Slashdot Mirror

Great. Another ignorant, fear-mongering post.

Ron Paul is Pro Liberty and Individual rights! How on earth can you get "against homosexual rights" from that?! He wants to get the federal government out of the marriage business entirely!

In regards to religion, please show me one article written by Dr. Paul http://www.house.gov/paul/legis_tst.htm
where he puts religion above the law and the Constitution.

You forgot that the house is controlled by the Democrats. Every single Democrat in the house voted yes, and the 2 no votes were by Republicans.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1131.xml

Don't let the facts get in the way of your hate though.

It looks like it's a penalty enhancement for "harvesting", not a specific prohibition. My bad.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm

Or if you prefer your laws raw: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C103.txt

"In wartime,"

Where is this declaration of war?

e.g. see http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr100402.htm

Actually, the only senator to vote against the Patriot ACT was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Kucinich is in the House, where there was quite a few votes in addition to his own that voted against it.

No, you're thinking of the actual trials themselves. When I said "judicial overview" I was referring to the civilian court proceedings which reviewed the legality of the bill, as well as reviewing individual instances of it's use. For instance, Jose Padilla's case, while being tried in military court, was reviewed by a civilian court. That's the judicial overview I was referring to.

Ah, okay. Well, that kind of judicial oversight that all U.S. citizens get when accused of being an "enemy combatant" is certainly better than nothing, but it's still a blatant violation of the Constitution, which explicitly states that if you're accused of a crime, you get to challenge the accusation in a court of law in front of a jury of your peers.

That, my friend, is the road to utter paranoia. Using that sort of logic, you could make pretty much anything out to be a conspiracy. Basically, you're using lack of evidence as if it were evidence.

In the absence of anything else, yes, you're absolutely right. But the suspicions of wrongdoing in secrecy have a solid foundation, namely the wrongdoing on the part of the administration which has been revealed thus far.

The suspicions I have regarding what this administration does in secret are mere extensions of those things that have already been revealed about this administration, some of which the administration previously tried to keep secret.

Not all instances of absence of evidence are the same.

*shrug* The government's always had that power. What in the world do you think we did with enemy prisoners during WW2? US citizens are generally afforded better treatment when it comes to such things, but any US citizen caught colluding with the Nazis would have been summarily executed within hours. In such clear-cut cases, and especially during a time of war, I've got absolutely zero concerns about bypassing the regular legal system, and we've been doing it for centuries. The constitution doesn't come into play.

Excuse me, but the Constitution most certainly does come into play! It's the only legal document giving legitimacy to the U.S. government at all. It's the highest law of the land. Are you suggesting that you're okay with ignoring that? With allowing the government to do whatever it pleases simply because it claims "we're at war"?? I find this most distressing and disturbing, especially coming from someone who claims to have seen the actions of tyrants up close and personal. You know where the dismissal of a defining document such as the Constitution leads, because you've been there (or so I presume from your comments).

What track record is that?

Blatantly lying in order to justify the unilateral invasion of another country. Seizing and holding, without access to the outside or to any judicial relief, many people. Torture. Unprecedented secrecy. Routine use of "free speech zones". Warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens in direct violation of the law.

And that's just the things I happen to know about. Care to name some of the things this administration has done right? The good things this administration has done? Because from what I've seen, there really isn't anything.

I realize that previous presidents have done distasteful things, and that many of the things the Bush administration has done have been done in the past from time to time, but at no time I'm aware of have all these things been done all at the same time.

Perhaps for you things are fine until they really do get as bad as the totalitarian societies you have direct experience with. But I don't think it's such a good idea to be happy with going the wrong direction.

Or maybe take their ears away from the corporate whispers for some time with us?

A quick google search found these.
List of representatives
Search for yours, by zip. Make it easier!

Send a letter.

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

The only way they know that we as a population are opposed is to let them know. So drop them a line to let them know how stupid it is that things have gotten this far, and to oppose it going any further.

