Slashdot Mirror

You're taking on Joe Pitts, a five-termer Republican in an area of PA that is very Republican. Even if you're a Republican yourself, you're taking on quite a challenge with the opponent being a long-time incumbent.

Your best bet is not to worry about what operating system is runnign your campaign website or other computers, but rather what your political platform and campaign slogan will be.

With good reason, since the concept of eminent domain is not actually part of the constitution.

That's funny, I could have sworn that an amendment to the Constitution addressed the taking of private property for public use:

Article [V.]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis mine.)

You might actually try reading the Constitution and some of the laws you like to talk about. Seriously, you might learn something. Now, what were you saying?

With good reason, since the concept of eminent domain is not actually part of the constitution.

That's funny, I could have sworn that an amendment to the Constitution addressed the taking of private property for public use:

Article [V.]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis mine.)

You might actually try reading the Constitution and some of the laws you like to talk about. Seriously, you might learn something. Now, what were you saying?

Clause 2: He 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.

wtf are you talking about. search the text of the US Constitution and you will not find the phrase "fair use".

you seem to be talking about the generally held /interpretation/ that the language actually present in the constitution denotes a "fair use right" -- and much as the "right to privacy", the "right to own a handgun", "the right to choice", and the "right to have gay sex", anything up to interpretation is likely to be re-interpreted.

us freedom-loving people have had it high on the hog with the centralisation of power under a liberal government (except for gun rights). now that this centralised power is under conservative control we're shocked (shocked!) when the interpretation changes to our disliking. boo fscking hoo.

if we want a lasting right to fair use, to privacy, or whatever, we had better get it /in writing/ and not rely on changing interpretation or to wait and see which pile of lawyers has the bigger money pile.

if we don't want a powerful central government dictating law to us from their corporate puppeteers, then massive decentralisation of that power or, at least, less corrupt influences on that power, are needed. seriously, is there a more sure recipe for corruption than to put as much power in as few hands as possible? guess what, the Constitution never outlined plans to vest this much power in Washington, DC, but a rampant-running series of /interpretations/ centralising power not only left us with an FCC which could mandate the broadcast flag, it left us with not much choice other than to just take it in the arse when they mandate it. the FCC is just another massive government agency battling for tax dollars in a massive, misspent, misfortunate contest of penis size as budget cap.

I wrote my rep in my ditrict. She wrote me back telling me tough shit in not so many words completely siding with the FCC. I may have the email still. It made me furious.

http://www.house.gov/brown-waite/

At least she won't vote for privitizing social security. The average age in this district IS 127. I bring it down a bit.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl05_brown-wa ite/telescare.html I swear it wasn't me.

I wrote my rep in my ditrict. She wrote me back telling me tough shit in not so many words completely siding with the FCC. I may have the email still. It made me furious.

http://www.house.gov/brown-waite/

At least she won't vote for privitizing social security. The average age in this district IS 127. I bring it down a bit.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/fl05_brown-wa ite/telescare.html I swear it wasn't me.

One of the paradoxes of Intellectual Property is that the IP industry wants it to be treated like real property, exccept for the fact that you can't restrict how customers use real property once it's in their hands. At least not yet.

There is a small company that makes a template for routers -- the woodworking kind, not the networking kind -- for cutting dovetail joints. It's basically a piece of plastic that you clamp onto a piece of wood to guide the router. If you wanted to, you could use the template to make an identical template out of another piece of plastic. To guard against this possibility the manufacturer encloses a license agreement with the template, stating that the customer is specifically not allowed to do this. It further says you are authorized to use the template for personal woodworking projects only, not for business use.

This may be a silly example (although true), but I think there's a clear and present danger that the whacked logic of the IP world could spread like a fungus into the real world, and we could indeed wake up one day to find it illegal to use a Stanley hammer on non-Stanley nails. Frightening -- unless you are Mr. Stanley or his IP lawyer.

One more reason to find out who your representatives are and write them a short note periodically, once is good but once a month is better, urging them to consider the adverse impacts of IP issues on the public domain.

