Slashdot Mirror

One of the problems with our system is that these politicians think that they can often get away with voting against their constituents interest because no one will bother to look up and see how they actually voted. As long as the "party" votes the way they should, most people assume it was the "other guy" who caused the measure to fail. The truth is, 58 Democrats voted against this measure (and 11 Republicans voted for it). It wasn't just one or two who switched sides here.

Look up how your representatives voted here! And then email them about it. So you know, you can always check the voting record of your reps as it happens at the Office of the Clerk - Legislative Activities web site (use the drop down on the right side labeled House Floor Proceedings -- or the calendar if you can get it to work).

One of the problems with our system is that these politicians think that they can often get away with voting against their constituents interest because no one will bother to look up and see how they actually voted. As long as the "party" votes the way they should, most people assume it was the "other guy" who caused the measure to fail. The truth is, 58 Democrats voted against this measure (and 11 Republicans voted for it). It wasn't just one or two who switched sides here.

Look up how your representatives voted here! And then email them about it. So you know, you can always check the voting record of your reps as it happens at the Office of the Clerk - Legislative Activities web site (use the drop down on the right side labeled House Floor Proceedings -- or the calendar if you can get it to work).

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll241.xml

Yup, it's one of the offsite links under 'related stories'. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll239.xml

Sigh. Don't blame me, my rep voted for the bill.

My Representative voted in favor of this. I already sent him a letter to let him know that I am not happy with his action. I'll be sending a letter to my senator later today demanding that he vote against this (not that it'll make a difference, but one can hope).

Posted this a sec ago but seems to have disappeared. Roll Call Vote Details

Here's the house roll call. If your local crook^h^h^h^h^h representative is in the yea column, you might want to write him a note.

Roll no. 239 is the one where they rejected 269-152 the net neutrality amendment.

Here's the roll call for this bill. You can also get the full record of the bill (H.R. 5252), in particular see what happened to particular amendments.

It's a little late to worry about reading the text and contacting your Congressman, but here's a link to the bill. Here's a link to see how your Congressman voted.

Too late. The Markey ammendment to add net neutrality provisions to HR 5252 already failed. The motions to recommit the bill (which means send back to committee) failed too. That pretty much means it is going to pass. The margin of victory was about 100. Unless you can convice 100 representatives in 24 hours, it is going to pass.

The only hope now is the Senate blocks it or votes down their similar bill. And that the Net Neutrality bill is passed in the House. However if they voted down the Markey amendment, it doesn't look so good.

Too late. The Markey ammendment to add net neutrality provisions to HR 5252 already failed. The motions to recommit the bill (which means send back to committee) failed too. That pretty much means it is going to pass. The margin of victory was about 100. Unless you can convice 100 representatives in 24 hours, it is going to pass.

The only hope now is the Senate blocks it or votes down their similar bill. And that the Net Neutrality bill is passed in the House. However if they voted down the Markey amendment, it doesn't look so good.

If you don't know how the votes were tallied and that the elected officials were really the ones who won and have more than two parties allowed in each election (for all intents we have a two party exclusive system here in the US) we are going to keep getting these empty suit politicians.

Years ago I was deputised to register people to vote and we were given a list of 47 parties that had or may of had candidates on the ballot. While the Democrats and Republican parties are the main or big ones in the US for all intents and purposes there are a lot more parties than just the two. As for myself I've voted for dems and reps as well as Libertarians, Reform, and maybe one or two Green candidates. With the exception of 2000 I've voted for the Libertarin candidate for president since 1992, when I voted for Ron Paul. The one election I didn't vote for the Libertian candidate was in 2000, then I specifically voted against Bush.

Focus on how we count votes and making voting VERY transparent and verifiable online and may be able to make inroads.

Agreed!!!

Don't think he has been "bought" but a bill supporting Net Neutrality is being pushed by Democratic representative from... surprise, surprise... Massachusetts. Here is his work on Net Neutrality.

So you're one on the..what 25% left?
Nope. I didn't say I *approve* of what the idiot has done, but I would still vote for him if I had to choose between Bush or Kerry. For me, it's the choice of two evils.