Of course they wont listen to you, all they care about is the Money that the RIAA, and MPAA is slipping them under the table.

I checked the bill itself (http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf) and it is very careful to always state "unauthorized distribution", meaning that authorized distribution is still fine. Granted, the bill is dangerous for many other reasons, but it would not penalize anybody for legal distribution.

Here are the emails for the county officials and city council for the largest cities in George Miller's district. Make sure to send Blind Carbon Copy (BCC) so they might actually read it.

Subject: George Miller hides language in H.R.4137 that would remove federal funding from colleges unable to stop file-sharing

BCC: LDare@cao.cccounty.us, pburk@contracostatv.org, cwamp@contracostatv.org, bkondylis@solanocounty.com, ceward@solanocounty.com, jfsilva@solanocounty.com, mpalmaffy@solanocounty.com, JPSpering@solanocounty.com, sgoerkeshrode@solanocounty.com, cmcook@solanocounty.com, jmvasquez@solanocounty.com, pknelson@solanocounty.com, mjreagan@solanocounty.com, FCZaragoza@SolanoCounty.com, cao-clerk@solanocounty.com, bwagenknecht@co.napa.ca.us, mluce@co.napa.ca.us, ddillon@co.napa.ca.us, bdodd@co.napa.ca.us, hmoskowite@co.napa.ca.us, Diane_Holmes@ci.richmond.ca.us, natbates@comcast.net, tom.butt@intres.com, Lopez.Ludmyrna@comcast.net, johnemarquez@aol.com, elirapty@aol.com, harpreet.sandhu@comcast.net, tony_thurmond@ci.richmond.ca.us, Maria_Viramontes@ci.richmond.ca.us, aevenson@ci.pittsburg.ca.us, mayor@ci.vallejo.ca.us, jdavis@ci.vallejo.ca.us, tpearsall0285@aol.com, sgomes@ci.vallejo.ca.us, tbartee@ci.vallejo.ca.us, hsunga@ci.vallejo.ca.us, garycloutier@sbcglobal.net, citycouncil@ci.concord.ca.us



Dear Sir or Madam,

News source: http://www.news.com/2102-1028_3-6217943.html?tag=st.util.print

Bill source: http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf

This is unbelievably unconscionable and corrupt on the part of your elected representative. The MPAA is applauding Rep. George Miller for introducing an anti-piracy bill that threatens the nation's colleges with the loss of $100 Billion a year in federal financial aid, should they fail to have a technology plan to stop illegal file sharing.

The proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page bill, has alarmed university officials. "Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid -- including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy," said university officials in a letter to Congress. "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

here

Also note the status of the bill, it has just been introduced.

I can't find the actual takedown notice, but a congressional committee hearing isn't a bad source.

The issuer of the notice wasn't Rowling, but Warner Bros., so it's perhaps unfair to blame her for this one.

Susan Ralston, formerly Karl Rove's assistant at the White House, appears to have used at least four outside email accounts: a 'gwb' domain account, a 'georgewbush.com' account, and an 'rnchq.org' account -- all run by the RNC -- plus an AOL account.

Here's Bob Franken discussing the story on CNN yesterday: "It's about the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of all official records of and about the president. . . .

"There are also messages to and from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, now in prison. At one point, according to investigators, after an e-mail was apparently sent by accident to the White House account of an assistant to Karl Rove, Abramoff fired another one saying, 'Damn it, it was not supposed to go in the White House system.' . . .

"Neither administration aides nor Republican Party officials would agree to be interviewed on camera after repeated requests from CNN.

Whoever corruptly ...obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress--

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

SEC. 494. CAMPUS-BASED DIGITAL THEFT PREVENTION. (a) IN GENERAL.--Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall to the extent practicable-- ... (2) develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity.

As for the Roe v Wade issue, I'm not a fan of him on that point. But, and it's a big BUT, his belief (as I understand it) is that should be a personal / community, or state issue, and not federal.