The actual scorecard itself is linked to the story posted just earlier, along with grading criteria, etc. Look for "2004 FISMA Scorecard".

http://www.reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Computer %20Security%20Report%20card%202%20years.pdf(pdf) for last year (2003 Dec) report.

D isn't failing

You're right, it isn't. The agencies that failed got F. I was going to make a spiel on how /.ers never read the article, when I realised that the article didn't clearly state this.

More info in links below:

Washington Post

Report Card

Statement and links

D isn't failing

You're right, it isn't. The agencies that failed got F. I was going to make a spiel on how /.ers never read the article, when I realised that the article didn't clearly state this.

More info in links below:

Washington Post

Report Card

Statement and links

Here is a link to the full scorecard and the reporting methodology

Committee on Government Reform

What's more amazing is that in such a complex world, you can have such a simplistic view of things, like you're the president of the USofA of something. Believe it or not, there are persons in this world who embrace ideas from both the right AND left. There are liberal Christians, conservative athiests, tree-hugging vegan capitalists (ever shopped at Whole Foods?), etc. You should probably turn off Rush for a bit, step outside and get some fresh air. All that propaganda clouds your vision and makes you say stupid things in public.

By the way, I lost the link - can you tell me where I can download a copy of the "liberal doctrine"? Oh wait, I remember, it's right here and here.

One problem is that the drug patent system is hopelessly corrupted. Rather than encouraging innovation it encourages rebranding. The drug companies meat and 'taters is not breakthrough drugs but new versions of old drugs, tweaked just enough to weasel a new patent. The FDA says that more than 70 percent of new drugs approved in the last decade "do not constitute qualitative improvements over existing treatments." Dennis Kucinich proposes (and has introduced legislation for) a system of public patents.

It would appear that we live in a different world than we thought. Common sense would suggest that if you can look at something without restrictions, you can take home a photo of it. Commercial use might be another issue, but simply photographing or sketching objects that have been deliberately placed in public view shouldn't be an issue.

I think it's time to change the law, or at least spell it out. If you don't know who your congressional representatives are, go here and figure it out and then write a letter asking for a comprehensive review and clarification of copyright law as it applies to works displayed in public areas.

It was discovered that he was using an alias to get past White House security.

Uh, no. He was using an alias, but White House security requires you to give your name, address and social security # to get press credentials and access to CIA documents. They do a background check.

No, this guy did not "get past" White House security. He was a ringer, a shill, for the White House. A go-to guy when questions get tough.

How long had Talon news existed when "Gannon" got his press credentials? I just heard (have not yet confirmed) it was less than a week. And Talon News (Metatag: "Talon News is your source for unbiased news coverage and no-spin reporting. If you want the facts without all the slant, Talon News is the place to go for political, national, and international news.") is affiliated with who?

GOPUSA. How many of their 'no-spin' news stories were rewrites of GOP press releases?

Never mind that they've been paying off reporters to promote their agenda. Does anyone remember reporters Karen Ryan or Alberto Garcia from last year?

We can't trust the science. We are not told the truth until it's too late. Now we can't trust the independent reporting of what we think is the media.

Our country is in some deep trouble.

Corrected URL:

U.S. House Roll Call #31

- Rick C. Hodgin

I would love to see a Special Ops unit bust down the walls of a spammer's house, beat him, gag him, beat him again, send him to Guantanomo Bay for eternity, and than C-4 the spam servers.

Everyone should write their congressmen requesting this.

U.S. lawmakers don't understand any of the Amendments, or perhaps the entire Constitution, except maybe this guy. Most of them seem to operate by "Pass any law we can and let the courts sort it out." They see their power as pretty much unlimited and the Constitution merely as an obstacle to get around with sufficiently obfuscated phrasing or hair-splitting, and not as something that they're supposed to protect and uphold.

