Slashdot Mirror

Here is a link:http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembershi p.aspx Here is a list of names and states they represent..... If you care about this topic take the time to write them and let them know how stupid this is.
Hon. Hyde(R) Illinois, 6th
Hon. Coble(R) North Carolina, 6th
Hon. Smith(R) Texas, 21st
Hon. Gallegly(R) California, 24th
Hon. Goodlatte(R) Virginia, 6th
Hon. Chabot(R) Ohio, 1st
Hon. Lungren(R) California, 3rd
Hon. Jenkins(R) Tennessee, 1st
Hon. Cannon(R) Utah, 3rd
Hon. Bachus(R) Alabama, 6th
Hon. Inglis(R) South Carolina, 4th
Hon. Hostettler(R) Indiana, 8th
Hon. Green(R) Wisconsin, 8th
Hon. Keller(R) Florida, 8th
Hon. Issa(R) California, 49th
Hon. Flake(R) Arizona, 6th
Hon. Pence(R) Indiana, 6th
Hon. Forbes(R) Virginia, 4th
Hon. King(R) Iowa, 5th
Hon. Feeney(R) Florida, 24th
Hon. Franks(R) Arizona, 2nd
Hon. Gohmert(R) Texas, 1st
Hon. Berman(D) California, 28th
Hon. Boucher(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Nadler(D) New York, 8th

Here is a link:http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembershi p.aspx Here is a list of names and states they represent..... If you care about this topic take the time to write them and let them know how stupid this is.
Hon. Hyde(R) Illinois, 6th
Hon. Coble(R) North Carolina, 6th
Hon. Smith(R) Texas, 21st
Hon. Gallegly(R) California, 24th
Hon. Goodlatte(R) Virginia, 6th
Hon. Chabot(R) Ohio, 1st
Hon. Lungren(R) California, 3rd
Hon. Jenkins(R) Tennessee, 1st
Hon. Cannon(R) Utah, 3rd
Hon. Bachus(R) Alabama, 6th
Hon. Inglis(R) South Carolina, 4th
Hon. Hostettler(R) Indiana, 8th
Hon. Green(R) Wisconsin, 8th
Hon. Keller(R) Florida, 8th
Hon. Issa(R) California, 49th
Hon. Flake(R) Arizona, 6th
Hon. Pence(R) Indiana, 6th
Hon. Forbes(R) Virginia, 4th
Hon. King(R) Iowa, 5th
Hon. Feeney(R) Florida, 24th
Hon. Franks(R) Arizona, 2nd
Hon. Gohmert(R) Texas, 1st
Hon. Berman(D) California, 28th
Hon. Boucher(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Nadler(D) New York, 8th

Here is a link:http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembershi p.aspx Here is a list of names and states they represent..... If you care about this topic take the time to write them and let them know how stupid this is.
Hon. Hyde(R) Illinois, 6th
Hon. Coble(R) North Carolina, 6th
Hon. Smith(R) Texas, 21st
Hon. Gallegly(R) California, 24th
Hon. Goodlatte(R) Virginia, 6th
Hon. Chabot(R) Ohio, 1st
Hon. Lungren(R) California, 3rd
Hon. Jenkins(R) Tennessee, 1st
Hon. Cannon(R) Utah, 3rd
Hon. Bachus(R) Alabama, 6th
Hon. Inglis(R) South Carolina, 4th
Hon. Hostettler(R) Indiana, 8th
Hon. Green(R) Wisconsin, 8th
Hon. Keller(R) Florida, 8th
Hon. Issa(R) California, 49th
Hon. Flake(R) Arizona, 6th
Hon. Pence(R) Indiana, 6th
Hon. Forbes(R) Virginia, 4th
Hon. King(R) Iowa, 5th
Hon. Feeney(R) Florida, 24th
Hon. Franks(R) Arizona, 2nd
Hon. Gohmert(R) Texas, 1st
Hon. Berman(D) California, 28th
Hon. Boucher(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Nadler(D) New York, 8th