Wow. So you really think freedom is a dead concept and fascist theocracy is the only way to go?
Right. So now that you understand exactly what I believe based on the fact that I would vote for him over a person who *tells* me his policies are completely against what I believe. Right.

No, I think freedom is something we need to get back, from both of these idiotic parties. I don't believe that the government is fascist, though we are starting to head that way, which is a concern. And we're not at a theocracy, though again, we get pretty close sometimes. Fortunately for us, these sort of changes happen over a lot longer period than just a couple years. But I guess that doesn't matter since you think Republicans have been doing this ever since Reagan though.

Can you come up with a actual reasonable mechanism by which this would even have been possible?
Kerry would have been under constant attack by the media with an extremely hostile congress that would have not allowed him to do anything.

Not particularly. I obviously don't see Bush in quite the same light as you, so anything I would be concerned with about Kerry would not be as serious as you believe Bush's transgressions. I had a choice between two evils. One evil was pretty plain about what he wanted to do, and thus could hopefully be countered. The other one "had a plan", but never seemed to tell you anything else about that plan, and acted in such a way to make me believe his plan was against what I would *ever* want. Both of them believed and went with almost the exact same ideas on virtually everything, just had pretty talk one way or the other.

I *do* however take exception to your idea that Kerry would have been under attack by the media considering that the media is generally very liberal. My wife and several others that I know that work in the media confirm this to be true, even in a wildly conservative area.

As far as Congress, it's not exactly overwhelmed by conservatives. According to the party divisions in the Senate (http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item _and_teasers/partydiv.htm), we've had both parties at 5 or less above or below 50 since the democrat Senate of 97. The house of representatives is even closer (percentage-wise). According to http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_Hist ory/partyDiv.html the biggest difference is the most recent house, at 53.33% Republicans and 46.4% Democrat. That's not exactly overwhelming either. We've had the minority pass things easier with smaller minority numbers.

Seriously, come up with a possible way he could have been worse.
the fact is that he couldn't possibly have been worse no matter how much he tried even if being worse was his sole goal to which he directed mammoth effort. He would have been checked *hard* by the congress.
Bush has not been subject to any oversight whatsoever since the Republicans are loyal only to their party. They do whatever he tells them where they wouldn't have done shit that Kerry asked merely due to the fact that he's in a different party.
Umm... Right. Maybe you can cite a few examples on this. I certainly don't believe so, since there's plenty of bickering and dealing by both parties in every case that I know of. The only time it seems to be "whatever the President wants, no questions asked", is in the case of war powers. It's stupid, but politicians seem to be hesitant to "not support our troops" or whatever. Maybe some day a politician will grow a backbone. Unfortunately, we're stuck with the guys we got in there for the moment.

W

They aren't being "bypassed" they are straight up being IGNORED and no one is calling them out on it, no republican or democrat (not that there is 1 iota of difference between the two)

Actually there is one who has made calls, Ron Paul of Texas' 14th district. Unfortunately he's not in either my district or my state, otherwise I'd vote for him. Well I did once, when he ran for pres in 1992 on the Libertarian ticket I voted for him.

Find your representative.
Go to their website.
Click on contact info.
Call your representative.
Write your representative.
Please.

Find your representative.
Go to their website.
Click on contact info.
Call your representative.
Write your representative.
Please.

David M. Israelite
President and Chief Executive Officer, National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA)

Jonathan Potter
Executive Director, Digital Media Association (DiMA)

Rick Carnes
President, Songwriter's Guild

Cary H. Sherman
President and General Counsel, Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA)

Where's the witness list for the "prosecution"?

Bush and the Neo-cons don't give a fuck about any facts. If they say the sky is not blue, you are expected believe it as a matter of faith, even if the Neo-cons do not believe it themselves.

Notice who the FBI's boss is? Calling the FBI isn't likely to work.

This is a matter for impeachment instead. Enter your zip code at http://www.house.gov/ look up your Congressperson, drop him or her a line. I bet a lot of them are parents.

Everyone who donates to campaigns are rich. The idea that this could be different is silly. You won't be donating to candidates unless you have nothing better to do with the money and that only happens when you are pretty well off.