Where do you get that wacky idea? The first ten amendments make up what is called the Bill of Rights. The preamble is for the original 7 Articles (which you can read, along with the preamble, here); it has nothing to do with the Bill of Rigths. Unless the National Archives and Records Administration also can't be trusted. I mean, even though they actually have the original document, they might be getting their history of it wrong. Maybe. Anything's possible, I guess...

Seriously though, the Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1789. Twelve amendments to the Constitution were proposed on September 25, 1789 -- ten passed. Those first ten amendments are actually genuine, according-to-Hoyle amendments to the Constitution. They were proposed (instead of altering the original document) to ensure that the "vague" wording of the original articles couldn't be abused by a tyrannical federal government to trample on the rights of the citizenry. They are collectively called the "Bill of Rights" because of these guarantees.

The NARA article A More Perfect Union: The Creation of the U.S. Constitution has a lot of good information in it. You seem like someone who might be interested in reading it. What better way to "Get Learned" than to get information straight from the official source?

-B

I suppose the beauty part of this is that, I would guess, the same holds true for the adult population.

Far too many adults that I've encountered have no idea as to what these rights mean, or what their implications are. And just so you know I'm not simply spouting anecdotal evidence, I'll cite the following article:

44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims

To sum it up for the lazy, it basically means that around 44 percent of all Americans surveyed have no idea what the Bill of Rights is for, why it's important, or what the repercussions are for tampering with it. (Yes, I know what some portion of that group are informed dissenters with the Bill of Rights, but I would assert that they are a fringe minority.)

If you're an American citizen, and haven't done this already (or recently!), be sure to read the following:

US Constitution
Amendments thereof

Just reading through the first couple on the amendments list should give you a better grasp on what the whole "Bill of Rights" thing is about.

Oh, and you'll learn all sorts of crazy trivia you probably weren't aware of - like the fact that a right to a jury trial for civil cases requires the damages to be worth at least $20 (which has never been adjusted for inflation, and probably shouldn't.)

I suppose the beauty part of this is that, I would guess, the same holds true for the adult population.

Far too many adults that I've encountered have no idea as to what these rights mean, or what their implications are. And just so you know I'm not simply spouting anecdotal evidence, I'll cite the following article:

44 Percent Say Restrict Muslims

To sum it up for the lazy, it basically means that around 44 percent of all Americans surveyed have no idea what the Bill of Rights is for, why it's important, or what the repercussions are for tampering with it. (Yes, I know what some portion of that group are informed dissenters with the Bill of Rights, but I would assert that they are a fringe minority.)

If you're an American citizen, and haven't done this already (or recently!), be sure to read the following:

US Constitution
Amendments thereof

Just reading through the first couple on the amendments list should give you a better grasp on what the whole "Bill of Rights" thing is about.

Oh, and you'll learn all sorts of crazy trivia you probably weren't aware of - like the fact that a right to a jury trial for civil cases requires the damages to be worth at least $20 (which has never been adjusted for inflation, and probably shouldn't.)

Copyright is a law of property. Creators of works --writings, paintings, whatever --have natural property rights over their creations. Copyright law is the legal recognition and protection of those rights by the government.

Bullshit. Copyright law is the legal creation of monopoly rights for ideas. It is entirely an artificial construct. Under copyright law, ideas indeed are property -- but that doesn't make them natural property. And how could they be? With real property, only one person can possess it at any given time. The idea that I can say "this is mine" stems from the fact that if I'm holding it, you physically can't be. Ideas aren't like that -- it's not possible for me to give you an idea without keeping it for myself at the same time, and I don't lose anything by doing so. How can something be called "property" if you can give it away without losing it?! Here's further justification of that, in the form of a quote:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." Wow, what a great line! Wanna guess who said that? It was Thomas Jefferson! And who better to define copyright than the guy who wrote the Constitution in the first place?

Speaking of Jefferson, he didn't want legal monopolies (i.e., "intellectual property") in the Constitution at all:

The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression.

James Madison had to persuade him to put them in:

With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the gra

Gotta love states with constitutions that promise freedom of speech/the press/etc. while said freedoms are being bashed heavily.