I wish people would include the bill number when writing articles (any website or newspaper, not just /.). It makes it much easier to reference when talking to your Representative or Senator.

My source for the number (in case it's somehow wrong): http://republicans.edlabor.house.gov/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=326

No, email your own representative. If they are not from your district, they have no responsibility to you at all. Here's what I sent off to DeFazio:

I just wanted to point out a section of the current Higher Education Act Reauthorization:

http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf

On page 411 it states:

"Each eligible institution participating in any program under this title shall... develop a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."

I am strongly opposed to this language. Schools should not be blackmailed by MPAA and RIAA lobbyists into performing law enforcement duties. Thank you very much for your time!

Here are the emails for the county officials and city council for the largest cities in his district. Make sure to send Blind Carbon Copy (BCC) so they might actually read it.

Subject: George Miller hides language in H.R.4137 that would remove federal funding from colleges unable to stop file-sharing

BCC: LDare@cao.cccounty.us, pburk@contracostatv.org, cwamp@contracostatv.org, bkondylis@solanocounty.com, ceward@solanocounty.com, jfsilva@solanocounty.com, mpalmaffy@solanocounty.com, JPSpering@solanocounty.com, sgoerkeshrode@solanocounty.com, cmcook@solanocounty.com, jmvasquez@solanocounty.com, pknelson@solanocounty.com, mjreagan@solanocounty.com, FCZaragoza@SolanoCounty.com, cao-clerk@solanocounty.com, bwagenknecht@co.napa.ca.us, mluce@co.napa.ca.us, ddillon@co.napa.ca.us, bdodd@co.napa.ca.us, hmoskowite@co.napa.ca.us, Diane_Holmes@ci.richmond.ca.us, natbates@comcast.net, tom.butt@intres.com, Lopez.Ludmyrna@comcast.net, johnemarquez@aol.com, elirapty@aol.com, harpreet.sandhu@comcast.net, tony_thurmond@ci.richmond.ca.us, Maria_Viramontes@ci.richmond.ca.us, aevenson@ci.pittsburg.ca.us, mayor@ci.vallejo.ca.us, jdavis@ci.vallejo.ca.us, tpearsall0285@aol.com, sgomes@ci.vallejo.ca.us, tbartee@ci.vallejo.ca.us, hsunga@ci.vallejo.ca.us, garycloutier@sbcglobal.net, citycouncil@ci.concord.ca.us

Dear Sir or Madam,

News source: http://www.news.com/2102-1028_3-6217943.html?tag=st.util.print

Bill source: http://edlabor.house.gov/bills/HEAReauthorizationText.pdf

This is unbelievably unconscionable and corrupt on the part of your elected representative. The MPAA is applauding Rep. George Miller for introducing an anti-piracy bill that threatens the nation's colleges with the loss of $100 Billion a year in federal financial aid, should they fail to have a technology plan to stop illegal file sharing.

The proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page bill, has alarmed university officials. "Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid -- including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy," said university officials in a letter to Congress. "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

This site will help to contact your representative. This one will work too, and I think it will find senators as well.

Google is our friend! And apparently non-partisan. Yessss...

You can actually can have some influence over politicians. The two-party system means that waiting until the general election is probably too late, but there are primary battles going on all over the country at all different levels. Find someone who isn't corrupt and vote for them over the incumbent.

In the case of this bill, contact your congresscritters and tell them what's wrong with it. The most important are the people on this list, as they're the members of the education committee that's nominally responsible for it.

CNET just wants people to think "Democrats= bad" (and more generally "government=bad"), so TFA doesn't bother to say *who* these "top Democratic politicians" are, but it turns out there are only two of them so far:

George Miller (CA 7)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX 15)

They are clearly hoping to get a lot more co-sponsors and eventually a veto-proof majority, because the bill is mostly about money for education and most politicians like to be seen as helping kids. But it's still an early draft, so there's a good chance of getting the RIAA stuff taken out.