If we had Sound Money, this would be different. It would also be different if we had a true democracy and the rich had nothing to gain from bribing politicians. Give the budgeting capaibility back to the people- take away the central government and central bank, and you'll solve that problem.

However, the idea that receiving money from wealthy people makes you thier puppet is silly. People are individuals who in general do things that they feel are in their best instrest. If they want to get elected again they will do things that will get them more votes.

Only fake, superficial things. And since spending money on the campaign is the #1 way to get elected- doing what your contributers want you to do is the easiest way to get re-elected. And who ever said people were individuals? Human beings are social- they sucumb to peer pressure.

The problem is that challengers are so empoverished that unless you killed a hooker or something they won't have the money to explain to voters that you are corrupt and shouldn't be voted for. The $1000 limit ensures that.

Having a centralized government that the rich can go to for one-stop shopping ensures that- remove the power of the central government, and they'll have to bribe 180 million voters instead, and then we'll have TRUE democracy.

The way to fix it is to create a system where politicians lose more votes for getting paid to support bad legislation than they win.

Or simply take away their right to legislate at all- run everything through a national referendum instead.

The best thing you can do with your browser is to write your congressperson and paraphrase some of the more cogent arguments for privacy; many are and have been presented here on slashdot.

This website can be quite a trove of insight.
--
Music should be free

I would have no problem for expulsion of all congressmen that voted for a law that was found unconstitutional... but ... half of Congress [would be] expelled....

No, not half of Congress. ALL of them, except for one person: Ron Paul. He's the only congresscritter up there that gives a damn about the Constitution.

There are a lot of good comments here explaining why this is simply a waste of time for the U.S. government. But representatives are not going to read any of these and be influenced to vote against the internet gambling prohibition act. Please write you opinions to your congressmen. You can find you congressman at this site by entering your zip code. As a poker player I strongly urge you to spend a few moments to contact your representative and tell him to stop wasting his time and tax payers dollars on silly legislation. The bill currently in congress is "H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act". Please reference it if you decide to contact your congressman.

Some people want to stop Internet gambling nationwide.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/va06_goodlat te/021706.html

Goodlatte makes a big deal about Abramoff not being around to oppose the ban anymore. That's not the big change that is making this bill passable though.

The real reason is that the gambling lobby has switched sides. They previously lobbied against banning online gambling. Now they are lobbying for it. Why? Well...

1. Ban online gambling
2. ???
3. Profit

Except that step 2 is "Legalize and license online casinos, run by US gambling companies."

US gambling companies want to run online casinos. But if they're going to spend the money to buy the legislation, they might as well be patient and do it right. Shut out their overseas competitors before US casinos can even open shop.

Two things will really suck about this for online gamblers:

1. A period of a few years with no online gambling.
2. When it does come back, the House will be taking a much bigger cut. We won't be able to enjoy the same low rake/fee market we have today. As if online gambling wasn't profitable enough already...

Contact your congressional representives right away if you want to stop this. If they don't hear enough noise about this, the lobbyists are sure to get their way.

H.R. 5417, the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act" will give certainty to entrepreneurs, investors, and others who seek to deliver innovative ideas to market that they may do so without fearing discrimination. Specifically, this bill would amend the Clayton Act to require that network providers: 1) interconnect with the facilities of other network providers on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis; 2) operate their network in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner such that non-affiliated providers of content,
services and applications have an equal opportunity to reach consumers; and 3) refrain frominterfering with users' ability to choose the lawful content, services and applications they want to use.

A couple of weeks ago, I sat down and wrote my first and only letter to a federal rep. Here in Oakland county, Michigan that happens to be Thaddeus McCotter. I decided on a fax because I've read that letters are given greater consideration compared to phone calls and emails, and a fax is better (faster) than the postal service due to postal security concerns. While the letter addresses my concerns from the viewpoint of a VoIP company founder, net neturallity is of major concern to anyone who is starting (or thinking of starting) any Internet-based company.

Congressman McCotter:

I am not politically active and have never contacted a federal representative in my life. However, I am taking the time today to write you because I am very deeply concerned about pending legislation intended to counter recent actions by large telecommunication companies that will hugely detrimental effect on the American citizenry, your constituents, and myself personally.

As things currently stand, big phone companies and cable conglomerates have what is called "common carrier" status. Meaning that they are required to treat all phone calls, Internet traffic, etc. identically. In exchange for keeping their hands off, carriers are given special tax breaks and are normally exempt from being liable for the content they carry (Comcast can't be held criminally liable if someone downloads child porn using a Comcast cable modem, for example). This is how things have been since 1934. However, Congress is moving in the direction to give the big phone and cable companies the power to regulate the 'net as they see fit. They will be able to pick favorites and decide who's traffic they carry--or don't carry at all.

December of last year, I founded Bright Idea VoIP here in Novi, Michigan. We're an Internet-based telephone company that provides voice communication services to small-businesses. I frequently explain it as "Vonage for companies with 5 to 100 employees." This technology is known as "Voice-over-IP" (VoIP) is currently one of the fastest growing segments of the Internet. There are hundreds of companies like mine popping up all over the map. I am not rich by any sense of the word; I am simply a computer geek with a great idea who is trying to earn my piece of the American dream. And it's paying off... The company is growing very quickly. I (and my small, but also growing, group of coworkers) are working hard, but enjoying almost every minute of it. But for us to continue to thrive, or just to survive, we need a level playing field.

If AT&T, Verizon, or another large competitor of ours gains the ability to turn off or slow down areas of the Internet, our service will grind to a halt and I won't be able to do a thing about it. If they start to charge me a special "priority access fee", I'll have to pass that cost onto my subscribers. Suddenly the largest appeal of VoIP is reduced, making it less of a threat to the big telecom companies. The net effect is that I will be out of business within a year. And it's not just me... it's the thousands of other Internet innovators. We'll never know the next Google, eBay, or Amazon.com if the established 800 lb. gorillas get the power to decide who stays and who fails. That's not capitalism and that's not the American way.

With the lifeblood of manufacturing jobs in the metro Detroit area rapidly disappearing, your district desperately needs your help in promoting innovation and job growth in the technology sector. I ask that you please support Massachusetts congressman Ed Markey's "Network Neutrality Act of 2006", and that you see through the well-funded smoke screen of large telecom lobbyists.



I didn't even get a form letter back in return. Since he's up for relelection this

A couple of weeks ago, I sat down and wrote my first and only letter to a federal rep. Here in Oakland county, Michigan that happens to be Thaddeus McCotter. I decided on a fax because I've read that letters are given greater consideration compared to phone calls and emails, and a fax is better (faster) than the postal service due to postal security concerns. While the letter addresses my concerns from the viewpoint of a VoIP company founder, net neturallity is of major concern to anyone who is starting (or thinking of starting) any Internet-based company.

Congressman McCotter:

I am not politically active and have never contacted a federal representative in my life. However, I am taking the time today to write you because I am very deeply concerned about pending legislation intended to counter recent actions by large telecommunication companies that will hugely detrimental effect on the American citizenry, your constituents, and myself personally.

As things currently stand, big phone companies and cable conglomerates have what is called "common carrier" status. Meaning that they are required to treat all phone calls, Internet traffic, etc. identically. In exchange for keeping their hands off, carriers are given special tax breaks and are normally exempt from being liable for the content they carry (Comcast can't be held criminally liable if someone downloads child porn using a Comcast cable modem, for example). This is how things have been since 1934. However, Congress is moving in the direction to give the big phone and cable companies the power to regulate the 'net as they see fit. They will be able to pick favorites and decide who's traffic they carry--or don't carry at all.

December of last year, I founded Bright Idea VoIP here in Novi, Michigan. We're an Internet-based telephone company that provides voice communication services to small-businesses. I frequently explain it as "Vonage for companies with 5 to 100 employees." This technology is known as "Voice-over-IP" (VoIP) is currently one of the fastest growing segments of the Internet. There are hundreds of companies like mine popping up all over the map. I am not rich by any sense of the word; I am simply a computer geek with a great idea who is trying to earn my piece of the American dream. And it's paying off... The company is growing very quickly. I (and my small, but also growing, group of coworkers) are working hard, but enjoying almost every minute of it. But for us to continue to thrive, or just to survive, we need a level playing field.

If AT&T, Verizon, or another large competitor of ours gains the ability to turn off or slow down areas of the Internet, our service will grind to a halt and I won't be able to do a thing about it. If they start to charge me a special "priority access fee", I'll have to pass that cost onto my subscribers. Suddenly the largest appeal of VoIP is reduced, making it less of a threat to the big telecom companies. The net effect is that I will be out of business within a year. And it's not just me... it's the thousands of other Internet innovators. We'll never know the next Google, eBay, or Amazon.com if the established 800 lb. gorillas get the power to decide who stays and who fails. That's not capitalism and that's not the American way.

With the lifeblood of manufacturing jobs in the metro Detroit area rapidly disappearing, your district desperately needs your help in promoting innovation and job growth in the technology sector. I ask that you please support Massachusetts congressman Ed Markey's "Network Neutrality Act of 2006", and that you see through the well-funded smoke screen of large telecom lobbyists.



I didn't even get a form letter back in return. Since he's up for relelection this

So this is what happens when you buy this rhetoric that the conservatives represent laize faire politics. That's bullshit. Like the Bush administration, Merkle represents big money and this news clearly demonstrates that fucking over the public in a shakedown for big business is clearly not an issue for these conservative pricks.
        So, let's not hear about how the left is where the problems are coming from. Sure, in the U.S. Diane Feinstein and a few others have sold out the public's interests in these matters but that doesn't mean the Republicans represent an alternative. If you're a California voter, I suggest you write to Feinstein and tell her you don't appreciate her selling out her constituents for a few bucks on such an important issue. But voting conservative is not the answer.
      Merkle has shown her hand and it is up to the German voters to slap that hand by voting her out of office.

If you're a California voter, start setting things straight right now. The Democrats cannot be a valid alternative to the Republicans if they not only support but seek to tighten the absurdly outdated copyright regime in place in the US today.

The following two California politicians drafted the PERFORM Act among other efforts to tighten the copyright noose.

Blurb about the PERFORM Act.
http://www.rwonline.com/dailynews/one.php?id=9011

But beyond the PERFORM Act, contact these people and tell them directly that non commercial sharing of copyrighted material is NOT theft. Tell them their job is to leave the citizen's private Internet communications alone and that their job is to support the private non-commercial communication rights of their voters not to win favors from industry groups. Let them know that the alternative is to lose in the next election. Speak up!

Senator Dieane Feinstein
202-224-3841
202-228-3954
http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

Representative Howard L. Berman (D - 28)
  202-225-4695
  202-225-3196
  http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/

And yeah, I'm posting anonymously. But that's the whole point here. I should be able to post anonymously and all of our Internet communication should be anonymous and private. Let's make it so.

You forgot to say "IANAL" because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Allofmp3 is legal due to Russian law, and the only way to make it illegal would be to change the law, and as far as I know, that seems kinda hard to do in Russia, especially something as anti-consumer as copyright.

If identity theft were legal when it was done, it was legal. The US Constitution explicitly states that anything that isn't already illegal due to a law is legal. Trying to punish someone for an act that wasn't illegal at the time of the event is called ex post facto, and that also is explicitly banned by the US Constitution.

Finally, copyright infringement is not, I repeat, not theft. Copyright law is fully described in US Code Title 17, and copyright infringement is defined there as well. The concept of theft, burglary, robbery, larceny, and the rest of the theft family of criminal laws deal with physical items, not abstract concepts like ideas. Criminal law can be found in the next title (oddly enough), USC Title 18.

Now for my disclaimer: I am not a licensed attorney, but I study political science and law in fairly well detail.

Also, you refer to the Russian government as a "terrorist organisation"; with that logic, one can easily apply the same accusations towards the RIAA for their own regime.

You forgot to say "IANAL" because you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. Allofmp3 is legal due to Russian law, and the only way to make it illegal would be to change the law, and as far as I know, that seems kinda hard to do in Russia, especially something as anti-consumer as copyright.

If identity theft were legal when it was done, it was legal. The US Constitution explicitly states that anything that isn't already illegal due to a law is legal. Trying to punish someone for an act that wasn't illegal at the time of the event is called ex post facto, and that also is explicitly banned by the US Constitution.

Finally, copyright infringement is not, I repeat, not theft. Copyright law is fully described in US Code Title 17, and copyright infringement is defined there as well. The concept of theft, burglary, robbery, larceny, and the rest of the theft family of criminal laws deal with physical items, not abstract concepts like ideas. Criminal law can be found in the next title (oddly enough), USC Title 18.

Now for my disclaimer: I am not a licensed attorney, but I study political science and law in fairly well detail.

Also, you refer to the Russian government as a "terrorist organisation"; with that logic, one can easily apply the same accusations towards the RIAA for their own regime.

Patriotism is being loyal and loving your country unconditionally and your politicians when they deserve it.

This administration deserves neither loyalty nor love.

Both of these statements are true.

I went to one of the best private high schools in my state, I also have 6+ years of college, yet I have only recently been learning about the Constitution and our government in my spare time. Of all of the required studies I took in school, I can't believe none of them taught me the Constitution, and very little history. The government makes these standards, right?

Anyway, in my recent learning of our Constitution and government, I learned a little about the impeachment process.

For those that don't know, impeachment of a high official must be initiated by the House of Representatives. To find your representative, look here. Note that the site requires your 5+4 digit zip code.

If you are an American and you love your life and country, I believe it is time to write at least your representative and ask for at least the impeachment of President Bush. A decent starting point can be found here plus there are many other resources on the web.

I made the decision today with the recent Gonzales article here on slashdot to write a letter to at least my representative. I was embarrassed that I had to look it up, but emphasis on government has never been necessary in my life until recently.

If someone could reply with a boilerplate for a letter to your representative, that would be appreciated.

I think its time that we take back charge in this country.

But the Chinese 0wn the State Department already. What's the big fuss?
http://www.house.gov/tanner/press108-101.htm

daveschroeder (das@doit.wisc.edu) said:

Apple is aready using the Intel Core Duo T2500 in the iMac, and the Core Duo and Core Solo in the Mac mini.

This is only fuel for the US House Subcommittee on Silicon Chip Manufacturers to continue their antitrust investigations.

GO AMD!

I told him that the way to alleviate his security concerns is not just to ban Lenovo notebooks, but all notebooks and mobile phones with Chinese components. I observed that this would take the US military back to the telecommunications level used in World War II, which was the last war that the US actually won, so that this might actually be a brilliant idea.

Finally, I noted that I would prefer that our US tax dollars go to companies whose profits actually stay in the US, so Apple and Dell were better choices than Lenovo. Of course, they'd have to stop buying Jeeps, which are made by Daimler.

Mr Wolf, Republican chairman of the committee that oversees the department's funds, told reporters that China's spying efforts were "frightening".

It was "no secret that the US is a principal target of Chinese intelligence services", he said, adding: "No American government agency should want to purchase from them".

Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.

It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.

From http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constituti on.html

Article 1, Section 2:
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3:
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

From the American Bar Association website http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

Q. What procedures does the House of Representatives follow in the impeachment process?
A. While the Constitution outlines the basic process for impeachment, the specific procedures are determined by the internal rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate. To begin, the House of Representatives refers the investigation to its Judiciary Committee, which reviews the evidence and may conduct hearings. It determines whether an official impeachment inquiry is warranted and, if so, asks the House for permission to proceed. An official investigation follows, with the Committee deciding whether to offer articles of impeachment to the full House. The House then votes separately on each of the articles, with a simple majority needed to impeach the official. Articles of impeachment approved by the House are then presented to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate for trial.

If he was right about the company certifying the steel, it implies one of two things: a massive conspiracy OR (massive) failure to properly test the steel.

IF massive conspiracy, then why not a little bit more to get him fired and completely deny responsibility (the alternative would be trying to prove the U.S. government was lying about the cause of the failures, most likely in court, while defending themselves from criminal negligence charges). They would likely take the easy way out, fire him, shift the blame and deny responsibility, with the blessing and probably cash of the conspiriteurs.

If they actually failed to certify the steel they were supposed to, they would be guilty of negligence resulting in thousands of deaths so again, would try to deny it and fire him.

If he was wrong, about them certifying it, but right about his calculations of the impossibility of the official explanation, they would probably still fire him for going against the official theory while claiming to act as a company rep, and casting their company in a bad light.

If he was totally wrong, then they would fire him for any number of reasons, which shouldnt need pointing out.

So him being fired is irrelevant to the truth of his claims. the only thing that is relevant is whether the arguments in his letter are valid, and as far as I can tell, they are. plus certified or not, you would hope that the steel used would be close to passing that spec, if that was a common spec used at the time, and since most iron/steel has similar melting points/behaviour (I am not a blacksmith, buit see earlier blacksmiths comments for someone who is) it doesnt matter much anyway, his point still stands that the heat shouldnt have caused the collapse as hydrocarbon fires not forcefed (preheated?)air (or better yet oxygen) in ideal (no heat loss, stoichiometric oxygen/fuel mix) conditions dont get anywhere near hot enough to cause the melted steel visible before/after the collapse, nor to weaken the steel below it's 600% overengineered safety margin as claimed (especially the giant heatsink that the center column basically was) and especially not in an hour!.

On the topic of the ASTM E119 fire test for materials in the building, even the official report doesn't seem to deny that the materials were tested, just questions the usefulness of the test (see herepage 18, if you find a denial in this, let me know)

There is at least one.

Small businesses play an important part in the United States economy. There are about 22.4 million non-farm firms in the U.S, according to 2001 data. Small businesses represent more than 99 percent of all employers. They also employ 51 percent of private-sector workers, 51 percent of workers on public assistance, and 38 percent of workers in high-tech jobs.

Um, House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner is not actually a senator, but a congressman. http://www.house.gov/sensenbrenner/

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr04 2506.htm

This backs up what I was saying. I believe there is a 'great inflation' coming and PMs are a safe way around it.

It's interesting, especially given recent "doomsday laws"* passed recently by the US Government

* it was surprisingly hard to find any link to this in the mainstream press. I had hoped to link a CNN article or similar, but google just wasn't helping me. You can make up your own mind on the non-reporting of this major law change, but IMHO it simply backs up the point of this story. People just aren't bothered.

Don't look now, but such a repeal has already been proposed.

Now, this seems to be a fairly standard thing, actually. Someone seems to propose the elimination of term limits every administration or so, but these are truly unusual times...I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this proposed again and ratified in the hysteria following another 'terrorist attack'.

The day this passes is the day I either join the Michigan Militia or move to Canada.

Stewart patented an "idea". He claimed to send data over the magnetic part of the electric signal. No live Demonstrations!! Ran away from Dallas TX.

Statement to Congress

http://www.house.gov/science/stewart_100500.htm/

Wired Article

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.11/media.html /

Media Fusion Website

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.11/media.html /

A sibling points out that the Senate vote for the USA PATRIOT Act was 98 to 1 (with one abstention) and the lone holdout was Sen. Russ Feingold. In the House, though, the vote was less lopsided: 357 to 66.

Did you vote for Michael Badnarik last year? He got my vote. I see he's running for congress in Texas. He can join Ron Paul.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr02 1506.htm

"The agreement with OPEC in the 1970s to price oil in dollars has provided tremendous artificial strength to the dollar as the preeminent reserve currency. This has created a universal demand for the dollar, and soaks up the huge number of new dollars generated each year. Last year alone M3 increased over $700 billion."

"Most importantly, the dollar/oil relationship has to be maintained to keep the dollar as a preeminent currency. Any attack on this relationship will be forcefully challenged--as it already has been."

http://www.house.gov/

Go.. now... write your congressman. It takes 15 minutes to do.

"Representative XXXX,

I would like to write in support of the recent Net Neutrality bill brought to the house because XXXXX.

Thank you,
Your Name"

Keep it short. Keep it simple. And write one for every issue you care about. They do listen.