Granted, it's porn...but is it really their--or our--business what people get off with?

Gotta love states with constitutions that promise freedom of speech/the press/etc. while said freedoms are being bashed heavily.

Granted, it's porn...but is it really their--or our--business what people get off with?

Click here to get to the homepages of both of your senators, and urge them to continue funding HST. Similarly, click here to contact your representative in the House. Make sure in your writeup to include your name and address. It is good to send them an email or use the contact webform box, but even better to send an actual letter via USPS.

I can't stress this enough. Congressmen usually listen to their constituents, but typically most of their feedback comes from well-funded lobby groups that can afford to contact them on every relevent piece of legislation. If enough of us can demonstrate to them how important Hubble is to the scientific research and legacy of the US, we can actually make a positive impact.

Here is a page with some extra information about writing your Congressmen. Please do this (right now even). The 10 minutes you spend contacting them can be repaid tenfold if your message influences their decision!

They'll give up based on what the Supreme Court says.

No, they won't.

In the fact that it has never happened any other way in the history of the world.

Where is the basis for it in the Constitution.

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;

I am of the mind that private charities and businesses can handle this burden without a caretaker government.

So what? Where is your PROOF?!

Actually, it is Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.

B.

You make the assertion that it is not "remotely the same thing" and that view is what is being eroded by various legislative actions, both in the US and in the EU. Why is that assertion true? What makes intellectual property different than physical property? Is that reason immutable?

My view is that IP rights should be limited--but I am a scientist by nature and science usually progresses by building on the works of others. Others have different views. I particularly don't like how Congress chips away at what the US Constitution states in Section 8, Clause 8 by incrementally extending copyrights. Bring the issue through the front door by amending the Constitution.

Read The Amendment Yourself, Sir. It doesn't say the government can poke at anything without a issued warrant; rather, it lists what they cannot poke at without a warrant, and what terms such a warrant may be properly issued under.

Additionally, even if you don't agree that finding the location of my car constitues a search among my effects, while you're in the neighborhood of the fourth, you might review the ninth amendment as well:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The State Department eventually conceded that the original report failed to include a number of deadly attacks in the latter part of 2003, including a car bomb that exploded in a housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a series of attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, all of which took place in November.

Black said the report was "marred by significant errors" when it was originally released. But he said those errors were the result of "honest mistakes, and certainly not deliberate deceptions."

Allegations have been raised that the Bush administration deliberately made the State Department advertise a reduction in terrorist attacks - i.e., demonstrate a tangible 2003 victory for the "war on terror". Of course, when the data point the other direction, it's just as easy to say that the Bush administration abused the State Department's fearmongering abilities to hype a security claim in an election year.

I personally suspect that it was a simple error of data aggregation; these things happen in bureaucracies.

The summaries, original and revised, illustrate the difference.

Original:

There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.

Revised:

There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.
*As new information becomes available, revisions are made to previously published statistics. The current running total for international terrorist incidents in 2002 is 205. [huh?!]

Original:

A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.

Revised:

A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on "soft targets," such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

Original:

In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.
There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001.
Thirty-five American citizens died in 15 international terrorist attacks in 2003

Revised:

Thirty-five U.S. citizens died in international terrorist attacks in 2003 [the other paragraphs disappeared - no mention of whether the number of anti-US attacks changed]

The House Democrats released a report analyzing the changes in the revised format. If their analysis strikes you as biased, content youreslf with the presumably ve

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11:
The Congress shall have Power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

Why Won't Congress Declare War?

Since you have sworn to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, the Constitution makes it clear that only Congress is allowed to declare war, and Congress did not authorize this war, you (and everyone else) have broken your oath by going along with it.

Granted, I wouldn't want to go to military jail either if I were you, but the responsibility is clear. You took on that responsibility the day you joined.

It's a bit cliched by now, but military and police personnel on trial at Nuremberg were found to be responsible for the atrocities of the Nazis by way of not questioning orders. For more on this problem, go read Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram.

