Slashdot Mirror

That is how the fourth amendment to our Constitution works. Here it is, read it:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice what it doesn't say. It doesn't say the person who is having property seized needs to be the accused, needs to be told why it's being sezied, or anything like that. It doesn't say the warrants or anything else need to be in the public record. It doesn't say anything about notifying anyone of anything. It doesn't even specify the stuff seized has to be returned, or that you have to be paid for it, or that you're entitled to damages if they take your stuff and you can't use it for a period of time.

So it's not theft, because it's a constitutionally provided for and completely legal seizure of property (assuming the paperwork was done right). You can say that someone had property seized, but you can't say it was stolen. You can't say it was arrest without cause, because nobody was arrested (and an arrest would require an issuance of charges because of habeus corpus). Arrest is a very specific term and can only apply to people, and they get a separate set of rules from property. It was a fourth-amendment seizure, cut and dried. So neither of those two things happened, and your third and final statement is wrong.

This isn't an opinion, this is simply facts from someone who's done some studying on the topic. I'd encourage you to go read up some on your own, I'd start with the Constitution and proceed to the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. Then go find some good constitutional law books somewhere. You'll be amazed at the fact that, really and truly, the government can take away from you anything they want (Money, property, real property (which may fall under imminent domain), and even your life (if the draft comes back, the government can force you to go into the armed forces for years, and possibly get you killed)) and as long as the right paperwork is done, it's all perfectly legal. If you thought the election was simply important because of what you read in the papers, you overlook all of the other reasons it's important: the person who you vote for can, literally, take all of your stuff and send you off to get killed.

My guess on all this, by the way, is that someone on the IndyMedia site did something bad, probably related to making threats against the President, or inciting riot, or conspiring for vote fraud, or something else that the Indymedia folks know is over the line but didn't stop in time. In which case, the servers were probably taken to help to ascertain the identity of the individual and further the investigation. In which case IM is a more-or-less innocent bystander, and the seizure of their servers would be roughly analogous to requiring said innocent bystander to show up in court and testify as a witness. The innocent bystanders have to show up, losing time from their lives to testify against someone, and yes you can be required to testify even if you don't want to. This is all simply supposition on my part, but it seems likely.

That is how the fourth amendment to our Constitution works. Here it is, read it:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice what it doesn't say. It doesn't say the person who is having property seized needs to be the accused, needs to be told why it's being sezied, or anything like that. It doesn't say the warrants or anything else need to be in the public record. It doesn't say anything about notifying anyone of anything. It doesn't even specify the stuff seized has to be returned, or that you have to be paid for it, or that you're entitled to damages if they take your stuff and you can't use it for a period of time.

So it's not theft, because it's a constitutionally provided for and completely legal seizure of property (assuming the paperwork was done right). You can say that someone had property seized, but you can't say it was stolen. You can't say it was arrest without cause, because nobody was arrested (and an arrest would require an issuance of charges because of habeus corpus). Arrest is a very specific term and can only apply to people, and they get a separate set of rules from property. It was a fourth-amendment seizure, cut and dried. So neither of those two things happened, and your third and final statement is wrong.

This isn't an opinion, this is simply facts from someone who's done some studying on the topic. I'd encourage you to go read up some on your own, I'd start with the Constitution and proceed to the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. Then go find some good constitutional law books somewhere. You'll be amazed at the fact that, really and truly, the government can take away from you anything they want (Money, property, real property (which may fall under imminent domain), and even your life (if the draft comes back, the government can force you to go into the armed forces for years, and possibly get you killed)) and as long as the right paperwork is done, it's all perfectly legal. If you thought the election was simply important because of what you read in the papers, you overlook all of the other reasons it's important: the person who you vote for can, literally, take all of your stuff and send you off to get killed.

My guess on all this, by the way, is that someone on the IndyMedia site did something bad, probably related to making threats against the President, or inciting riot, or conspiring for vote fraud, or something else that the Indymedia folks know is over the line but didn't stop in time. In which case, the servers were probably taken to help to ascertain the identity of the individual and further the investigation. In which case IM is a more-or-less innocent bystander, and the seizure of their servers would be roughly analogous to requiring said innocent bystander to show up in court and testify as a witness. The innocent bystanders have to show up, losing time from their lives to testify against someone, and yes you can be required to testify even if you don't want to. This is all simply supposition on my part, but it seems likely.

I think you are completely wrong. I'm googling to find stats. I heard my state governor (Robert Ehrlich - Maryland) say that 50% of the state school budget comes from federal funding. According to ahis article, Mississippi gets $600 million out of their $800 million budget from the federal government. That's 75%.