Here is a link:http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembershi p.aspx Here is a list of names and states they represent..... If you care about this topic take the time to write them and let them know how stupid this is.
Hon. Hyde(R) Illinois, 6th
Hon. Coble(R) North Carolina, 6th
Hon. Smith(R) Texas, 21st
Hon. Gallegly(R) California, 24th
Hon. Goodlatte(R) Virginia, 6th
Hon. Chabot(R) Ohio, 1st
Hon. Lungren(R) California, 3rd
Hon. Jenkins(R) Tennessee, 1st
Hon. Cannon(R) Utah, 3rd
Hon. Bachus(R) Alabama, 6th
Hon. Inglis(R) South Carolina, 4th
Hon. Hostettler(R) Indiana, 8th
Hon. Green(R) Wisconsin, 8th
Hon. Keller(R) Florida, 8th
Hon. Issa(R) California, 49th
Hon. Flake(R) Arizona, 6th
Hon. Pence(R) Indiana, 6th
Hon. Forbes(R) Virginia, 4th
Hon. King(R) Iowa, 5th
Hon. Feeney(R) Florida, 24th
Hon. Franks(R) Arizona, 2nd
Hon. Gohmert(R) Texas, 1st
Hon. Berman(D) California, 28th
Hon. Boucher(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Nadler(D) New York, 8th

Here is a link:http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembershi p.aspx Here is a list of names and states they represent..... If you care about this topic take the time to write them and let them know how stupid this is.
Hon. Hyde(R) Illinois, 6th
Hon. Coble(R) North Carolina, 6th
Hon. Smith(R) Texas, 21st
Hon. Gallegly(R) California, 24th
Hon. Goodlatte(R) Virginia, 6th
Hon. Chabot(R) Ohio, 1st
Hon. Lungren(R) California, 3rd
Hon. Jenkins(R) Tennessee, 1st
Hon. Cannon(R) Utah, 3rd
Hon. Bachus(R) Alabama, 6th
Hon. Inglis(R) South Carolina, 4th
Hon. Hostettler(R) Indiana, 8th
Hon. Green(R) Wisconsin, 8th
Hon. Keller(R) Florida, 8th
Hon. Issa(R) California, 49th
Hon. Flake(R) Arizona, 6th
Hon. Pence(R) Indiana, 6th
Hon. Forbes(R) Virginia, 4th
Hon. King(R) Iowa, 5th
Hon. Feeney(R) Florida, 24th
Hon. Franks(R) Arizona, 2nd
Hon. Gohmert(R) Texas, 1st
Hon. Berman(D) California, 28th
Hon. Boucher(D) Virginia, 9th
Hon. Nadler(D) New York, 8th

Fortunately, Rep. Boucher of VA is on the committee (Committee Members). Of the current members of the House, he has demonstrated that he "gets" it WRT fair use and DRM.

At least, there's a voice.

The Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005 (PDF) is sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) (PDF) and would close that pesky analog hole that poses such a dire threat to the survival of the music and movie industries. The bill was originally planned for introduction in early November, but was tabled after hearings held by the House Subcomittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

According to Reps. Sensenbrenner and Conyers, the legislation is absolutely necessary because of the dire threat PCs and the Internet pose to the content-creation industry's very livelihood. Apparently, it's not nimble enough to keep up with advances in technology.

The Digital Transition Content Security Act of 2005 (PDF) is sponsored by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) (PDF) and would close that pesky analog hole that poses such a dire threat to the survival of the music and movie industries. The bill was originally planned for introduction in early November, but was tabled after hearings held by the House Subcomittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.

According to Reps. Sensenbrenner and Conyers, the legislation is absolutely necessary because of the dire threat PCs and the Internet pose to the content-creation industry's very livelihood. Apparently, it's not nimble enough to keep up with advances in technology.

The Joint Committee staff found no credible evidence that the IRS delayed or accelerated issuance of determination letters to tax-exempt organizations based on the nature of the organization's perceived views.

The House of Representatives last month held hearings on a preliminary draft by two GOP congressmen, Joe Barton of Texas and Fred Upton of Michigan, that would give the telecom companies the freedom to establish premium broadband services. The telecom bill is due for action early next year. If your rep. is on This List be sure to drop them a line.

The House of Representatives last month held hearings on a preliminary draft by two GOP congressmen, Joe Barton of Texas and Fred Upton of Michigan, that would give the telecom companies the freedom to establish premium broadband services. The telecom bill is due for action early next year. If your rep. is on This List be sure to drop them a line.

For [insert favorite diety]'s sake, write your representative, and write your senators (both of them)!

Tell them this is a bad idea. Make up some ideas - I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion here.