I couldn't find exactly what law he was charged with violating, but suspect it's 49 USC 49504 (search at http://uscode.house.gov/search/criteria.php), which was amended by the Patriot Act.

That section deals with "Interference with flight crew members and attendants," and reads:

An individual on an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States who, by assaulting or intimidating a flight crew member or flight attendant of the aircraft, interferes with the performance of the duties of the member or attendant or lessens the ability of the member or attendant to perform those duties, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both. However, if a dangerous weapon is used in assaulting or intimidating the member or attendant, the individual shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

So, is shining a light, especially one which meets US safety regulations (as all laser pointers must) at someone "assault?" How about a flashlight? Seems to me that is going to be quite hard to prove. Doesn't "assault" also require intent to do harm?

Certainly, a laser light show not deliberately made to point at an aircraft can't be considered "assault."

The FBI seems confused about the law (no surprise). In this (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=385589) AP article, it states that "According to the FBI, the Patriot Act does not describe helicopters as "mass transportation vehicles." While the statement is technically true, it's also the case that the Patriot Act doesn't describe anything as "mass transportation vehicles," in fact the phrase never appears at all.

Oy.

"Maintain." "Veneer." Neither republic nor autocracy are capitalized, and Augustus was not an autocrat. That's not what RE: means. Yes, he was a king (though the Romans used the term Emperor.) "Consulate," "Triumvirate," and none among consulate, triumvirate, censorship, pontificate or president are capitalized. (Yes yes, many history books say consulship. They also think it's ironic that the Senate which created the Caesars also ended up killing them; just because a textbook uses a word doesn't mean it's used correctly, these days, unfortunately.) "Cabinet." There is nothing in the Constitution nor any of its amendments about the cabinet. There's only one Constitution, and it's kind of sad that you didn't capitalize it, when you capitalized so many words which don't deserve it. s/I'd/It would/ , and no, it wouldn't. Maybe you didn't realize this, but the President has to deal with more people than just the Cabinet. Thousands more people, in fact.

Generals cannot be six star, and whereas I'm sure you're going to tell me that that's supposed to be some kind of crafty joke based on some observation that false statements don't suddenly become true just because they're spoken, I think your post has already done quite a neat job of straight manning that point already. Commander in Chief does not actually confer military rank, nor even the ability to give any military orders beyond deployment (for example, Commander in Chief may not reassign military staff.) Besides, it's mostly a ceremonial title since the establishment of the five central command branches in the Goldwater-Nichols defense reorganization act of 1986. It may be time for you to get a basic understanding of the government you're attempting to discuss.

On a more serious note, instead of discussing how you have a flaw in your grammar on average every 3.2 words (throw it in MS Word and check; I'm not making that number up,) let's discuss what horseshit your analogy is.

Republics cannot be veneered in the way you suggest. Either the populace can or it cannot vote. Now, before you go on spouting all these conspiracy theories about how the US doesn't allow its citizens to choose their own show color anymore, let me remind you that the US is a federal republic, not a republic; the two are about as different as a herd of cats and a single cat. Most of the time people spend whining about what their federal government won't allow them to do would be better spent face down in a highschool civics book learning how their state government worked, since their state government is significantly more involved in their lives than their federal government is.

Either a government gives voting power to its people, in which case it is a republic, or it does not, in which case you're a moron trying to make an Orwellian point without actually having a point to make. Now look, I'm usually the first person on the "Bush stole the vote" bandwagon, but let's at least try to pretend to be reasonable: when you come in swinging with no facts, no examples, and nearly literally everything you said wrong both in presentation and content, then really, someone's going to as for you to be modded into the floor.

I am that someone. Please mod parent through the floor and into the very core of the Earth.

And some final nit-picking:

1) Shut up.

2) Wait. You're not going to appoint a cabinet, but you're still going to have joint chiefs of staff? Who do you think makes up the top end of the cabinet?

