same damn thing (except that it punishes savers and rewards people in debt and makes economic crises like the current one more likely).

Please consider supporting HR 1207, in the name of transparency. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207

Ah, more left-wing moon bat talking points.

Let's start from the top. Two failed wars:

What was the vote for the war? Was it something like 99-0 in the Senate? And failed? Really? Saddam Hussein is dead, the Taliban is out of power... I'd call those successes. Sure, there's clean up work to do, but as far as war goes, I think we've met the most common standard for victory.

"deregulation of banks that have destroyed the economy"
You mean how John McCain cosponsored a bill that would have regulated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but it was shot down by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank? I'm sorry, I missed the part where Dodd and Frank were Republicans that day.

Maybe you forgot the part where Obama's "support of efforts by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank to empower the Federal Housing Administration to help struggling homeowners."

I'm sorry, how is that Government deregulation again? The banking mess is what started this mess and if Dodd and Frank were at fault and they were Democrats... HMMMM. That would make you full of shit.

"deregulation of industry which has lead to increased polution"...
First, it's spelled pollution. Next, while I keep reading how the environment has gone to shit, I see absolutely no evidence of. Quite the contrary, I see things like "flex-fuel" vehicles, hybrid cars, bio diesel, and so on. So, tell me again how US government de-regulation stopped the Japanese from creating the Prius?

"removal of personal civil rights"
Name one. Just one civil right you had before that you don't have now.

"loss of our standing in the world"
Don't care. Sometimes the world is wrong. Didn't your mother ask you what you would do if everyone else were jumping off a cliff?

The noisy ones on the extreme right wing of the Republican party should be ashamed of themselves, including but not limited to the folks on Fox who have clearly sold their souls.

This is my favorite part. Here is a guy who claims to be a champion of civil rights, bashes the press for being free. I guess you think that the freedom of the press only applies to left-wing outlets?

If a few lay-men webanaughts can find prior art in patents that were enough to force a company to settle out of court (for fear of legislation)

It was Tom-Tom that blinked first.

"Fear of legislation?"

What legislation?

This bill has a long way to go: H.R. 1260: Patent Reform Act of 2009

The reality is that almost all cases are settled out of court - and while no formal precedents are set - pre-trial settlements do affect how you view your own prospects for success.

Even with the "webanaught" at your back.

[a coinage, which, btw, I hope and pray I'll never see again]

Ok, over the last couple weeks, several stories have made their way into the news about cybersecurity.

These stories overstate the threat, and, in particular, only serve to loudly announce things which are already well known. For example, the fact that DoD systems are probed continuously by the Chinese. But! That's always been true. Where were all the alarming sounding news reports last year? Two years ago? Ten years ago? Where was Jay Rockefeller's Senate bill, S. 773, which aims to restrict Internet freedom in the United States in previous years? We can all expect the media heat to increase even more as the public is whipped into a frenzy of fear, and then comes to accept that we need the Federal Government to restrict our Internet freedom--for our own safety, of course!

As these stories come through Slashdot, we all bicker amongst ourselves as to how grave the threat is. Or where it's coming from. Or how we might combat it. It's so predictable. And while we're distracted with these irrelevant (although admittedly interesting in some cases) discussions, Senate and House bills are moving through our Congress right now which I consider to be "Patriot Acts" for the Internet. Nobody is talking about those, though.

We get what we deserve when we demand nothing at all.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-778

It's already been sponsored, introduced, and referred to committee.

Sponsor: Sen. John Rockefeller [D-WV] Co-sponsors: Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME], Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-436

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1076/show

2007 HR 3488 (the first iteration of the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act) was introduced but didn't make it out of committee. The bill had just one co-sponsor; Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]. Incidentally; the majority of bills "die" in committee (probably because they're at least as stupid the CPPAA).

Undeterred by his bill's previous failure to reach the floor, Rep. Peter King [R-NY] re-introduced the bill (2009 HR 414); this time without co-sponsors. I'd be amazed if it makes it out of committee.

So it's Not A Law. Not going to be a law. Just another waste of time for Congress. As if they needed more...