This and this are comments by various Maryland state senators complaining that the federal government is only paying between 11% and 18% of the special education budget. That's not even close to a full picture, but it sounds like 5% is nowhere close.

I wish it were 5%. Then the federal government couldn't use school funding to punish states.

Being in another party doesn't mean being unable to work with people who disagree with you. It means creating a banner for your ideas, so they're easily distinguishable from those of your opponent. Republicans and Democrats have done everything they can to prevent third parties from competing.

The only reason Ron Paul (also see his homepage bio) is officially a Republican is because otherwise, he wouldn't be able to get on the ballot. Yet, he beat the officially backed Republican candidate (Republican's opposed him, and supported another Republican) and beat the Democrats. Clearly, it's not that people don't necessarily want libertarian ideas. Its that anyone other than a Republican or Democrat is prevented from even having a chance to be elected.

Also, Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian for President, placing behind GW Bush and Ducakis (or however you spell his name, don't care to look it up).

you /.ing morons!

Disclaimer
This is not the official site of Congessman Chris Van Hollen, just in case you can't tell. His official site can be found at: http://house.gov/vanhollen/

More than that, there is even a disclaimer on the bottom left of the page, with a link to the real site:

This is not the official site of Congessman Chris Van Hollen, just in case you can't tell. His official site can be found at: www.house.gov/vanhollen.

There's nothing wrong with this site. Registering the domain was a cheap tactic, but it shouldn't sway most educated people who will always search for both sides of the argument.

Its not going to be particularly effective writing him. If you want to do something, contact those in political positions who could be embarrassed by him, such as the Ohio senators Mike DeWine or George V. Voinovich, or representatives. It helps if you are an Ohio resident. Additionally, for those directly responsible for people like Tom, talk to state senators and representatives.

The Congressperson must be present in order to vote within a small window of time.

I found some more info on the Senate and a lot more for the House of Representatives.

I have the audio of the talk, i need to listen to it again and see if they mention a specific studies. here is a outline of the talk and more information on it:

In the past twelve months, the House has held two Congressional testimonies on the issue of protecting customer data. Witnesses from these hearings will present updated testimonies to a committee of security experts at the Black Hat Briefings. These updates will also include an analysis of action since the Hearings. The session will be structured like the Congressional Hearings with the addition of audience preparation and participation. The audience will have an opportunity to question and comment during the live forum. Original testimonies are available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/11192 003hearing1133/Ansanelli1797.htm and http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/11192 003hearing1133/Davidson1796.htm

I have the audio of the talk, i need to listen to it again and see if they mention a specific studies. here is a outline of the talk and more information on it:

In the past twelve months, the House has held two Congressional testimonies on the issue of protecting customer data. Witnesses from these hearings will present updated testimonies to a committee of security experts at the Black Hat Briefings. These updates will also include an analysis of action since the Hearings. The session will be structured like the Congressional Hearings with the addition of audience preparation and participation. The audience will have an opportunity to question and comment during the live forum. Original testimonies are available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/11192 003hearing1133/Ansanelli1797.htm and http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/11192 003hearing1133/Davidson1796.htm

Rick Boucher of Virginia. He's running for re-election this year, so send him a few bucks. I don't care if you are a R or a D, he's the only friend you've got up there. So contribute, and if you're in his district, go vote for him.

it won't do me any good to write my congressman.
he's lamar smith, r-san antonio and he's in the pocket of the industry.
my attempts to contact him about recognizing and codifying fair use have been met with what i can anti-consumer rhetoric. but alas...i'll keep writing even though i think i know the outcome.

one republican member from texas opposed it on the grounds that any govenment control of the internet is wrong check this article
The fellow's name is Ron Paul. He has an interesting position. Though they may not agree with apyware, i think it is a position that i think many here would agree with.

Maybe we should interview him on this site. :)

Is the postal service a legitimate function of the Federal Government?

Actually, according to the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7

The Congress shall have Power...To establish Post Offices and post Roads...

So yes, a post service is a legitimate function of the Government, as listed in the body of the Constitution its self. Our Federal Highway program is also legitimate, as it is also directly listed with in the main body of the Constitution.

This is fun, I really love the way you say one thing then negate it a few lines later.

Again, you have NOT provided any substantiation for that claim. None.

Yes I have the fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.

It is nothing more than a fantasy you've constructed to account for the failings of your model.

Who's the one with the fantasy, I'd say its the one that fails to provide any evidence to back up their claim. You site data and say that it means something, but yet you provide no proof of this meaning other than the data itself.