Write them a physical letter if you can bear to touch it - those go farther...even if you're talking 'bout the internet.

--LWM

I guess no one on Fark has ever heard of Jim Moran.

I have.. I haven't gotten much of a response from my Senators, but my congressman was kind enough to give a B.S. reply to my comments regarding the broadcast flag. If they can't understand a simple fact like "If I can't record it on/like my VCR, I don't want it" and "If it can record on my VCR" it doesn't do anything to prevent piracy anyway", what chance do we have of getting *any* citizen support?

I know I am on the verge of off-topic, but to be honest, I won't be voting to re-elect *anyone* that passes the broadcast flag, or any legislation similar to it, or extending the DMCA.

The US Constitution guarentees that you will not suffer the consequences of censorship nor retaliation for what you say - that is freedom of speech.

Where do you see that in the Constitution? All I see is the bit in the First Amendment saying that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press..." It says nothing about a private institution reserving the right to determine the terms under which it will do business with an individual.

Now, you don't have to like it, but if a university accepts a student's tuition on the condition that they adhere to a policy of conduct, the university has every right to enforce that policy. It's just like any contract between individuals. I could hire you to work for me, and include in the conditions of your employment that you don't disagree with me in public. I could then fire you with cause if you violate that contract, and the government would back me up on enforcing the contract. No one forced this student to choose Marquette as opposed to any other school.
-JMP

Just because it's not in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not protected. Remember, the Constitution grants the government certain, limited powers. It does not enumerate the rights of Citizens. See the 9th Amendment. In fact, if the power is not expressly enumerated in the Constitution, the federal government expressly does not have said power. That power is reserved for the States and the People. See the 10th Amendment.

And finally, for the learning impaired (not the parent), rights are not granted by the Constitution. They are protected. Rights are inalienable in the American way of thinking. At least, back when we Americans thought about such things.

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

Customers are always better off when government bureaucrats get out of the way and let the market work, right?

Is the submitter on drugs? The reason most industries that are regulated are regulated is precisely because the market doesn't work for that industry!

When natural gas was deregulated in my state, prices skyrocketed and a bunch of natural gas marketers (mine included) began outright stealing money from their customers. (Long story.) When cable television was deregulated, my cable prices skyrocketed and I got less and crappier channels. (Thank god for satellite, which itself is regulated to prevent it from competing with cable companies on their own terms.) After 9/11, the airline industry, which isn't regulated, liked the government enough to go begging for a $5 billion bailout. What did they do with the money? Well, Delta Airlines used $17.3 million of it to give executives bonuses while losing $1.3 billion more and cutting 16,000 jobs. But when anyone bought up the thougt of regulating the industry, god, you would have thought we were communists.

And don't even get me started on the phone company.

A healthy market depends on well-regulated businesses. If anything, I would say that customers are hardly ever better off when government gets out of the way and let the market work in an unfettered manner. The only exceptions are when the government bureaucrats are working in collusion with the industry, a sad state of affairs that is unfortunately becoming more and more common.

Well the constitution doesn't really allow for a standing army.

Section. 8
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Section. 10
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Reading closely, the Army (milltia) belongs to the states, but congress can call them as needed. Congress can also allocate supplies. An army may be funded, but only for 2 years at a time. When compared with the language used for the Navy, it is clear that a standing army is not what is intended. Though it is also clear the the milltia is not state troops, but the common people which the state trains.

Section. 8
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The IRS is legal - congress can collect taxes, and the IRS is the agency that is allowed to collect taxes. I don't think we should have an IRS, but it is legal - my argument is against the taxes they collect.

Section. 2.
Clause 2: He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The CIA can (with the concent of congress) fit into all other officers who shall be established as law. While you can argue that the US shouldn't have spies, it is clear from the rest of the constitution that if the US has them, they belong on the federal level. I think your argument that the CIA is illegal is wrong, but it is clearly the case where your argument is strongest.

I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to MiB, so I won't comment.

The US constitution is a very readable document. If you are a citizen of the US you should read it from time to time to remind yourself what it says. Obviously slashdot has an international audience, so I can't blame the parent for not knowing it (I don't know foreign governments well either).

I realize that you are leading me way off topic, but I thought I would at least bother to ask: have you listend to NPR in the past 6 months? Most of the reporting has to do with Iraq, the supreme court, scandals (plenty about the CPB scandal, too) and the way too much freakin' hurricane coverage. I'm a huge NPR fan, but dammit enough hurricane coverage!!