3) Suit. Jesus, it's called a suit. A suite is a nice room. And who cares how you'd barbie yourself up when you were in the job that you seem to think makes you king of the world?

Personally, if I were President I wouldn't appoint any cabinate officals. The constitutions says I can, not that I have to.

4) Oy

Oy.

"Maintain." "Veneer." Neither republic nor autocracy are capitalized, and Augustus was not an autocrat. That's not what RE: means. Yes, he was a king (though the Romans used the term Emperor.) "Consulate," "Triumvirate," and none among consulate, triumvirate, censorship, pontificate or president are capitalized. (Yes yes, many history books say consulship. They also think it's ironic that the Senate which created the Caesars also ended up killing them; just because a textbook uses a word doesn't mean it's used correctly, these days, unfortunately.) "Cabinet." There is nothing in the Constitution nor any of its amendments about the cabinet. There's only one Constitution, and it's kind of sad that you didn't capitalize it, when you capitalized so many words which don't deserve it. s/I'd/It would/ , and no, it wouldn't. Maybe you didn't realize this, but the President has to deal with more people than just the Cabinet. Thousands more people, in fact.

Generals cannot be six star, and whereas I'm sure you're going to tell me that that's supposed to be some kind of crafty joke based on some observation that false statements don't suddenly become true just because they're spoken, I think your post has already done quite a neat job of straight manning that point already. Commander in Chief does not actually confer military rank, nor even the ability to give any military orders beyond deployment (for example, Commander in Chief may not reassign military staff.) Besides, it's mostly a ceremonial title since the establishment of the five central command branches in the Goldwater-Nichols defense reorganization act of 1986. It may be time for you to get a basic understanding of the government you're attempting to discuss.

On a more serious note, instead of discussing how you have a flaw in your grammar on average every 3.2 words (throw it in MS Word and check; I'm not making that number up,) let's discuss what horseshit your analogy is.

Republics cannot be veneered in the way you suggest. Either the populace can or it cannot vote. Now, before you go on spouting all these conspiracy theories about how the US doesn't allow its citizens to choose their own show color anymore, let me remind you that the US is a federal republic, not a republic; the two are about as different as a herd of cats and a single cat. Most of the time people spend whining about what their federal government won't allow them to do would be better spent face down in a highschool civics book learning how their state government worked, since their state government is significantly more involved in their lives than their federal government is.

Either a government gives voting power to its people, in which case it is a republic, or it does not, in which case you're a moron trying to make an Orwellian point without actually having a point to make. Now look, I'm usually the first person on the "Bush stole the vote" bandwagon, but let's at least try to pretend to be reasonable: when you come in swinging with no facts, no examples, and nearly literally everything you said wrong both in presentation and content, then really, someone's going to as for you to be modded into the floor.

I am that someone. Please mod parent through the floor and into the very core of the Earth.

And some final nit-picking:

1) Shut up.

2) Wait. You're not going to appoint a cabinet, but you're still going to have joint chiefs of staff? Who do you think makes up the top end of the cabinet?

3) Suit. Jesus, it's called a suit. A suite is a nice room. And who cares how you'd barbie yourself up when you were in the job that you seem to think makes you king of the world?

Personally, if I were President I wouldn't appoint any cabinate officals. The constitutions says I can, not that I have to.

4) Oy

WASHINGTON -- A San Diego-based Navy officer whose eyes were damaged by an apparent laser beam from a suspected Russian spy ship said yesterday he was injured by what was an act of war, terrorism or criminal conduct.

"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."

Which Article and Section, please?

You certainly meant this, no?

While no milk and honey filled existence, the Soviet block countries all offered free education and medical care, guaranteed employment and while not conductive to Western-style consumerism, at the later stage in their history (before west-induced economic collapse) the standard of living was steadily improving. In their early history they were indeed a place of repression and brutality due to their then utterly totalitarian and unstable regimes. I am not advocating Communism as a superior socio-economic system but it would end up being workable in the long term should the far more attuned to basic human failings (greed, need for domination of others) capitalism was not next door eyeing greedily the "waste" of opportunities to make money in all those resource-rich countries.