For reference: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Judiciary Committee

If congress had to abide by something like The Enumerated Powers Act maybe it would slow 'em down a bit.

The more interesting vote was the one to table the resolution in the first place:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml

That's the one where you can determine whether your local Democrat supported or opposed the impeachment measure itself, and roughly 60% of Democrats opposed it. You can't really make the same inference about the Republican tally, because halfway through the vote, they decided upon their strategy to try to force the Democrats' hand, and most of them switched their votes from "aye" to "nay".

The subsequent votes were almost along party lines, with the very few Democrats voting against their party in the camp of Kucinich's personal crusade, and the very few Republicans voting against their party wanting to stick a fork in it and move on to something else.

Further detail should it interest you: http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3136&Itemid=55

As an American, I am outraged by this news. I have sent a letter to my representative recommending a course of action. Anyone wishing to use this as a template for their own letters, by all means, please copy it. If you need to find out who your Congressman/woman is, use this site. http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Dear Representative,

      It has recently come to my attention that FEMA has directly deceived the American public with a false news conference designed solely to "make themselves look better." They have acknowledged this and in light of being caught have chosen to simply say sorry. This is not enough. Their organization, as a government body, has a duty to uphold the truth and not deceive its citizens. An apology is not sufficient recourse for this action. Those directly responsible for this inexcusable action and those responsible for letting this happen need to be removed from their posts because they are no longer fit to serve the good of the American people.

      Please do all you can to make my voice, and the voice of all other Americans that desire a government free of corruption and misdirection, heard and acted upon.

Respectfully,

We need to start taking action, we need to start making mountains of molehills. This is OUR country. We can't let it slip away any more.

PS. Not posted anonymously, because I'm not afraid to be an American.

looks to me like the last time this happened (with the fake VNRs) the GAO put every agency on notice that faking a news report and not disclosing it was blantantly illegal

here's the relevant letter from the GAO: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20050222093810-51492.pdf

any FEMA administrator that knew that fake reporters were asking the questions needs to immediately resign or be indicted if they try to avoid responsibility for this propaganda

Dear Sir,

As my congressional representative and fellow U of D Graduate, I would encourage your support for HR 1201: Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007.

This bill amends some serious issues in past legislation regarding the copying of copyrighted materials that include some form of copy protection measures.

It has always been a concern for the producers and publishers of audio, visual, print, and other copyright works that the public will violate their copyright and illegally distribute their product. Finally, in the "information age" technology exists which allow these copyright owners to attempt to protect their work.

History has shown, repeatedly, that these copy protection measures are not only inadequate, but can often cause limitations for legitimate use of the product. For example, I would like to create a "scratch copy" of my legitimately purchased DVD's for my children to use, or copy my music collection to my portable music player or computer.

Both of these actions are considered "fair use" by copyright law. But more recent laws, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), have made it illegal to bypass the copy protection measures that have become commonplace on modern media (CD, DVD, software, etc.).

Essentially, the bill I encourage you to support would decriminalize the act of bypassing these copy protection measures so that the copyrighted work might be used for legal purposes as defined by copyright law.

I realize that the copyright holders will argue that these measures prevent mass distribution (piracy) of the protected works. However, time has shown that these measures do not deter those interested in piracy and are easily bypassed. Therefore, the only thing they actually achieve is to prevent honest customers from using the product as allowed by fair use.

One example I would like to provide is one regularly faced by educators. If a teacher would like to create a multimedia presentation that includes clips from movies, songs, or even text from an electronic book (an use that is clearly allowed under copyright law), they must first bypass copy protection measures on all of their sources... an act which requires the use of software or hardware that is illegal to produce, distribute, and use. HR 1201 resolves this discrepancy.

Thank you for your time and efforts on behalf of myself and all of those you represent.