Believe it or not, NPR will provide you a hell of a lot more info about what's going on in the world and the country than most news stations cause they skip the majority of the tabloid, sensationalist trashy stuff that local stations thrive on. Yeah, you can bitch and moan that it further left than Fox news, but honestly: it's 99% solid reporting about actual news.

This stupid RPG story was meant to be a lighter story to give a break from the serious stuff, that's all. And if you listen to a lot of NPR, you are usually grateful for the stories that change the pace.

If your tax dollars are being wasted, beleive me... it's not NPR that wasting the bulk of them. The entire lump sum of tax dollars going to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for this year (http://www.house.gov/budget/laborhhs03.htm) is 360 million, compared to a total projected overal spending of 300-600 BILLION in iraq (multiple years, obviously), as well as projected 200 BILLION spent on Katrina (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm844.cfm ). BTW - that's from the heritage foundation, generally known to be quite conservative people.

Not saying we shouldn't be in Iraq just saying that NPR doesn't cost you much comparatively.

The constitution says nothing about peers, only that it be a jury. The sixth amendment expands on that by specifying an impartial jury. The seventh amendment provides jury trials for civil matters (which this is), but the nature of the jury is never specified. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

Congress is expressly required to create and protect what we now call Intellectually Property Rights by the US Constitution. See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

IMHO, this puts it on an even higher plane than the right to privacy which was derived from the 4th Amendment by the SCOTUS. While the implementation is left to Congress to decide, the right itself is inalienable even if time limited.

Your attempts to put every voter, party and politician in the "stupid" basket is an insult to those who fight this kind of nonsense.

Voting today will always be voting for the less r of two great evils. Candidates know the power they'll have to abuse. Only 1 Congressman in 42 years has voted Constitutionally. ONE.

Instead of blaming others (a very immature tactic) consider the things you might actually do to fight this:

I will blame those who enabled these tyrants. The voters.

* Join the EFF

Useless. Not one thing they've lobbied against has been prevented. Instead I support the Institute for Justice who have a proven track record.

* Write your congressperson/senators when they do something you really like or don't like

Yea, that works. Never has, never will. Democrats and Republicans equally break the Constitution.

* Tell other people how you feel outside of slashdot

I do. My newsletter was hitting almost 2000 daily readers, almost all who stopped voting.

* Join the ACLU

The ACLU is pro-racism, anti-male and anti-work. I would never support them.

What have *you* done lately?

More than you could imagine.

But voting machines are a different beast. If they don't work (and this is only more of a problem without a paper trail) it's very difficult to prove it. So the real question is this -- do we want people taking risks with the electoral process?

No they're not!

A voting machine is a machine. An airplane is a machine. We know they work or don't work by testing them.

Your comparison is flawed, because you allow testing on the airplane. Anybody who gets on your example airplane after it crashes in the desert is an idiot, as is anybody who gets on before the plane makes a few hundred safe trips. Anybody who bought those diebold machines before knowing anything about them was an idiot, anybody who bought them when the problems were coming out is an idiot, and anybody who buys them in the future is an idiot.

The problem in this case, is nobody has tested this product adequately. A smart consumer wouldn't buy an airplane held together with duct tape and powered by rubber bands, and that's essentially what the diebold machines are with their numerous security flaws, and lack of paper trail.

In this case, the problem is that there is no smart consumer. There is only the government.

Coward:

Really?

A study conducted by University of Kentucky labor and health economist Dr. Aaron Yelowitz

Some grain of salt studies:
Government study so take it for what it is

another study

Thanks for the link. I concede bribe is perhaps too strong a word.

But there does seem to be a correlation between money contributed to politicains and laws that those politicians vote for that specifically benefit the contributors.

For example, between 1997 and 1998 Howard Coble accepted over $50,000 from the entertainment industry. He also introduced the DMCA to Congress. Conicidence?

If you follow the money you'll find similar patterns. I understand the free speech issues regarding restrictions on campaign financing. But one has to ask: Why are corpoarations giving money if not with the expectation that the politicians they contribute to will pass laws in their favor?

Rep Markey has also worked to circumvent the 27th Amendment of the United States and has happily accepted pay raise after pay rai... oops... excuse me... his most recent salary adjustment wasn't a raise, it was a cost of living adjustment. Varying the starting representative's salary upwards by an extra $3,100/year to almost $170,000/year isn't covered by the text "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." because COLAs aren't salary variations, say the judges with retirement benefits directly keyed to congressional salaries.

I am also strongly opposed to the concept that "a Federal workforce of passenger and baggage screeners is more responsive to the public than the private sector" (he sponsored HR2649) and the thought of unionized airport screeners is nauseating ("all employees of the Transportation Security Administration, including Federal airport screeners, should be permitted to engage in collective bargaining and be represented in collective bargaining by a representative or organization of their choosing"). If you think screeners are tough to fire now when they are caught stealing things from your bags, just wait until they are fully unionized.

Some would that that HR3710 is a good thought - royalty relief for gas and oil companies - except this is nothing more than an additional tax that will be passed on to consumers.

The purpose of copyrights and patents is to promote the progress of science and useful arts USC Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. It's purpose is not to make inventors rich.

When you look at the great inventions, people mostly didn't do it for the money. I talking not about things like the light bulb but the fundamental research that went into most of the break through discoveries in science. Take just about anything, the vacuum tube, the transistor, integrated ciruit, the Internet, etc. and you'll find the incentive came, not from being able to get rich from it, but by the desire to create and discover. That people can make a living from their discoveries and inventions is great but it's not essential for progress.

He actually voted no: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml

My fellow Americans and Patriots:

With the pen mightier than the sword, it is with great responsibility that I write to you and share some insight into the direction our country has been heading in conjunction with the overall public opinion. We all know of the aggressions in Iraq and with each death of a soldier or a citizen, their blood stains our flag red tainting and perverting the Liberty and Freedom that it stands for. I allude not to socialism as a red flag symbolizes, but to the loss of Liberty and Freedom along with the lives of civilians and soldiers alike in the façade of pursuing terrorism. It is with this in mind that we must set aside the petty differences that have splintered this nation and its people, the partisan battles and left/right exchange of accusations. We must come together as the people, for the people and remind those in Washington D.C. who they are elected to serve the interests of. We must come together to let freedom ring, from every mountain, from every valley, from every stream, from every city, from coast to coast, from you to your neighbor, from American to American. We must do the right thing and put this nation back on track, restore the respect and opportunities America and Americans once had on this Earth.

Make no mistake, this is not an attack on an individual or a party rather a travesty and abomination that such behavior and mindset was not only allowed to exist where it did but gather together and try to consolidate power. I care not for labels, I care about the facts and the position held by the person responsible for their actions as they alone chose to make their move. A label covers up things, there has been enough of this done by our Government as it is. Let us remove those labels and see things for what they are, the only label we need to retain for each other is who we are: American.

As a responsible civilization, we all respect the law and have the power to change it. When that law is broken, justice is to be blind and care not for the wealth and status of the accused; the same laws apply the same to every citizen. We must teach this to our children and they must see it work, these laws keep us safe and from destroying things. When this core value starts to erode, so does and has our society. This degeneration must not be allowed to continue, it is the duty of the people to restore the pillar of justice that holds our society up; we the people in order to restore our Union and come together again as Americans denounce dishonesty and deceit, for it does not represent us.

Our core law is provided online by the House of Representatives and can be found here: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

Article II, Section 4.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Article VI, Clause 2.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Treaties formally entered by the United States are considered the law OF the United States and subject to our judicial systems while bound to the treaty. The United States Senate, by a vote of 89 to 2, gave its consent to the ratification of the UN Charter on July 28, 1945 and we joined the United Nations on October 24th, 1945.

United Nations Charter:

My fellow Americans and Patriots:

With the pen mightier than the sword, it is with great responsibility that I write to you and share some insight into the direction our country has been heading in conjunction with the overall public opinion. We all know of the aggressions in Iraq and with each death of a soldier or a citizen, their blood stains our flag red tainting and perverting the Liberty and Freedom that it stands for. I allude not to socialism as a red flag symbolizes, but to the loss of Liberty and Freedom along with the lives of civilians and soldiers alike in the façade of pursuing terrorism. It is with this in mind that we must set aside the petty differences that have splintered this nation and its people, the partisan battles and left/right exchange of accusations. We must come together as the people, for the people and remind those in Washington D.C. who they are elected to serve the interests of. We must come together to let freedom ring, from every mountain, from every valley, from every stream, from every city, from coast to coast, from you to your neighbor, from American to American. We must do the right thing and put this nation back on track, restore the respect and opportunities America and Americans once had on this Earth.

Make no mistake, this is not an attack on an individual or a party rather a travesty and abomination that such behavior and mindset was not only allowed to exist where it did but gather together and try to consolidate power. I care not for labels, I care about the facts and the position held by the person responsible for their actions as they alone chose to make their move. A label covers up things, there has been enough of this done by our Government as it is. Let us remove those labels and see things for what they are, the only label we need to retain for each other is who we are: American.

As a responsible civilization, we all respect the law and have the power to change it. When that law is broken, justice is to be blind and care not for the wealth and status of the accused; the same laws apply the same to every citizen. We must teach this to our children and they must see it work, these laws keep us safe and from destroying things. When this core value starts to erode, so does and has our society. This degeneration must not be allowed to continue, it is the duty of the people to restore the pillar of justice that holds our society up; we the people in order to restore our Union and come together again as Americans denounce dishonesty and deceit, for it does not represent us.

Our core law is provided online by the House of Representatives and can be found here: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

Article II, Section 4.

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Article VI, Clause 2.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Treaties formally entered by the United States are considered the law OF the United States and subject to our judicial systems while bound to the treaty. The United States Senate, by a vote of 89 to 2, gave its consent to the ratification of the UN Charter on July 28, 1945 and we joined the United Nations on October 24th, 1945.

United Nations Charter:

For every act of good that your incumbent US rep engaged in I'll bet he has hundreds of acts of bad. Chances are he voted for the bridges to nowhere, the patriot act, DMCA and is openly refusing to even pretend that he believes in fiscal responsibility. Odds are exceptionally high that your congresscritter doesn't have any significant problem with the intrusive and ineffective state of airport security, has no issue with Haliburton billing the federal government $85/hour to hire illegal immigrants at $5/hour to rebuild New Orleans and doesn't particularly care that the US Military routinely hides blatant environmental destruction (such as open dumping of toxic waste at groom lake) and personal embarassment by classifying the whole thing.

Your US rep gladly accepts pay hike after pay hike in clear and direct violation of the spirit and intent of amendment XXVII.

There are lots of people out there who would be more than happy to champion the cause of ending extraordinary rendition and wouldn't be rushing to kiss the posterior of the RIAA/MPAA, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA.

The odds are that your congressman voted for CAN SPAM, the Mickey Mouse preservation act, approved $100,000 for the Tiger Woods Foundation, 5.5 million dollars for HAARP (suspected in an article of Scientific American to have caused an outbreak of deadly tornados in Florida), $36 million for the C130-J (a craft the defense department deemed unsatisfactory, and $3 million dollars a year for the Department of Energy to run a golf course in the Southwestern United States.

Politicians suck. They lie. They cheat. They steal.

And worst of all, they are returned to power time and time again by people like you who focus on a single, obvious, anybody with a shread of decency would do the same, no-brainer act of good and declare this to outweigh all of the bad.

The harm your congressman has brought to the nation greatly outweighs any positive action. While your rep is opposing sending people to foreign countries so they can be tortured but still passes the *&@#^$! appropriations bills that gives the CIA money to carry this out it isn't enough. Enron's chief (probably) opposes kicking puppies - so let's keep him in power forever?

If you want Sony to behave better, you must starve the beast in order to bring it to heel. How do you starve the beast you ask?

1. Write your Congresspeople (House and Senate)
2. Campaign against any elected official who voted for the DMCA
3. Boycott any and all Sony products. This includes computers, movies, etc.
4. Class action law suit - hit them in the wallet AND make it a matter of public record for all time.
5. Urge others to follow you in the boycott

I have flatly refused to buy music for a rather extended period of time because I will not put a single dime in the RIAA's pockets. They routine rip-off the very musicans that they proclaim so loudly that they are protecting. Many musicians, even prominent ones, have been defrauded of vast sums of money by the music industry representatives (Little Richard and Elvis Presely to name two that come immediately to mind). Numerous articles have been publishes on this and Sony is currently being sued by a group of artists over this very thing. If they're ripping the artists off, how come they care if I download an MP3?

2 cents,

Queen B

I mean look at the critism that most Europeans have over the U.S. ... it is too easy to get guns, there aren't enough laws to restrict buisnesses, taxes are too low, "hate speech" is not punished, health care should be nationalized and controlled by a central authority, etc., etc. They are not complaining for the most part that the U.S. restricts freedoms, they are complaining that the U.S. is too free and a "cowboy culture"

No.

Europe is complaining how freedom of press is killed. Europe is complaining how freedom of life is restricted by people being imprisoned for years without trial.

Europe is laughing when a chick flashing some nipple causes a national scandal, and frightened when secret mass surveillance projects and torture facilities do not.

Europe is complaining that corruption and ridiculous massive secrecy restricts freedom. Europe wants things to be managed transparently, so at least abuses can be exposed.

Oh, and Europe is complaining that America's freedom to become better is restricted by automatic labeling of any not-in-Fox-News observations or suggestions as "anti-american".

The writeup does a lousy job of telling us what the bill is about. It is apparently legislation to create a statutory framework for Internet Protocol and Broadband Services.

Here's what Cerf says: My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it.

Let me add my two cents on this issue. I am no die hard Chavez supporter, being that I am a libertarian and he is a socialist, but my suspicians are raised when we are sold this battle on false premises. We are supposed to believe that he is a dictator who is reversing democratic trends in the hemisphere, yet this is just plain not true. He has been democraticaly elected, and he has survived a recall election (by a large margain) and a military coup. He may blow claims of US interference out of proportion, but that doesn't mean there is no interference going on. It's easy to be paranoid when the most powerful people in the world really are out to get you.

If something isn't done about this soon, clearly network effects will result in pretty much every "CD" being DRM-encumbered, containing, as Sony did, software that actively damages the configuration of the systems the CD is meant to play upon. However, it would be entirely wrong to hold companies like Sony to account for this. They, after all, are merely trying to make money. It is entirely right that they should do so by taking advantage of ignorance to encourage people to do things that are entirely not in their best interest. If businesses were not able to do this, if businesses had incentives to make money when honest, then freedom itself would be at risk. Liberty would be in peril.

What kind of "choice" is it where you do not need to be a technology geek to decide whether or not to buy a "CD" of music? What kind of "freedom" does one have if every vendor of cellular service is telling the truth about their talk plan prices? How are we free if we do not, in practice even if we rarely do, have to hire a lawyer before taking a job or even installing software? Can we be described as supportive of liberty when a shop cannot put a price label on an item that actually reflects the retail price minus some "mail in rebate" the customer might not even qualify for, and if they do, might not get anyway?

Those who defend the intervention of government into these matters ignore market forces. Just as, say, if people like purple cars, the market will eventually end up producing purple cars, so it follows that what we're seeing here is market forces. People, through their unwillingness to spend every waking moment researching every aspect of the products they buy before they buy them, refusing to visit factories to determine environmental and employment issues, refusing to educate themselves about 14 bit 44.1KHz encoding, refusing to examine the contracts of the artists who produced the works, refusing to understand the lower level Win32 APIs and the registry, refusing to even design proxy-device drivers to understand these basic concepts, demonstrate that they want ignorance, and they consider being taken advantage of, being fooled, as actually a thing of value. We cannot have honesty in business when the market wants dishonesty.

But, no, there are those who want to smother consumers in regulation and red-tape. They want to prevent consumers from getting the products and services they deserve. And why? Because the more dishonest the market becomes, the more they scream and think something needs to be done.

This quagmire of people complaining about the market when the market is actually providing them with what they asked for will not disappear by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that the market is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by Sony, Steam, Kevin Jones Staples and Off

National Security Letters are a pretty blatent violation of the Fourth Amendment. Their entire purpose was to give the FBI the power of a warrant without judicial oversight.

Here's a video of the hearings, nearly 2 hours long (show your love of the committee by slashdotting it!) (only available in real video): Oversight Hearing on Content Protection in the Digital Age
They talk about the broadcast flag as well, but is from Thursday and about plugging the analog hole.
From http://judiciary.house.gov/Oversight.aspx?ID=202

You're making my brain bleed. There were 3 votes on Nov 2, 2005.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/ROLL_500.asp

All 3 were following the same rules as this bill. This bill was the only one shot down. The ones that passed: HR 4061 (Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology Mangement Improvement Act) and HR 1691 (John H. Bradley Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic).

Dirty dirty Republicans... using their trickses to keep bills from passing. Good thing that the evil scheme failed for the other two! Muahahahaha!

Is that this bill actually needed a 2/3 majority to pass for some reason. I'm not sure why; it says they were trying to pass it outside the normal rules. Well, huh. If they'd just gone through the normal rules it would have passed, looks like, right?

Still, a bit of an odd way of looking at it. The democrats have a minority of congress and not all of them voted against this motion. They certainly voted against it more than the republicans did; still this article seems a bit sensationalist, the bill doesn't manage to get 2/3 of congress to vote for it and it's the DEMOCRATS! THE DEMOCRATS DID THIS!

Taxing peoples' income twice clearly restricts interstate commerce. It is an incentive to live in the state in which business is conducted, rather than conducting business remotely; an outdated practice for our time.

Because it is a restriction, and ultimately serves the same function as a tariff -- and since tariffs between states are illegal, by Constitutional definition (Sec. 9, Clause 5) -- it would seem to me that this double-taxation ought to be illegal too. The NY Appeals court saw things differently.

This seems like something the ICC should take up, and as an interstate case, it's necessarily a federal case. Where's the reasoning for the USSC's refusal to hear the case? This is right up their alley...

It is my understanding that voice votes are basically the judgement of the speaker or majority leader as to which side was louder (see the the house rules). If any member questions the accuracy of the voice vote, or just wants to force everyone to go on the record for whatever reason, he or she may request a recorded vote.

However, you have a good point about the bills probably being unvetoable. I find it unlikely that a voice vote would pass with less than 67%. There are ways for a bill killed in committee to be forced for a full vote too, but I was just intending to simply illustrate that the normal process makes it very difficult to pass an unpopular bill. The DMCA may not be popular on slashdot, but it certainly was popular in congress. Hopefully this one won't be.

You can contact all the members of the House Subcommittee on the Judiciary at this site. All members of congress on the committee are listed with links to their sites with phone numbers etc. PHONE THEM by the droves. Post this site where ever you think the most eyes will see it. http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx ?committee=3 I have started contacting them already. Be your usual wonderful selves when contacting them. Being an Anal. hole plug will NOT further your ideas.

This is being heard by the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (part of the Committee on the Judiciary) on Thursday 11/03/2005 at 2:00 PM. See http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx ?committee=3 to see which Reps are on the committee.

Also, note the witnesses for the hearing (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=202) :
Honorable Dan Glickman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)

Mitch Bainwol
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

Gigi B. Sohn
President, Public Knowledge

Michael D. Petricone
Vice President, Government Affairs, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) on behalf of CEA and the Home Recording Rights Coalition.

This is being heard by the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (part of the Committee on the Judiciary) on Thursday 11/03/2005 at 2:00 PM. See http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx ?committee=3 to see which Reps are on the committee.

Also, note the witnesses for the hearing (http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=202) :
Honorable Dan Glickman
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)

Mitch Bainwol
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)

Gigi B. Sohn
President, Public Knowledge

Michael D. Petricone
Vice President, Government Affairs, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) on behalf of CEA and the Home Recording Rights Coalition.

And lest you think all lobbyists are evil, Public Knowledge and the Home Recording Rights Coalition will also be testifying at the hearing.

There are no representatives from my state (Arizona) on the committee, and they get so much correspondence that they essentially ignore anyone who is not their direct constituent, but if your congressman is on the list, then now is the time to let them know how you feel, especially if you are from Texas or California.

And lest you think all lobbyists are evil, Public Knowledge and the Home Recording Rights Coalition will also be testifying at the hearing.

There are no representatives from my state (Arizona) on the committee, and they get so much correspondence that they essentially ignore anyone who is not their direct constituent, but if your congressman is on the list, then now is the time to let them know how you feel, especially if you are from Texas or California.

And lest you think all lobbyists are evil, Public Knowledge and the Home Recording Rights Coalition will also be testifying at the hearing.

There are no representatives from my state (Arizona) on the committee, and they get so much correspondence that they essentially ignore anyone who is not their direct constituent, but if your congressman is on the list, then now is the time to let them know how you feel, especially if you are from Texas or California.

The site for the subcommitte on this is located at: http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx ?committee=3 Give them a big hug and a call tomorrow

Let your representative (especially those who are on the committee know you'll be watching) Thursday at 2pm.

The live webcast is linked at: http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=202