USSR seemed hell bent on taking over any country it touched through military force (Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, etc...) or political puppetry (China, Korea, Cuba).

If you were an avid history buff you would know that in the earlier stages this was caused by personal animosity between Stalin and the western leaders fueled by their thinly-vailed efforts to restore the Tzar to power in Russia, while at later times by not so thinly-vailed expansion of NATO (Warsaw pact was formed after NATO, something few western pundits these days remember) and attempts of world-dominance by the USA. After USSR collapsed, all sorts of documents became available and it is now known beyond any doubt that USSR was always in a reactive stance to constant aggressive preasure from the USA, expense of which eventually contributed to USSR's collapse.

As to "National Security" being threatened, this is an age-old cry of every oppressor on the planet, and a particular favourite of the Nazi regime. I believe "national security" was behind the bogus claims of imminent threats from Iraq and all which followed from that. Again, as historical documents now show, it was the USA who threatened USSR's "national security", not the other way around.

What about the required integration of E911 & AGPS?

Wouldn't this affect the usability of this?

I don't know.. CONFERENCE REPORT TO ACCOMPANY S. 2845 - INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004 Exclusive to Libertythink.com, this is the Nov. 20 draft of the 9/11 police state bill (also known as "intelligence reform" or "The 9/11 Commission Recommendations Implementati on Act.")

Hey, I'm the guy who submitted the story. I should've made this more explicit in my submission, but this bill is mostly a good thing, as it was required to open the door to launching paying passengers.

That said, I'm somewhat uncertain about the provisions for unrestrained FAA regulation after 8 years, and the regulation of certain aspects after they prove to be dangerous. That could potentially be misused to unfairly restrict the budding industry, but so far the FAA has been quite supportive of private spaceflight.

Anyways, I'd like to give kudos to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif) for proposing this bill (which was originally much less restrictive on private spaceflight) and keeping pressure on it. Frownie faces go to Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn) and a few other House Democrats for trying to kill off the bill, referring to it as having a "tombstone mentality" because it didn't have enough provisions for regulation, and being largely responsible for the 8-year compromise and the provision for regulation after an accident has occurred.

Hey, I'm the guy who submitted the story. I should've made this more explicit in my submission, but this bill is mostly a good thing, as it was required to open the door to launching paying passengers.

That said, I'm somewhat uncertain about the provisions for unrestrained FAA regulation after 8 years, and the regulation of certain aspects after they prove to be dangerous. That could potentially be misused to unfairly restrict the budding industry, but so far the FAA has been quite supportive of private spaceflight.

Anyways, I'd like to give kudos to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif) for proposing this bill (which was originally much less restrictive on private spaceflight) and keeping pressure on it. Frownie faces go to Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn) and a few other House Democrats for trying to kill off the bill, referring to it as having a "tombstone mentality" because it didn't have enough provisions for regulation, and being largely responsible for the 8-year compromise and the provision for regulation after an accident has occurred.

Rep Ron Paul of Texas' speech to Congress makes a lot of sense to me. He argues that inflation is hurting lower and middle class americans and needs to be stopped. That means paying down the debt and not running budget deficits. What do you think of it?

China's ICBMs

I would be complaining a lot more about the $400 billion we spend destroying a country and then paying our own companies to rebuild it then an extra $1billion for NASA over what it would normally get.

You are very much mistaken.

" According to the Treasury Department, major foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities total $1.35 trillion. Over the first seven months of 2003, mainland China and Hong Kong accumulated $177 billion of U.S. debt.

Currently, China is the world's second-largest buyer of our debt, exceeded only by Japan. Furthermore, China's purchases of U.S. government securities rose 20 percent over the first half of this year and have more than doubled since 2001."

(Source: Congressman John Tanner

Some more reading:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-b.h tm#foreign

...will end up in his pocket? Unethical DeLay