I have provided you with reports and analysis that supports my claim. You've provided NOTHING!

There is NO evidence that the attack on the WTC three years caused the economic problems we're having now

Wrong here is The Economic Costs of Terrorism (JEC Study -- May 2002) which show "evidence" supporting my claims! Please provide some "evidence" supporting yours!

And since you live in a Bubble you might want to read Economic Repercussions of the Stock Market Bubble (JEC Study -- July 2003)

Or Macroeconomic Performance Since 2000 (JEC Study -- May 2004)

When I pointed out it did NOT show that same effect during Bush's years YOU are the one that claimed it wasn't accurate.

Please show me where I stated that the data was not accurate?

Ummm, again, it was the data YOU presented. Did you forget that? Hmmm? Did you? :)

Nope the data is there, but I have also provided analysis and reports to give that data context and meaning.

Maybe this is hard for you because you are so use to doing it, but do you understand that you are accusing me of exactly what your are doing? You accuse me of having a fantasy and no proof when it is you that has no proof.

Please I'm begging you to proved me with something, anything that supports your interpretation of the data...

This is fun, I really love the way you say one thing then negate it a few lines later.

Again, you have NOT provided any substantiation for that claim. None.

Yes I have the fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.

It is nothing more than a fantasy you've constructed to account for the failings of your model.

Who's the one with the fantasy, I'd say its the one that fails to provide any evidence to back up their claim. You site data and say that it means something, but yet you provide no proof of this meaning other than the data itself.

I have provided you with reports and analysis that supports my claim. You've provided NOTHING!

There is NO evidence that the attack on the WTC three years caused the economic problems we're having now

Wrong here is The Economic Costs of Terrorism (JEC Study -- May 2002) which show "evidence" supporting my claims! Please provide some "evidence" supporting yours!

And since you live in a Bubble you might want to read Economic Repercussions of the Stock Market Bubble (JEC Study -- July 2003)

Or Macroeconomic Performance Since 2000 (JEC Study -- May 2004)

When I pointed out it did NOT show that same effect during Bush's years YOU are the one that claimed it wasn't accurate.

Please show me where I stated that the data was not accurate?

Ummm, again, it was the data YOU presented. Did you forget that? Hmmm? Did you? :)

Nope the data is there, but I have also provided analysis and reports to give that data context and meaning.

Maybe this is hard for you because you are so use to doing it, but do you understand that you are accusing me of exactly what your are doing? You accuse me of having a fantasy and no proof when it is you that has no proof.

Please I'm begging you to proved me with something, anything that supports your interpretation of the data...

This is fun, I really love the way you say one thing then negate it a few lines later.

Again, you have NOT provided any substantiation for that claim. None.

Yes I have the fact that you choose to ignore it is not my problem.

It is nothing more than a fantasy you've constructed to account for the failings of your model.

Who's the one with the fantasy, I'd say its the one that fails to provide any evidence to back up their claim. You site data and say that it means something, but yet you provide no proof of this meaning other than the data itself.

I have provided you with reports and analysis that supports my claim. You've provided NOTHING!

There is NO evidence that the attack on the WTC three years caused the economic problems we're having now

Wrong here is The Economic Costs of Terrorism (JEC Study -- May 2002) which show "evidence" supporting my claims! Please provide some "evidence" supporting yours!

And since you live in a Bubble you might want to read Economic Repercussions of the Stock Market Bubble (JEC Study -- July 2003)

Or Macroeconomic Performance Since 2000 (JEC Study -- May 2004)

When I pointed out it did NOT show that same effect during Bush's years YOU are the one that claimed it wasn't accurate.

Please show me where I stated that the data was not accurate?

Ummm, again, it was the data YOU presented. Did you forget that? Hmmm? Did you? :)

Nope the data is there, but I have also provided analysis and reports to give that data context and meaning.

Maybe this is hard for you because you are so use to doing it, but do you understand that you are accusing me of exactly what your are doing? You accuse me of having a fantasy and no proof when it is you that has no proof.

Please I'm begging you to proved me with something, anything that supports your interpretation of the data...

Can't you read? The economy is DECLINING. Did you miss the numbers? Did you miss where I pointed out that 2003 is WORSE than 2000?

Yes I can read, very well infact, well enough to tell you that government income is not the economy as your statement implies. You site that there is a decrease in government revenue during the period of 2002 and 2003. I countered with the attacks of 9/11 that were directed against and had massive effect on the economic infrastructure of the US. There is also the burst of the dot.com bubble and its slow down effects on the economy to consider. But I wouldn't want to put to many balls in the air as you appear to have trouble with just two.