Truly,

Joe Fry

As mentioned in the discussion of TFA on ars, it appears that Chairman Waxman http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1553 is one of the ppl behind the push. If you want to give him a piece of your mind, you can contact him here: http://www.house.gov/waxman/contact.htm

As mentioned in the discussion of TFA on ars, it appears that Chairman Waxman http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1553 is one of the ppl behind the push. If you want to give him a piece of your mind, you can contact him here: http://www.house.gov/waxman/contact.htm

In the Senate maybe. I know in the House at least Ron Paul opposed the "USAPATRIOT" Act and argued for its repeal since.

I don't understand how anyone can claim to have voted for it in good conscience, given that most of them had not even read it before voting, and many at least were never given the chance to.

The Sunlight Rule would be a nice start to fixing the problem.

I suppose your political slogan would be, if you can't pay then you deserve to die. For you, a just, caring and sharing society, must be some kind of weird offensive thing.

Here's the problem with that: when you throw someone else's money at the problem, costs go up. Breaking a leg didn't always cost $1000, even with adjustment for inflation, even with an x-ray for diagnosis. But then people got insurance, and the insurance companies had deeper pockets than the patients, so the prices went up. People could pay $50 for an xray? Well, the insurance would pay 80% of the charges, so the price went up to $250.

Of course insurance got wise to this: their contracts with the doctors ban the doctors from billing uninsured patients less than they bill the insurance company. See, it turns out that when xrays get to $250 for $15 in film and five minutes with a radiation source, the insurance companies can use that to scare people into thinking "man, I've gotta get insurance". The patients were still paying $50, but now the insurance company is saying "look at what you could have been paying".

From there, prices keep rising, more people get insurance, and once people quit actually paying for their medical services, doctors quit competing. I've worked with doctors who think that even so much as an advertisement is a waste of money, their contract with the insurance company assures that they come up on a list of doctors shipped out to the patients. Better service? Cheaper service? No matter where you go, everything is $20, so why bother?

So now add government: one payer for everything. Now doctor choice isn't even based on who does "good enough" to get into a network, anywhere you go, your cost to you is $20. In some cases, the doctor isn't as restricted on what to do, so he had better get some blood tests, a few extra x-rays and a CAT scan just in case, after all, it's the government paying for it now, and they have a lot of money, with the bonus being that it's not their money.

Malpractice suits driving up cost? Sure, to some extent, but here's the problem: the prices for insured patients are set by the insurance company. If the doctor's costs go up, they aren't going to get more money from insurance companies, so prices go up for the uninsured. When the doctor can't get any more out of their dwindling supply of uninsured patients, they cram more people into their day, reducing quality of care for everyone. There have been some attempts to "fix" this part of it, most notably tort reform in various states, though people have suggested shifting the burden to the patient through patient-purchased insurance (while it seems unfair to charge the patient to cover their doctor's screwups, it would help correct some of the doctor choice issues... the insurer would eventually build up a history of shitty doctors and the price of the insurance would reflect the quality of the doctor. I'm also not sure how Ron Paul thinks it's going to solve the issues of lawsuits, if it takes a lawsuit to get money out of a malpractice insurer, why would this insurance be different?) Other ideas being tossed around include stuff like payment based on the diagnosis (so fixing a broken leg would earn $x regardless of what it took to fix it. No more 10 xrays for a broken leg, now your broken leg is an exotic and rare disease that the doctor just happens to know how to treat with a cast).

Could you please supply a reference for this statement? TIA

The top entry is responses to questions from Slashdot.. Nice!

Rep. Boucher:

I am in the process of drafting comprehensive legislation which will
reaffirm the fair use rights of the users of information and create a
better balance between the copyright owners, who currently dominate the
Congressional debates on intellectual property measures, and the users
of copyrighted information.

http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/bparchive?year=2001&post=2001-03-28$7

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/editorials/boucher
http://www.jambase.com/Articles/Story.aspx?StoryID=10943
http://www.house.gov/berman/newsroom/p2p_analysis.html

I think House of Representives is a much larger criminal organization.