2007 HR 3488 (the first iteration of the Camera Phone Predator Alert Act) was introduced but didn't make it out of committee. The bill had just one co-sponsor; Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]. Incidentally; the majority of bills "die" in committee (probably because they're at least as stupid the CPPAA).

Undeterred by his bill's previous failure to reach the floor, Rep. Peter King [R-NY] re-introduced the bill (2009 HR 414); this time without co-sponsors. I'd be amazed if it makes it out of committee.

So it's Not A Law. Not going to be a law. Just another waste of time for Congress. As if they needed more...

You can keep track of the progress of this bill here

You can track the bill here on Govtrack. If this gets past committee please write or call your representative and ask them to reject yet another unnecessary regulation.

In addition, if you live in New York's 3rd Congressional District, please remember how your representative wants to waste our tax dollars when you vote next year.

After doing a little more research on him, here's another very good reasons to vote him out. Quoting his campaign website:

Pete was a strong supporter of the PATRIOT Act, creating the Homeland Security Department, profiling for terrorists at airports and allowing the National Security Agency to wiretap foreign terrorists making telephone calls into our country.

Please vote this guy out.

The government needs to make sure that they post actual data in a portable format like XML. The EPA publishes emissions data http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/ in portable XML formats for scientist and the public to use the data as they need. For example, http://www.govtrack.us/ uses publicly published data to deliver a complete service. Having the data available as a feed or a series of published data files instead of some static website enables everyone else to see the details and deliver meaningful content.

How can someone like Palin possibly think she is capable of running the country?

Oh... maybe it's because she is successfully governing the state of Alaska, which involves more than just attending Illinois Senate sessions and voting "present" 130 timess or, as a US Senator, missing 314 of 1299 roll call votes (24%) since Jan 6, 2005. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=votes

Or, because she has experience as a command and chief of a National Guard unit.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=2483
In the event of an attack, members of the Alaska Army National Guard's 49th Missile Defense Battalion based here would use sophisticated surveillance and radar systems to track the missile through its initial boost phase, explained Maj. Joe Miley, the unit's operations officer. If the missile reached the midcourse phase, the Alaska Guardsmen would await the order to engage it.

She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counter terrorism plans.

While state governors generally do not need security clearances, as head of the Alaska ANG's 49th MDB, a permanent unit in a constant state of readiness, and the ASDF, part of Homeland Security, she probably has MORE security clearances than most other governors and state legislators or many US Senators.
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2003/julqtr/32cfr154.16.htm
(4) State governors do not require personnel security clearances.
They may be granted access to specifically designated classified information, on a ``need-to-know'' basis, based upon affirmation by the Secretary of Defense or the head of a DoD Component or single designee, that access, under the circumstances, serves the national interest.
Staff personnel of a governor's office requiring access to classified information shall be investigated and cleared in accordance with the prescribed procedures of this part when the head of a DoD Component, or single designee, affirms that such clearance serves the national interest. Access shall also be limited to specifically designated classified information on a ``need-to-know'' basis.

Amazingly, while many were quick to denigrate Palin over perceived slights or shortcomings, EVEN to the point of suggesting that because she was a WOMAN and a mother she "wasn't qualified" or shouldn't run for VP (with nary an outcry from extreme "feminists"), they continued on, insisting that two years a governor of a state ranked 47 in population wasn't enough experience to be a VP nominee. Yet, they see no problem with Obama running for President. Palin was a full time governor for 21 UNINTERRUPTED months before accepting the nomination. Obama was sworn in as a US Senator 48 months ago, but 23 months ago he began running for President, and missed nearly 90% of the Senate sessions during some quarters. So, he's had only 25 months experience as a Senator but is more qualified to run for President than Palin was to run for VP?

Nice double standard there, and sexist too.

BTW, Your denigration of Police officers may speak more to your personal experience with them than to their collective character. It suggests that they have arrested you more than once for something... drugs, wife beating, child abuse, peddling, theft, burglary? Which is it?