By your logic I should be able to ask why 2003 is still better than 1999 when Clinton's tax rates were still in effect? The economy was rolling along the tax rates were higher, and yet we see less income than we did in 2003...please explain to me how your "science" deals with that issue?

As for the economy declining, maybe you'd care to explain how in your "declining" economy this is possible?

Or maybe you'd care to enlighten me as to why the Fed has raised the prime interest rate twice in the past two months (not something they are known to do during a declining economy)?

If you do want to use Clinton's data, that just shows that his management policy resulted in growth over his administration and further illustrates the decline during Bush's regime.

Carville has told you this enough times so it must be true, right???

Except that the data and reports don't agree with you, allow me to quote from The 1996 JEC Report on The Reagan Tax Cuts:

The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. Moreover, according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89). Furthermore, according to a study published by the National Bureau for Economic Research,[2] the Clinton tax hike is failing to collect over 40 percent of the projected revenue increases.

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis.

So we see that tax cuts can increase government income by stimulation of the economy and in the case of the GW Bush cuts forestalled a major decrease in government income that would have occurred due to the massive negative economic effects that occurred during 2000 and 2001.

* Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

* Property should be owned by people, not government.

* All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

* The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

* Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

* The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.

Gee, almost sounds like a libertarian, right? Then you read stuff like this rant. So in other words, he supports people's rights to all voluntary social and economic associations for certain values of voluntary, namely "socially conservative".

He may be consistent over time, but his statements are mutually and internally inconsistent. If he really believed in social liberty and freedom, he would not describe himself as a cultural or social conservative, which is also translated as "authoritarian". If the lives and actions of people are their own business, why does he care who has sex with whom or how marriage is defined?

Nothing pisses me off as much as Republicans who steal the verbiage of socially liberal positions, and then turn around and disparage the word liberal like it means something dirty by attacking the straw man position that all liberals favor massive redistribution of wealth. I'm also not a libertarian, but if I were I would probably be offended by this guy borrowing my platform and abusing it.

Not to nit-pick, but he's a House member, not a Senator. I wish he *were* a Senator, then his voice would be a little louder...

Go to the House web page sometime and look how he votes. For example, the spyware vote is here. Note that 32 members didn't vote. Who knows what their opinions of this were? Where they just too chicken to vote against it? Or were they too busy giving some cute intern a beef injection?

He's one of the few (only) politicians who understands there are constitutional limits on what the federal government has jurisdiction over. Hell, even murder isn't a federal crime. (But killing someone might violate the victim's civil rights, which is a federal crime. How fubar is that???) I suppose you could claim the interstate commerce clause gives them this authority, but that part of the constitution has been abused so much in the last century...

I just finished reading Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day by Joe Scarborough. He was one of the 73 rookies voted into the House during the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. It's a great inside view into why the revolution ultimately failed, why the "small government" Republicans are now putting us nearly half a trillion dollars further in debt every year, and why someone like Ron Paul who tries to buck the system and vote his convictions almost never succeeds and loses favor in his own party.

Not to nit-pick, but he's a House member, not a Senator. I wish he *were* a Senator, then his voice would be a little louder...

Go to the House web page sometime and look how he votes. For example, the spyware vote is here. Note that 32 members didn't vote. Who knows what their opinions of this were? Where they just too chicken to vote against it? Or were they too busy giving some cute intern a beef injection?

He's one of the few (only) politicians who understands there are constitutional limits on what the federal government has jurisdiction over. Hell, even murder isn't a federal crime. (But killing someone might violate the victim's civil rights, which is a federal crime. How fubar is that???) I suppose you could claim the interstate commerce clause gives them this authority, but that part of the constitution has been abused so much in the last century...

I just finished reading Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day by Joe Scarborough. He was one of the 73 rookies voted into the House during the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. It's a great inside view into why the revolution ultimately failed, why the "small government" Republicans are now putting us nearly half a trillion dollars further in debt every year, and why someone like Ron Paul who tries to buck the system and vote his convictions almost never succeeds and loses favor in his own party.

Do you mean this one? The one where he rails against gay marriage, judges who are attempting to marry gays, and gay people who are attempting to get married in front of judges? I fail to see any listing there of why he voted how he voted.