I imagine the taxes are for things like SkypeIn and SkypeOut where people are placing calls and generating revenue for Skype, not for Ventrilo. It's easy to track what you pay Skype, no matter whether you use their software or an OSS clone of it.

Besides, the summary title really should say "would" rather than "will". A bill being approved by a committee may never come to a vote by the full House if the Speaker doesn't like it. It may not pass that vote if it gets it. It may fail to be approved by the Senate, or their version may take out the amendment. The two houses of Congress must approve the same version of the bill for it to go to the President for signing. If they can't agree on the exclusions, they'll probably still agree to extend the tax moratorium. How long to extend it for is probably a hot topic for debate anyway, so look for that to change. Then, if the FCC, the White House staff and the President decide that the bill doesn't look good, the President can veto it. In order to override a veto two-thirds (66%) of both houses must vote to override the veto after it has already taken place. It can be more difficult to get votes for a veto override than the bill originally received, although that's not necessarily the case.

In short, a bill won't make any changes at all as a bill. It only would if it becomes a law. The Clerk of the House has a nice gentle intro on how bills become laws, and for anyone who hasn't seen or heard the School House Rock clip (or who hasn't for 20 years and doesn't remember it), there's a lyrics page and wave file for "I'm Just a Bill", and someone stuck the video clip (with low audio volume) on YouTube. It's all part of the Three-Ring Government, after all.

Concerning your sig, "Restore liberty and democracy to this country. Vote for Ron Paul [ronpaulhq.com]"...

I'd like to point out that he'd like to restore the republic and wrote something to the effect that democracy is a problem, not a solution: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr012903.htm

Disclaimer: I make no claim to be for or against RP, but he seems clear on that point at least.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-ti-hrg.100207.DigFuture.Part6.shtml

From wikipedia (I know, I know, but these are pretty easily verifiable facts and you can go look them up yourself)

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States CIA program to arm Islamic mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979-1989. The Program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution. Along with similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia and other nations, the opponents to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan collectively trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. Somewhere between $3-$20 billion in US funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.

Here is the Senate's page breaking down the original USAPATRIOT act vote. Here is the same data for the House of Representatives.

The first result for Googling "Ron Paul on the issues" is this page, a summary of his voting record. (Note the 0% rating from NARAL and the 76% rating from the Christian Coalition.) You can also see his weird ideas that children are being forbidden to pray in school and that the Ten Commandments cannot be displayed in a courtroom over here, which is pretty bog-standard Religious Right nonsense.

You could find this stuff out for yourself. The fact that this isn't common knowledge speaks more about the willing suspension of disbelief by the internet-libertarian crowd than about Ron Paul's status as magical savior.

No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if -
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and (2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.

For what it's worth, the police involved were doing their jobs and doing them correctly and efficiently. Sure, you can disagree whether or not IP infringement (in whatever form) should or should not be a crime, but as of right now it is one. A police officer, presented with a crime in plain sight, cannot (and, I would dare to argue, should not) ignore it because they disagree over whether or not it should be a crime.

Their job is to uphold the law. They did so. There is nothing wrong with that.

If you're angry, then I seriously suggest that you write your Representative(s) and Senators.

He's much more knowledgeable about the American monetary system than most. He's the only person who cared when the Fed stopped reporting the M3. He's obviously not fond of inflation, fiat currencies, or fractional reserve lending. As a result, Ron Paul is in my five ;) He's right between Feingold and Boucher.

No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if -
(1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and
(2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest.

Here in the U.S., we pay a 2 percent royalty on all medium capable of storing and playing back music.And we've been paying it since 1992, when the "Digital Audio Recording Technology Act" was passed.

However, our Congress hasn't set up a legal link between the paying of that tax and our legal rights to use the devices in any ways that exceed thing on which we don't pay a tax.

It seems that in Canada you have that right attached to a tax. Hm - being taxed for something and gaining a benefit. How novel!