In small towns and villages, officers are usually respected members of the community, and chosen for that reason. In larger metropolitan areas (except L.A, Chicago, and other areas of high political corruption) putative officers are culled with a variety of physical, mental and emotional examinations, or failure to meet training standards. Those that meet the tests put their lives on the line to protect you

>So, according to you, Obama == democrats.

As far as his voting record is concerned, yes.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629

What engineers?

Engineers like Mark Klein, who, by their statements, also clearly have a political agenda?

Engineers like Mark Klein, who have no direct knowledge of the implementation of the surveillance equipment?

Perhaps you could tell me how a system would work to "intercept" internet traffic which is lawful to intercept without being able to examine the "wrapper" of each packet.

You can't. And no, the answer isn't, "Well, that's NSA's problem, and right now they're violating the law." This isn't the answer for two reasons:

1. No, they're not violating the law, actually. An infrastructure being in place to allow for interception of foreign traffic passing through US equipment does not imply all traffic is being "intercepted" in a legal context. See 2.

2. Monitoring the metadata or "envelope" (source and destination information) of a communication is required to determine whether the traffic can be monitored with a warrant.

Such collection has been found to be legal without a warrant or court oversight by the US Supreme Court:

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Source: Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)

Courts have subsequently found that pen register statutes apply similarly to computer network addresses known as IP addresses, lists of web sites visited, and the "envelope" of an email message -- its To: and From: addresses and related information. The NSA itself has long understood that while the capture of the "metadata" of communications is fair game, the capture of the contents of the conversations of US Persons is not, without a warrant. Whether or not all traffic passes through a particular piece of equipment is immaterial.

The current law, as represented after the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (HR 3773), sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) and cosponsored by 7 other Democratic colleagues:

1. Clarifies that no court warrant is required to intercept communications of non-US Persons when both ends of the communications are outside the United States. (Even when the interception occurs within the US.)

2. Requires an individualized court warrant from the FISA Court when targeting US Persons. (Same as previous law.)

The interception mechanisms required to enable lawful foreign intelligence collection from the internet within the US necessitates the technical capability to monitor and potentially collect all traffic. It is not a crime, and the current, amended law that speaks to exactly this issue does not consider it a crime. The intelligence oversight committees in both houses of Congress know exactly how this has been implemented, and Congress overwhelmingly chose to protect telecom operators from liability -- both for their prior assistance and going forward -- as a result of their lawful assistance.

Your assertion has two problems:

"Develop a system that intercepts only the communications of interest"

This is a convenient Catch-22, usually for individuals grinding a political axe. This is often put forward as an argument because the implication is that it's impossible to build a system that can only intercept foreign traffic without first determining whether it's foreign traffic or not -- which itself requires examining at least the traffic's meta

Yeah, and you're going to complain about the press "favored" Obama?

Even though it is what TFA does, you can't really just compare the raw numbers. One MSNBC commentator got a "chill up his leg" after hearing Obama speak. Obama went to Europe and every major news outlet sent high level reporters to follow him. McCain went to Iraq and Afghanistan and it was ignored.

And it's not so much that Obama got better coverage. You have to also consider the negative coverage that was left out. Take the VP's for example. Sarah Palin, who has more executive experience than anyone on the ticket, was constantly labeled as "inexperienced". Meanwhile, you have Joe Biden, who can't keep his foot out of his mouth, will say something like "Three letters: J-O-B-S", tells a wheelchair bound man to stand up, says that Hillary would have been a better choice and it is barely reported. The Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Public Allies stories were barely touched on while Palin's trooper trouble even got it's own "Gate" suffix. Then you had the whole "Fannie/Freddie" thing. The media never reported that John McCain cosponsored a bill that would have prevented it over two years ago. Here is a McCain quote from May 25, 2006 that the media did not report:

If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

If the press had reported this, the election would have been won by McCain. Instead, they bought into the line that the whole mess was Bush's fault even though Bush also supported the bill (Democrats blocked it).

Even when Obama received negative coverage (Jeremiah Wright), it was only during the primaries. Once he received the nomination, all negative stories on Obama were labeled "old news", even though very few people pay attention to primaries and had ignored coverage up to that point.

So, sorry, simply comparing the numbers is not at all the whole story. Actually look at what was reported, and more importantly, what was not.

There is a growing but now well-established community of techies focusing on this at the federal level, especially for the U.S. Congress. There are open-source projects like my GovTrack.us http://www.govtrack.us/getinvolved.xpd and oGosh!: Open Government Open Source Hacking http://wiki.opengovdata.org/index.php/OGosh and on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=45606565313.

There's no end to what techies can do to work on improving civic life. I really encourage you to check out any of those links to get involved.

http://www.change.gov/americaserves

Classic double-think

"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood....

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

Obama's chief of staff choice favors compulsory universal service

Obama and Hillary Call for a Draft Live on MTV

Text of H.R. 393: Universal National Service Act of 2007

Obama Calls For National Civilian Stasi

Constitution, what Constitution?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

At the risk of being moderated a troll, is this a serious question? When have the Republicans ever been right on education?

NCLB was the first act of Congress in 2001, and it was extremely bipartisan. It was widely supported by both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the Democrats favored it slightly more than the Republicans did.

House Vote

Senate Vote

Instead of asking when the Republicans have ever been right on education, you ought to ask when either party has ever been right on education.

The US's decline in education compared to the rest of the western world has now lasted for decades. It has not varied, whether Republicans or Democrats control Congress or the Presidency.

At the risk of being moderated a troll, is this a serious question? When have the Republicans ever been right on education?

NCLB was the first act of Congress in 2001, and it was extremely bipartisan. It was widely supported by both Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the Democrats favored it slightly more than the Republicans did.

House Vote

Senate Vote

Instead of asking when the Republicans have ever been right on education, you ought to ask when either party has ever been right on education.

The US's decline in education compared to the rest of the western world has now lasted for decades. It has not varied, whether Republicans or Democrats control Congress or the Presidency.

in the hands of the people McCain trusted so much that he felt that less scrutiny and transparency was necessary.

And I suppose the fact that McCain supported S. 109, which called for more regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac back in 2005 slipped your mind? Or perhaps you just forgot about the fact that Democrats blocked the very same bill? Or it might be that Obama received the 3rd most funding from FM and FM of any Senator, coming in behind John Kerry and Chris Dodd? And I'm quite you're neglecting the Clinton-era policies that forced banks to loan to unqualified prospective homeowners simply because they were minorities or from "depressed" areas.

Now that I've refreshed your memory on how things actually happened, I'm sure you'll want to revise your prior comment to better reflect reality. Unless, of course, you prefer being either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

Only the House passed this, not the Senate. It is NOT LAW (yet). If you want it to be, go call your senator. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-251

Unless I'm getting this mixed up with another one, according to govtrack, this never got voted on in the Senate, nor did its companion, HR 251, which was passed in the House, so it's not actually illegal.

Unless I'm getting this mixed up with another one, according to govtrack, this never got voted on in the Senate, nor did its companion, HR 251, which was passed in the House, so it's not actually illegal.

...and ask them to reintroduce this.

Good luck- they're all checked out for the election cycle and any time they do spend will be concerning stuffing their local pork into "stimulus" and bailout packages, instead of appropriate-for-federal-level legislation like this.

That's called genetic discrimination, and that practice is addressed by new federal law, the: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008/a>.

Actually, as pointed out elsewhere, he did the first time around, just not on the one that actually became a law.

See my other comment for details. True, they both voted for the bill (McCain the first time around, Obama the second), but Obama voted for three anti-immunity amendments, and McCain didn't vote for any.

See my other comment for details. True, they both voted for the bill (McCain the first time around, Obama the second), but Obama voted for three anti-immunity amendments, and McCain didn't vote for any.

See my other comment for details. True, they both voted for the bill (McCain the first time around, Obama the second), but Obama voted for three anti-immunity amendments, and McCain didn't vote for any.

See my links below, but basically, both voted for it - McCain the first time around, Obama the second time around.
Looking at the amendments, however, is interesting:
On the amendment to entirely strike Title II (the part about immunity), however, Obama voted yay, and McCain didn't vote. It failed 32-66, by the way.
Same for the amendment to limit immunity, which failed 37-61.
And the one to suspend retroactive immunity cases for 90 days, which failed 42-56.
So the answer is C), but Obama voted against immunity a heck of a lot more than McCain did.

See my links below, but basically, both voted for it - McCain the first time around, Obama the second time around.
Looking at the amendments, however, is interesting:
On the amendment to entirely strike Title II (the part about immunity), however, Obama voted yay, and McCain didn't vote. It failed 32-66, by the way.
Same for the amendment to limit immunity, which failed 37-61.
And the one to suspend retroactive immunity cases for 90 days, which failed 42-56.
So the answer is C), but Obama voted against immunity a heck of a lot more than McCain did.

See my links below, but basically, both voted for it - McCain the first time around, Obama the second time around.
Looking at the amendments, however, is interesting:
On the amendment to entirely strike Title II (the part about immunity), however, Obama voted yay, and McCain didn't vote. It failed 32-66, by the way.
Same for the amendment to limit immunity, which failed 37-61.
And the one to suspend retroactive immunity cases for 90 days, which failed 42-56.
So the answer is C), but Obama voted against immunity a heck of a lot more than McCain did.

This is a tricky one.
It appears there are two bills. On the one that became law (the second time around), Obama voted yes, and McCain didn't vote.
On the one that came through the senate the first time, McCain voted yes, and Obama didn't vote.

Go figure.

This is a tricky one.
It appears there are two bills. On the one that became law (the second time around), Obama voted yes, and McCain didn't vote.
On the one that came through the senate the first time, McCain voted yes, and Obama didn't vote.

Go figure.

He sure as hell voted for it.

He just didn't vote the second time it came around in a different bill.

Interesting note: Obama was a "No Vote" on this one, but voted for the second bill.

B. McCain didn't vote.

Proof: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-168

My sarcasm detector didn't go off, so, to me, it seems that you are quite serious.

You are completely wrong, as both of them are part of the "protect the children" rhetoric/bullshit. They both co-sponsored this load of bullshit (KIDSPA). The fact that the next president of the US is going be so completely devoid of reason to support such a thing is scary.

This couldn't have passed without some donkeys signing off on this.
And if any of them that signed off on this are running for president, I'd like to know.

Um, that would be all of them.
Unanimous in the Senate, 417 Aye, 0 Nay, 15 Present in the House.

So yes, Obama and McCain are included.

I hate jacking a high-up post, but it needs to be said that both McCain AND OBAMA were co-sponsors of this bill. "tragedy in chaos" is a hypocritical jackass, and this article's blurb needs amended.

Any reason you feel like mentioning McCain but not Hillary, or the fact that they were merely co-sponsors? Or the fact that the vote was in fact, unanimous?

Well... Wired says that McCain wrote the bill. That's why the editors mentioned McCain.

But your link throws that into question. There's no indication at the govtrack site that McCain had anything to do with writing it--Schumer is the main sponsor, and McCain shows up in a list of co-sponsors along with Obama.

Also, Schumer said in his speech that he authored the bill, and doesn't mention McCain.

So... I call Shenanigans on Wired.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-431

Sponsor: Sen. Charles Schumer [D-NY]

Co-Sponsors:
Cosponsors [as of 2008-10-15]
Sen. Ted Stevens [R-AK]
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]
Sen. Jon Kyl [R-AZ]
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R-ME]
Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
Sen. Arlen Specter [R-PA]
Sen. Tim Johnson [D-SD]
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Sen. Charles Grassley [R-IA]
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R-TX]
Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]

Any reason you feel like mentioning McCain but not Hillary, or the fact that they were merely co-sponsors? Or the fact that the vote was in fact, unanimous?

This can't be real, can it? Did he threaten to clog their tubes if they didn't comply?

Sigh.

Oops, I meant http://govtrack.us./ govtrack.org is a squatter.