Now yes, he does seem to have, how shall you say perspective, but I would hardly call that enough. Not changing one's mind on an issue despite overwhelming evidence is not a good thing: it's a sign of inflexible thinking. But what he does appear to have is integrity, and that is what we need more of in Washington.
I wouldn't vote for him, as I don't agree with his views, but this is what the opposition in Washington is supposed to look like. This is what Jimmy Stewart would have become if Mr. Smith had stayed in Washington, gotten old, and hated most of the functions of government.

That is what I had originally hoped to believe - that our leaders had not intentionally deceived us, that they were simply passing on incorrect information that had been handed to them. Unfortunately, this is not so. It is clearly documented on several occasions how the Bush administration chose to ignore the evidence that several of the key foundations for the war in Iraq were false. For example, before Bush's state of the union address, he had been given a report that showed the supposed yellow cake the Iraqis had attempted to acquire to develop their nuclear program never existed. If you think the Bush administration did nothing more than pass on the false information with which they were provided, please read this House of Representatives document which details instances where the Bush administration made statements supporting the invasion of Iraq which were directly contrary to reports that they had received from the intelligence community.

wow... that hour i just spent reading through this thread just whizzed by...

i'm just curious though... did i miss something?... shouldn't there be about 50% of the 'informative' posts here essentially in support of the bush administration?... i mean... where's the *intelligent* rebuttal?... i keep seeing all these damn polls everywhere that show the two candidates are running neck and neck... but when the debate comes to iraq i hear either rhetoric, discursive rambling, insults, 'crickets', finger pointing at a third part or some other bs...

what i don't see is substantiation of the statements that have been made or an intelligent refuting of specific points...

i read slashdot r-e-l-i-g-o-u-s-l-y!... for the longest time i've considered it a healthy cross section of my analytically inclined peers...

so where the hell are the intelligent repulicans?...

through bush's administration i have gone from right... to fence... to left... i'm sure i'm not alone is saying that i'm REALLY looking for a reason to vote for gw and can't find one...

is slashdot decidedly left then?

Some people out there make decisions on what they will watch based on these criteria. Their choice was removed by a celebrity who felt her "artistic expression" overruled the right of everyone else on whether they were buying into her desires.

The right of artistic expression does trump your right not to buy into her desires, even if you see no artistic value in her performance.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

Which part of Congress shall make no law are people failing to understand? How on earth, when it's so clearly defined in our Bill of Rights does your right to not see/hear something trump a fundamental right. It doesn't say that Congress can make a little innocent law abridging rights to free speech to protect your right to not hear something...it says it in clear and plain English -- no law. The yelling fire in a movie theater argument doesn't apply here, since there is no clear and present danger.

There's gotta be a better solution. Maybe a market-based solution. If you wanna see a clean and edited superbowl, change to channel 7 and get the version on a 20 second time dump. Sorry, but shit happens on live TV -- sometimes titties pop out. Sometimes, someone drops something heavy on their foot and yells 'shit!' Sometimes, someone leaves their zipper undone and their penis flops out and it happens to within range of a camera broadcasting live TV. If one cannot deal with that risk, that person should simply not watch live TV. I'm sure that there can be a time-delay version for people who cannot deal with the realities of life (or a gratuitous boob flash, precisely planned for a publicity stunt, unbeknownst to the network planners...or a massive conspiracy to make you and your children see Janet's hypnotizing boob and forever upsetting the balance of what is good and decent...depending on what you beleive).

Maybe there should be a technical solution -- like enforcing TV ratings so that the V-chips that we were forced to buy can go to good use...especially because everyone here who bought a TV within the last 10 years has been forced to buy one. (Personally, I think that this is the way to do it without impinging on anyone's rights.)

And her lack of respect for everyone else's rights is what I despise about her.

An interesing choice of words, given your disrespect for other people's rights. Especially because my rights are defined in one of our nation's most sacred documents as fundamental, and unalienable -- and they're well set in writing. These rights that you speak of, the right to be protected from dangerous tits on live TV (and presumably dirty words) where are they written as fundamental, unalienable rights? I do not, however, despise you, despite your lack of respect for everyone's rights, which IMO, goes far beyond Janet Jackson's. May I suggest refraining from watching live TV? You never know what you can expect -- regardless of regulation.

Perhaps you might find the 12th amendment illuminating.

From amendment 12:

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote

And from amendment 20:

If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified

As a final note; if you live in the US, be willing to read your constitution.

2001 Income/Tax Shares

Adjusted gross income share (percentage)

• Top 1%: 17.53%
• Top 5%: 31.99%
• Top 10%: 43.11%
• Top 25%: 65.23%
• Top 50%: 86.19%

Adjusted income tax share (percentage)

• Top 1%: 33.89%
• Top 5%: 53.25%
• Top 10%: 64.89%
• Top 25%: 82.90%
• Top 50%: 96.03%

Statistics: http://www.house.gov/jec/tax/09-26-03.pdf

• The text of the Iraq war resolution
  
• The roll call vote in the house
  
• The roll call vote in the senate
  

Please remind me of all the Dems that voted against the patriot act.

See the House roll call vote here. Sixty-two Dems voted against it, as did one independent and three Republicans. Nine representatives did not vote; five GOP and 4 Dems.

Ninety-six Senators voted for it. Feingold (D-Wis) was the lone dissenter. Domenici, Helms, and Thurmond (GOP) did not vote. Note also that the three previous roll call votes were on motions tabling amendments that Feingold had offered to soften the UPA.

About 29% of Democrats in the House voted against it, while about 1% of the Republicans did the same. But when it comes to the UPA, there's plenty of blame to spread around. (Including my own rep, alas. It's a pity the guy running against her is scarier still.)

Republicans now more than ever seem to be under the belief that they could throw any dissenting american in to prison and blow up anyone voicing their dissent outside the US and are on a collission course with the stark reality that while we may never die from a terrorist attack, we will surely feel the ever tightening grip of a police state.

You had something going there until this last bit of dribble.

I hardly think you can blame Republicans when 98 senators and 337 Representatives voted for the bill. Those senators of course included your beloved John Kerry.

A voice vote occurs when Members call out "Aye" or "No" when a question is first put by the Speaker. The Speaker will say, "As many as are in favor [of the question], say `Aye'." Then the Speaker will ask: "As many as are opposed, say `No'." http://www.house.gov/rules/voting_house.htm

Full bill details with summary and status info: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.4 077:

Quit saying you can't vote for whatever candidate that you want, and just do it.

The issue isn't whether or not it's physically possible to mark a ballot for a third party. Such thinking is a deceitful red herring.

For chrissakes, fifty years ago Maurice Duverger showed that elections conducted by"first-past-the-post" principles tend -- by their very mechanics -- toward a political system that's perpetually dominated by two political parties.

Alternatives exist, to be sure. But it's more than disingenuous to suggest that malcontent against an artificial two-party state is somehow attributable purely to apathy and not also to what's nearly a mathematical certainty.

The system is rigged. (And not just for this reason and in this way.) What motivation have the present set of players to change it of their own volution?

Blame Bush for the war on Iraq? The blame is ours for electing him. Blame Congress for the PATRIOT Act? The blame is ours for electing politicians who would endorse it.

I'm pointing my finger at all of us for having piss-poor civic behavior, and for not living up to the standard set by our forefathers.
[/flame]

Two things about tort claims that result in millions of dollars. First, the big bucks in a case is assessed as a punishment, specifically to make an example. One of the whole points of having Law in the first place is to encourage responsible behavior. Second, the money usually comes from some megacorp with deep pockets. Since juries almost always sympathize with The Little Guy, blame the jury (i.e., your peers) for not taking long-term externalities into account when they give six Bajillion dollars to someone who probably doesn't deserve nearly that much.

Lastly, to get back on topic, the broken patent and copyright laws are just a reflection of our greater problem: electing dopes, con men, and sycophants who make uninformed decisions. If we want change, let's elect those who will make that change. Let's elect people, like Richard Boucher, who understand and fight for the Good Guys. November 2nd is the one day we get every four years to do that. Let's really seize this opportunity.

The US has to be careful with patent reform, perhaps because of the lesser used part of the 5th amendment. Ie.

... [No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

For the same reason that copyright reform may be difficult to bring about, as postulated by Mr. Lessig, Mr. Knopf, and others, it would literally cost the government a fortune to deprive owners of patents their due value, for a public purpose, as the 5th amendment guarantees them just compensation.

The lackadaisical politics is in essence digging its own grave, ensuring the continuation of a terrible intellectual property system, as the government will be unable to afford to compensate the existing privileged in the name reform for the public good.

The Congress shall have Power . . .
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

There is no bigger geek rockstar in the House than my representative, Rep. Rick Boucher (VA-09). The guy advocates the protection of Fair Use, a Digital Milennium Consumers' Rights Act, opposes the DOJ's anti-P2P work, proposed a great anti-spam act in 2003 (it didn't pass; that crappy CAN-SPAM did, instead), he sponsored the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, and he testifies before various House committees all the time, representing, effectively, Slashdot. :) See the Internet section of his House site for more information. Alternately, you could see any of the Slashdot stories about him from over the years, including Slashdot | Rep. Boucher Outlines 'Fair Use' Fight, Boucher's Anti-DMCA Bill Gets High Profile Allies, Anti Spamming Act 2001 Proposed, and Webcasting and the DMCA.

Hell, Boucher guest blogged for Larry Lessig a few weeks ago, and the stuff that he wrote about is like a Slashdotter's wet dream. :)

He doesn't talk about these things in his campaign literature -- much of the very-rural, poor population of southwest Virginia just wouldn't care. Read over his campaign website and you'll find more about the tobacco buyout, healthcare and tourism than technology. :)

And everybody else in the House sucks. ;)

-Waldo Jaquith

I have the honor of living in the district of Rep. Rick Boucher

It feels odd to have to feel "lucky" that my congressional representative's The Real Thing. Frankly, I don't like guys that run for congress because they think it's a good gig.

This "The US is a republic not a democracy" meme is really fucking annoying.

Now, you may be right that the US isn't particularly democratic, but that has fuck all to do with it being a republic. A republic is merely one (and probably the only practical one on a scale as large as ours) possible implementation of a democracy. There are likewise many ways of implementing a republic, some of which are more democratic than others.

Now, to the extent that the US Constitution is revered around the world, it is generally because it spells out in detail the structure of a government beholden to the people, and specifically enumerates the democratic rights of the people.

In that context, the electoral context may be an anachronism. The whole electoral system may, in this day and age, be working against the democratic ideals embodied in the constitution. In that case we have the constitutional power to change it. That's democracy.

I once wrote my congressmen (Steve "Combover" Chabot) about this same issue.

I never really mentioned that it targeted Blacks or other minorities, just that it targeted young people who may be valuable to all of us later in life.

Think about it. I'm a teenager, not from a well off family. I decide to experiment with pot, why not? Everyone else is drinking and partying, there must be something to it. I get caught because I'm young and stupid, I don't know the best way to keep it a secret. Now, even though I may be a Mensa member, I made a mistake and now I'm practically denied college based on my class.

Even though I may be able to crack problems facing the developers of quantum computing I'm stuck in the class level which uses drugs and alcohol the most. Because of a misdemeanor I've been sentenced to a life of menial work and society never benefits from the things I may be able to bring to it.

Another case, similar to the one mentioned could arise when parents have no where else to turn besides the police. Many people I know were "ratted" on by their own parents, simply because they thought the law would know best. Of course later on they were denied college grants. Where those people are now, I have no idea.

Even still, the problem arises when it comes to people who are older and have made mistakes early on in their lives. When it comes time to switch jobs I may need training I can't money that has already been collected from taxpayers for my betterment. What are my options? Sell drugs?

Of course, we still allow drunks and drug users become Presidents...

Yea that whole oldest functioning government thing is overhyped... There was a time when the Republicans *were* the 3rd party.

You need a proportional democracy for third parties, because the game is inherently rigged against them in a system where only parties that could get a majority in an electorate somewhere can get anywhere.

Umm first you have to understand the president is not the head of the US government. We elect 500 law makers every two years (and *gasp* have elected them outside the two parties). In that respect our government is proportional, every district choses a law maker.

You can put third partys on the ballot, but that doesn't mean it's possible for them to get seats, due to way the system inherently works.

Impossible you say?

Breakdown of votes from 1920 to 2002shows that the majority of Americans who voted either voted for Democrats or for Republicans.

Quite simply it's a bi-polar political party system in which the two parties are against each other in the race to control two fundamental processes ; allocation of government resources and formation and implementation of federal and/or state laws.

Obviously, the presence of such rich prizes is a very strong motivator to win for any party. Nobody (disillusioned enough) is going to believe the fight between the two will be an amicable exchange of punches above the waist line, simply because what is at stake is worth any trick ; the absence of an impartial judge is an even stronger motivator.

The presence of external observators like OCSE and others is a serious problem to those that think that a third party is not going to be merely an annoyance ; it may be a problem for X party that would like to buy observator favor somehow..same applies to Y party. It may be a problem to both X and Y if they both think the observator will really be impartial AND show the deficencies of the whole voting system (not only the electronic vs paper ballot).

I think that during the last presidential elections Americans received a strong wake up call : the political oligarchy which really runs the country (too often in bed with too few strong concentrations of private power) is trying to take away the last bastion of a democratic system, by taking away our right to kick away or severely reduce the power of some party we no longer want. We already are subject to the tirannny of the majority system in which the winner too often forgets he/she is representing ALL the population, not only the supporting party.

The issues of corruption of representatives, gullibility level of the average voter and partisan infiltrations in the legislative system are likely to become totally insignificant if the voter will no longer be able to have a say on what's going on...why care about voters interest if their vote isn't worth poop anyway ?

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but gender isn't mentioned anywhere in the United States Constitution.

I'm personally of the opinion that the government at all levels should stay completely out of regulating marriage and leave it to private individuals, contracts and churches to sort it all out, but that doesn't change the current reality that a law mentioning male or female in it's text doesn't make it unconstitutional.

One particular Congressman has been working for some time on a plan that would wholly replace the federal income tax with a federal sales tax. Not add it on, not sneak both into place at one time, but replace. He includes an annual rebate equal to the tax that would be paid on expenditures up to the poverty line. And you don't actually have to spend that much money to get the full rebate - everybody just gets the money in their pocket. (The amount is, I believe, dependent upon number of dependents, but that's the only factor.)

I personally prefer a system where the necessities of life are exempted from the sales tax by category - food, clothing, utilities (gas, water, electricity, *not* phone or cable, hehe), public transportation, medical expenses, that sort of thing. Most (not all) states with sales tax have exemptions for certain items, especially groceries. But either way, the concept of a *properly implemented* federal sales tax, replacing the monstrous income tax system we have today, is very appealing to me.

religious freedom and

freedom to "persue" happiness

for the common defense

ensure liberty and justice http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

I don't see where it is the governments job to keep anyone employed or give them a job. If what you used to do doesn't earn the living you want, be creative, be an American and "change" your output into creating something other people want to buy.

Stop feeling sorry for yourself - get over it, AND do something different until you are employed.

If all those folks you know can't keep a job, perhaps looking at what they have in common would lead to a list of possible solutions? Oh, you've already done that, GWB is their president, that must be it. I'd propose an alternate "common cause" to this problem. They all know you. It is much more likely, since they've met you and probably not caused by the current President.

I realize this is harsh, but did your parents actually tell you that life was fair? If so, bad parents.

You make an interesting point when taken by itself and without the background of this thread:

From what is liberty the freedow from? (Liberty implies freedom, but freedom from what?)

"...in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." as found in Article VII (emphasis mine)

But, I don't mean to dispute your point of discrimination. It's a very good point. But, I believe, in the light of such a quote as John Adams':

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people . It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (emphasis mine)

there are requirements that make things like democracy and liberty properly work and that those things are based upon that which brings the least amount of harm to the doers of such things and their fellow country men and women.

And that is precisely what is being argued here: right and wrong.
That which is morality and that which is depravity.

Again, I ask:

From what is liberty the freedom from?

You make an interesting point when taken by itself and without the background of this thread:

From what is liberty the freedow from? (Liberty implies freedom, but freedom from what?)

"...in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven..." as found in Article VII (emphasis mine)

But, I don't mean to dispute your point of discrimination. It's a very good point. But, I believe, in the light of such a quote as John Adams':

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people . It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." (emphasis mine)

there are requirements that make things like democracy and liberty properly work and that those things are based upon that which brings the least amount of harm to the doers of such things and their fellow country men and women.

And that is precisely what is being argued here: right and wrong.
That which is morality and that which is depravity.

Again, I ask:

From what is liberty the freedom from?

For all the Americans out there, we live in a democracy where "all decisions are made by representatives who act by [our] consent". However, it is incredibly difficult for an elected representative to follow his/her constituent's wishes if they are not informed of which bills they should vote for by their constituents.

A simple letter (here or here or here or here) is one of the easiest ways to inform your elected representative of your stance in regard to certain bills. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the current state of electronic voting in this country, I highly reccomend writing to your elected representatives to inform them of your concerns and certain bills which they should support.

Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes.

Also remember that when contacting your representatives a signed, mailed letter makes a much bigger impact than an e-mail.

Here's some more interesting quotes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons

If you could come up with some examples of Bush making informed and realistic legislative decisions which benefit the general public, please please please (please!) post them.

Would you accept NCLB? From the first day of his presidency he was working on this program. Democrats like to paint the picture that it isn't funded well enough, but they forget there's a difference between authorization and appropriation. The fact is, Bush has spent more on education than any other administration.

--trb

Bush, on the other hand, can run his campaign secure in the knowledge that he has a superb record on science. Christian Science, that is.

Keep this in mind the when you see the talking heads on CNN or NBC fellate Bush at the debates. The national media is not only biased, it's feeding America's ignorance.