In many states (such as Maryland) such policies are illegal since sharing salary information is one way for people to find out if they are getting equal pay for equal work.

It looks like the Paycheck Fairness Act is attempting to sharing salary information legal throughout the US.

Aging Infrastructure

August 27, 2007

The recent and tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota raises many questions in Americans' minds about our aging infrastructure, and what is being done to maintain it. Questions such as: "Was I-35 an isolated accident or are we approaching days when crumbling bridges and bursting pipes will be regular features on the evening news?"

The poor ratings on the inspection report of that bridge, and similar deficiency findings on as many as 25% of our bridges suggests the latter. Estimates on what it will cost to bring deficiencies in our infrastructure back up to par range from massive to astronomical.

Billions of tax dollars at all levels of government are devoted to infrastructure, but one problem is that politicians love to cut ribbons. Political capital is gained not from maintaining or repairing our systems, but from building new bridges, new stadiums, and new roads, often of questionable real utility. Seldom is there a ceremony or photo opportunity for repairing or maintaining something already in place.

As the so-called Highway Trust Fund is set to go bankrupt as early as 2009, private investment firms are gearing up for partnerships, which could be a positive step, if handled sensibly. What we need to avoid are items such as the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC), which is phase 1 of the NAFTA Super Highway . The Spanish firm Cintra is set to take over toll collections after the TTC's completion, however it is unclear that they'll have any obligations for maintenance. The cost is being socialized, while the profit is privatized, effectively making the American people pay for it twice.

Read the rest here...
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst082707.ht m

The United States is a Republic, not a democracy. Actually more accurately The United States is a Constitutional Representative Republic in which our representatives are democratically elected. That |= democracy.

Democracy is fundamentally a bad idea and the Founding Fathers recognized this when drafting the Constitution. In a democracy, majority rules. Therefore if the majority of your neighborhood votes to take your land, they can legally take your land. In a democracy there is no rule of law because everything changes with the tide of public opinion. The Founding Fathers feared democracy as much as a monarchy.

Check out this statement to Congress called "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr02 0200.htm

• Income Tax Inflation Chart
  
  An excellent by the numbers view of how inflation has affected the dollar since the birth of the United States of America.
  
  
• The Inflation Tax
  
  In this article Dr. Ron Paul talks about how inflation hurts the middle class and the poor.

Chances are your congressional Democrats voted against the measure, unlike a single Republican senator and only two Republican representatives.

Democrats currently have 49 votes in the Senate (Senator Johnson from South Dakota is still out sick). That's 11 votes shy of passing legislation -- you need 60 votes to defeat Republican filibusters -- and 18 votes shy of overcoming a Bush veto of any nonevil legislation.

The 41 House Democrats who voted for this measure disgust me -- but 181 Democrats voted no. (Republicans? They rushed to destroy the Fourth Amendment by a vote of 186 to 2.)

In the Senate, the goddamned Republicans were unanimously in favor of this bill. Sixteen goddamned Democrats joined them, and if any one of them represents you I hope you consider it your duty to let them know early, often, and loudly how ashamed you are of them.

But the other 27 Democrats, joined by all zero of their nonevil Republican colleagues, voted against this horrible law.

Am I sick with anger about this? Sicker than you -- but I'm also angry about this "Democrats are totally useless" crap. Don't like how thin and impotent the congressional Democrats are? Don't like how imperfect their leadership is in the face of nearly total Republican evil? Fine, neither do I -- but I think it's a bit less counterproductive to dwell on monolithic Republican evil than the Democrats' failure to achieve omnipotence in the last election, won't you?

I posted five angry letters to congresspeople (and two big thank yous to my good Democratic senator and my good Democratic congressperson) before I came posting to Slashdot. What did you do?

I link to the voting record. This should be in the summary in my opinion.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml

There's a link at the bottom of the article that shows the vote breakdown.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml