Slashdot Mirror

The Constitution does not mandate the restrictions you talk about: it merely *empowers* Congress to create such restrictions, if it wants to.

The distinction is important, but sometimes a little hard to grok, given that these days it's assumed that Congress can pass any law it likes, and the President can sign any law he likes (with out reference to the strictly limited powers). In fact, though, if you look at Article I, Section 8 of the constitution (you're referring to clause 8 of that section), the powers enumerated are not mandatory powers, but a definition of the maximum permissible extent of Congress' power.

Congress is free to declare "there is no such thing as patents or copyrights". Now, I don't think that that would be pragmatic or utilitarian, but it could be done.

Actually, the GOP issues with the healthcare task force centered around public policy being determined by an unelected official, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Besides, once the document was released, it was realized how rabidly Socialist it was.

Cheney, on the other hand, was actually elected. His full report and recommendations have been released and nobody seems to bother reading them, instead focusing on who was met and what recommendations they put forth.

Also, the problem with the tech transfer to China wasn't around nuke technology, but around missile, satellite and laser technology. The Cox Report detailed clinton's handing over of sensitive information at the behest of Hughes and Loral despite the objections of his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. (You don't expect that twit William Cohen would've uttered a peep, do you?)

It's interesting that you're using DNC talking points, however.

Actually, the GOP issues with the healthcare task force centered around public policy being determined by an unelected official, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Besides, once the document was released, it was realized how rabidly Socialist it was.

Cheney, on the other hand, was actually elected. His full report and recommendations have been released and nobody seems to bother reading them, instead focusing on who was met and what recommendations they put forth.

Also, the problem with the tech transfer to China wasn't around nuke technology, but around missile, satellite and laser technology. The Cox Report detailed clinton's handing over of sensitive information at the behest of Hughes and Loral despite the objections of his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher. (You don't expect that twit William Cohen would've uttered a peep, do you?)

It's interesting that you're using DNC talking points, however.

If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, it's stupid as hell of me, and my insurance company probably wouldn't pay up, but it's still grand theft auto if a damn teenager take my Porsche for a joyride.

The files did not belong to the Republicans. Had a Democratic staffer accidentally broken the lock on his office door so that any key would open it, I am sure we can both agree he would be a moron to not notice it and get it fixed. Ditto his boss. On the other hand, it would not be ethical for a Republican staffer who noticed that to then wander in and out after hours for a few months, reading the papers from the office desk and file cabinets. Whether it is actually criminal is a question for a jury. (EG, does the system administrator have the right to "Authorize" people to access files without the permision of the House members and staff, making his careless share a de jure "authorization".)

Consider some alternate scenarios.

In both of your scenarios (a war, and a football or other sporting competition-- essentially a mock war), the two sides are out for diametrically opposing goals, seeking the explicit detriment of the other side. In the House of Representatives, the two sides are both supposedly serving the best interests of the country, albeit from the focus of their respective constituencies. All parties take a shared oath to the Constitution. Furthermore, such "Ungentlemanly" conduct almost certainly a violation of the House's own Code of Ethics for Government Service.. To quote: "Any person in Government service should: 1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department." (The page explicitly states this applies to the elected officials themselves, as well.)

The debate between the Republican and the Democratic parties has always been on how these United States are best served-- on the road, not the direction. If this is no longer the case, I fear for my country.

There is a difference between taking advantage of data for which you have responsibility and data which is not your responsibility.

Agreed; the former is an abuse of explicitly imparted trust and powers; the latter is a far less egregious fault. However, that the latter is less deeply wrong does not make the latter behavior ethical.

If I leave my car unlocked with the keys in the ignition, it's stupid as hell of me, and my insurance company probably wouldn't pay up, but it's still grand theft auto if a damn teenager take my Porsche for a joyride.

The files did not belong to the Republicans. Had a Democratic staffer accidentally broken the lock on his office door so that any key would open it, I am sure we can both agree he would be a moron to not notice it and get it fixed. Ditto his boss. On the other hand, it would not be ethical for a Republican staffer who noticed that to then wander in and out after hours for a few months, reading the papers from the office desk and file cabinets. Whether it is actually criminal is a question for a jury. (EG, does the system administrator have the right to "Authorize" people to access files without the permision of the House members and staff, making his careless share a de jure "authorization".)

Consider some alternate scenarios.

In both of your scenarios (a war, and a football or other sporting competition-- essentially a mock war), the two sides are out for diametrically opposing goals, seeking the explicit detriment of the other side. In the House of Representatives, the two sides are both supposedly serving the best interests of the country, albeit from the focus of their respective constituencies. All parties take a shared oath to the Constitution. Furthermore, such "Ungentlemanly" conduct almost certainly a violation of the House's own Code of Ethics for Government Service.. To quote: "Any person in Government service should: 1. Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department." (The page explicitly states this applies to the elected officials themselves, as well.)

The debate between the Republican and the Democratic parties has always been on how these United States are best served-- on the road, not the direction. If this is no longer the case, I fear for my country.

There is a difference between taking advantage of data for which you have responsibility and data which is not your responsibility.

Agreed; the former is an abuse of explicitly imparted trust and powers; the latter is a far less egregious fault. However, that the latter is less deeply wrong does not make the latter behavior ethical.

• clear efforts by parties to litigation to influence the results of that litigation by controlling when new judges were confirmed (p. 3)
• confirmation hearings be scheduled around concerns over how a particular confirmation might affect an election in a particular state (South Carolina - p. 8-9)
• racial motivations (to develop a strategy for "dealing with conservative Latino Circuit Court nominees" (p. 14)
• and exactly how much Democrat Senators are focused on pleasing particular special interest organizations and constituencies

The US House of Representatives' Committee on Government Reform has compiled a list of the W. Bush Administration's attacks on the scientific community on their Politics and Science website.

In addition, the social psychological community has been feeling the government burn recently because the US House of Representatives passed a vocal vote on 9/9/04 to block future funding of two currently approved NIH and NIMH grants (Click here for that article). This creates an unsettling precedent allowing governing bodies to trump the peer review process. [Sigh ...]

I have hunted around for some statistics and haven't found anything yet. He usually votes with Democrats, rarely with republicans. I don't think that there has been a case where 'neither' was an option since a vote for a bill is either one side or the other unless it is an abstention. It is easy to identify his voting when you do come across any data; He is an Independent and you can see the only 'I' listed there and where he lands. If you want to see what he is all about see his web site. He is progressive, much like Ralph, on the issues. But he talks about topics at many levels: from milk compacts to fix prices for small farmers in New England (the same was done in the mid-west) to be able to compete with larger producers, to sitting on the Banking Committee (second clip down). If you want to see him give his history go here. Note: His accent isn't Vermont; it's Brooklyn. I gave his autobiography to my father-in-law (a conservative) and he liked it. He still thinks Bernie is a nut, but he now respects him for it.

I have hunted around for some statistics and haven't found anything yet. He usually votes with Democrats, rarely with republicans. I don't think that there has been a case where 'neither' was an option since a vote for a bill is either one side or the other unless it is an abstention. It is easy to identify his voting when you do come across any data; He is an Independent and you can see the only 'I' listed there and where he lands. If you want to see what he is all about see his web site. He is progressive, much like Ralph, on the issues. But he talks about topics at many levels: from milk compacts to fix prices for small farmers in New England (the same was done in the mid-west) to be able to compete with larger producers, to sitting on the Banking Committee (second clip down). If you want to see him give his history go here. Note: His accent isn't Vermont; it's Brooklyn. I gave his autobiography to my father-in-law (a conservative) and he liked it. He still thinks Bernie is a nut, but he now respects him for it.

House Roll Call for HAVA

Senate Roll Call for HAVA

This was a bipartisan job. Kerry and Edwards both voted for it, and Bush signed it.

Why in the world shouldn't we be able to recall judges that are clearly working against the desires of the population they serve?

Article III, section 1, US Constitution:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Judges are not in the position to serve the electorate. In this specific case, attempting to recall the judges because they are out of touch with family values(thanks abb3w for the link) is not the same as recalling judges for bad Behaviour.

In the article the judge is quoted as saying that under the new law, a domestic partnership does not constitute a marriage, but is "inherently distinct." This is an interpretation of law, not of the will of the voters, and this is the responsible of a judge acting in good behaviour.

Now the civil, respectable, truly patriotic and constitutional response to such a judgment would not be FUD, but instead ONLY "We will appeal and seek justice for California voters and the sacred institution of marriage" WITHOUT the threat.

The problem is that most people don't understand, and politicizing a judges decision based on law for ones own advantage is an incredible misuse and abuse of the system. The CCF needs to act and talk responsibly and learn a little bit about tolerance and values.

(Summary: 5/225 Rep nay in House, 3+1/51 Rep nay+no-vote in Senate, 0/1 Rep veto in Exec)

The Republicans having reintroduced this bill several times in different forms only to have it vetoed repeatedly by Clinton certainly undermines your position that Republicans could do a hell of a lot more on the kids-being-murdered (your words, not mine!) front.

But you're right about one thing. We should check what they do, not what they say.

And while I'm at it, I found a link to his tech initiatives page.

On here, he mentions a lot of stuff. One notable thing on here is that he was pushing a *real* opt-in antispam act, not the one that actually passed and allows opt-out spam.

Congressman Boucher (from the district of Virginia that includes Virginia Tech) is more anti-IP than most. He's been mentioned on slashdot for trying to stand up for consumers rights.

Naturally, with big corporations paying most congressional lobbies, his efforts are generally ignored by the main legislation.

http://www.house.gov/boucher/welcome.htm

What a finiky server the house is running.

http://www.house.gov/boucher/welcome.htm/

slashcode strikes again...

What about liberals like Howard Berman? I think it affects both sides equally, as both sides have people willing to take money for whatever cause.

But what neo-conservatives seem to conveniently forget is that the tax rate isn't a flat percentage. With capital gains tax breaks, estate tax roll backs, offshore investment breaks, etc., a rich person with a good accountant will pay significantly less by percentage than a middle-class person who takes the standard deductions.

How can your assertion regarding tax distribution possibly be true in light of reports such as this? The top 10% of earners earn 40.1% of the money, but pay 66.4% of the income taxes. While the rates aren't in lock-step with the marginal tax rates, they certainly aren't paying "significantly less by percentage".

So before you go throwing labels about (which you accused me of doing with class warfare, although we both know that upper-class and middle-class are non-partisan terms widely used to describe income levels in very general terms)

Don't put words in my mouth - I never said that. I am a strong believer in capitalism and a free market economy. However, I'm also a strong believer in a flat tax with no loopholes - which is not where our current system lies.

I'm in agreement with you that much of our tax policy is so messy because of the loopholes, favoritism, and demagoguery that surround it. My personal preference is the Fair Tax, since it simplifies the system dramatically and eliminates exceptions. Further, it removes the tax burden from the poor while still providing incentive to save, invest, and otherwise improve your financial situation. It also eliminates the offshore loopholes you describe, since it is not based on accountant-manipulated reported income, but on actual purchases that are much harder to manipulate.

>Third party candidates cannot win.

Says who?

History.

And furthermore, third parties _have_ won before. There have been several times in America's history when there have been viable third parties. The Republicans started out as a third party.

That was 150 years ago. Since then, independent candidates have had no significant influence in either the House or the Senate. In 1897 there were 12 Senators (out of 90, 13%)[source] from three different independent parties. In 1859, there were 39 (out of 238, 16%) [source] independent seats in the House from four different parties. That was the most independents ever got. And in the last 100 years, independents have never held more than 3% of the House or 4% of the Senate. So, yeah, technically, they do win sometimes, but not enough to matter in the slightest.

There's a strong tendency for the system to return to a two party system after that, but that just means you need to pick the right third party, which has an actual intent to change the system, preferably to some kind of concensus format.

The two party system is the whole problem. People don't vote for third party candidates because of the fear that their last choice ("the greater of two evils") will win.

Two things would happen in that scenario. First of all, there are a lot of people who grit their teeth and vote for one of the two main parties because they want the lesser evil to win. The third party candidates might have some attractive ideas, however they don't currently have a chance in hell of winning. However if third party candiates start getting double digits and the Republicans and Democrats drop down into the 20s, then a _lot_ of these people are going to start looking across the no longer great divide and start switching camp when they realize those third parties now have a chance.

Let's assume you're right. Why hasn't it happened yet? We've had the same two parties for 150 years. Do you really believe we are the first to think there's something wrong with it? The fact is that it hasn't happened because the system is seriously stacked against third party candidates.

A system that statistically encourages a two party system is a big problem, however half of the population choosing not to vote is a big problem too.

And you don't see the connection between the two? You can't see how not having anyone worth voting for can cause people to lose faith in the system? These are lazy whiners to you? Open your eyes.

Voting for one of the two main candidates supports the system.

Which is what most people who vote do.

Voting for a third party candidate does not.

It perpetuates the system because you are engaging in behavior that cannot possibly change anything and validates the system that makes it so.

they did a lot more to change the system and get a lot more credit in my mind than the people who sat on their assess and did nothing.

Because you hold on to the false hope that working within the broken system can somehow fix it. It can't. The only people who have the power to change the system are in power because of it.

come up with another viable (and legal) solution for changing the system,

Plenty have been proposed including changing the voting process itself to allow for second choices. The reason the two party system is so unfair is that you can only indicate your first choice. Choosing just one is only meaningful when there are only two choices. Third party candidates would have a much greater chance if people could select one of the major parties as their second choice: they wouldn't have to fear their "worst" choice winning because they didn't select the one that could beat him.

But that won't ever happen because the only people who can make it happen would be cutting their own throats.

>Third party candidates cannot win.

Says who?

History.

And furthermore, third parties _have_ won before. There have been several times in America's history when there have been viable third parties. The Republicans started out as a third party.

That was 150 years ago. Since then, independent candidates have had no significant influence in either the House or the Senate. In 1897 there were 12 Senators (out of 90, 13%)[source] from three different independent parties. In 1859, there were 39 (out of 238, 16%) [source] independent seats in the House from four different parties. That was the most independents ever got. And in the last 100 years, independents have never held more than 3% of the House or 4% of the Senate. So, yeah, technically, they do win sometimes, but not enough to matter in the slightest.

There's a strong tendency for the system to return to a two party system after that, but that just means you need to pick the right third party, which has an actual intent to change the system, preferably to some kind of concensus format.

The two party system is the whole problem. People don't vote for third party candidates because of the fear that their last choice ("the greater of two evils") will win.

Two things would happen in that scenario. First of all, there are a lot of people who grit their teeth and vote for one of the two main parties because they want the lesser evil to win. The third party candidates might have some attractive ideas, however they don't currently have a chance in hell of winning. However if third party candiates start getting double digits and the Republicans and Democrats drop down into the 20s, then a _lot_ of these people are going to start looking across the no longer great divide and start switching camp when they realize those third parties now have a chance.

Let's assume you're right. Why hasn't it happened yet? We've had the same two parties for 150 years. Do you really believe we are the first to think there's something wrong with it? The fact is that it hasn't happened because the system is seriously stacked against third party candidates.

A system that statistically encourages a two party system is a big problem, however half of the population choosing not to vote is a big problem too.

And you don't see the connection between the two? You can't see how not having anyone worth voting for can cause people to lose faith in the system? These are lazy whiners to you? Open your eyes.

Voting for one of the two main candidates supports the system.

Which is what most people who vote do.

Voting for a third party candidate does not.

It perpetuates the system because you are engaging in behavior that cannot possibly change anything and validates the system that makes it so.

they did a lot more to change the system and get a lot more credit in my mind than the people who sat on their assess and did nothing.

Because you hold on to the false hope that working within the broken system can somehow fix it. It can't. The only people who have the power to change the system are in power because of it.

come up with another viable (and legal) solution for changing the system,

Plenty have been proposed including changing the voting process itself to allow for second choices. The reason the two party system is so unfair is that you can only indicate your first choice. Choosing just one is only meaningful when there are only two choices. Third party candidates would have a much greater chance if people could select one of the major parties as their second choice: they wouldn't have to fear their "worst" choice winning because they didn't select the one that could beat him.

But that won't ever happen because the only people who can make it happen would be cutting their own throats.

And you imply that this 877 number existed when the movie was made. A quick search for the number you gave found this link. A check on archive.org found that page was first archived on July 6, 2004, almost two weeks after Fahrenheit 9/11 was released in theaters.

Sure, there are non-practicing and variant athiests.

But there are also fundamentalist evangelical(militant) athiests. If atheism is NOT a religion, then it's practice is not constitutionally protected and can be either required or prohibited by law without violating the first ammendment. 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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Why do you say voting for a minority party candidate is throwing away your vote?

Past history. No independent candidate has ever been elected President. Independents are outnumbered in the Senate 99 to 1. Independents in the House are outnumbered 433 to 1. What makes you believe it's not throwing it away?

Once you accept that your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election,

Then why bother?

Please visit http://www.house.gov/ and bring this to the attention of your local representative!

Since the government [theoretically] is only concerned when control leaves the airline and enters into the terrorist hands (because at that point the jet becomes a weapon),

The likelihood of terrorists gaining control of an airliner with box cutters again is essentially nil. The entire plan depended on the passengers believing they might live if they cooperated. Until September 11th, the majority of the flying public couldn't even conceive of someone using a 767 as a missile and the primary concern for hijackings was the lives of the passengers. It should also be noted that most of the hijackers had valid ID.

Some manner in which the plane cannot be flown by terrorists as the control over the aircraft leaves as soon as its taken over.

Very simple. Lock the cockpit door and don't open it. Even if the hijackers threaten to kill everyone on board unless the pilot opens the door, he has no reason to believe they will survive if he does.

Except that I'm pretty sure they're all "colonies" (if you insist on the term) because their people have consistently voted to maintain that status. In the last election on the matter in Puerto Rico, for example, few people voted for statehood, but even fewer voted for independence. The others you've mentioned have the options of independence and of becoming a "Freely Associated State," as defined by the UN. Several other former "colonies" have already taken this route, making Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands independent countries (complete with their own votes in the UN).

By the way, it seems that more than a few people in American Samoa (at least) take affront at being called a colony of the US. Their democratically elected government, for example...

Me thinks you better read the Constitution and the Amendments.

Nowhere does it say that the part about electing the president via an electoral process was added later. In fact, Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 lay out how the President is elected.

The 12th Amendment to the Constituion does modify the third paragraph of Article 2 to include voting for a Vice-President as well but it does not change the fact that the electoral college has been around since day one.

Read the third link (.pdf file) from this site about the reason behind the electoral college.

Me thinks you better read the Constitution and the Amendments.

Nowhere does it say that the part about electing the president via an electoral process was added later. In fact, Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 lay out how the President is elected.

The 12th Amendment to the Constituion does modify the third paragraph of Article 2 to include voting for a Vice-President as well but it does not change the fact that the electoral college has been around since day one.

Read the third link (.pdf file) from this site about the reason behind the electoral college.

According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:

The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)

As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?

How likely is a draft?

Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.

The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.

It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.

In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.

It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.

Text of the article is below:

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D

According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:

The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)

As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?

How likely is a draft?

Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.

The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.

It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.

In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.

It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.

Text of the article is below:

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D

According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:

The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)

As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?

How likely is a draft?

Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.

The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.

It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.

In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.

It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.

Text of the article is below:

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D

According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:

The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)

As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?

How likely is a draft?

Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.

The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.

It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.

In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.

It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.

Text of the article is below:

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D

According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:

The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)

As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?

How likely is a draft?

Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.

The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.

It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.

In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.

It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.

Text of the article is below:

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D

According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:

The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)

As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?

How likely is a draft?

Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.

The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.

It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.

In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.

It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.

Text of the article is below:

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D

I'm planning to write my congressman about the problem. He was pretty responsive the last time I wrote about another issue. Does anyone have a pointer to accurate sources I can refer to in my letter?

*Ahem* There's one big, huge, gaping problem with your intial assertion... Interfering with the radio communications between the tower and the jet does not automatically "crash planes".

I guess you don't know why "personal electronic devices" (not just radios) are required to be deactivated. It's more than just ATC comm.

There was an incident 10+ years ago where a jetliner's avionics (including things like the altimeter) went haywire. The crew suspected EM interference, and searched for 20 minutes before locating thet offending gizmo. (Supposedly, they were on the verge of jettisoning luggage). Ever since then, the FAA's "shutdown for takeoff and landing" rule has been in effect.

Here's a list of some problems attributed to unintentional electromagnetic interference. Whether or not that was really the cause hasn't been firmly tested- probably not in all cases.

I consider it a security risk that flight computers are so vulnerable to inadvertent interference. One imagines that terrorists could do some mayhem with sneaking devices hidden in other things (which of course will not be searched for like a bomb would)

stewardesses searched

I sort of agree, but there is a problem. In order to have a better case you have to voice your charge to the offender. Basically if you do not say stop or voice an objection, you have a weaker case.

During the RNC for Bush Sr. in Houston the police attacked the protesters. My wife was there and she had some training for clinic defense against opperation rescue. Basically you have to let the abuser know they are hurting you for you to be able to press charges later. My wife let the cop know he was hurting her, but he still pounded her 3 times with a police stick.

My wife's case was the strongest but nothing came of it. Shelia Jackson Lee, who was on Houston's city council at the time, is the only one that stood up for the protesters. She is the only one that pressed for more inquiry. Some of the protesters were trampled on my horese. Even though there was footage of the beatings, it was impossible to figure out which cops where attacking whom. The reflective numbers on the riot armor didn't reflect. You have to have light for it to reflect. Some of the other more injured protesters were gay and didn't want to be outed.

What I am trying to say is...no matter what your political views are if you want change, you are going to have to stand up and take the hit. Change might not happen even then (like what happened to my wife) but it will if people continue.

We talk a lot on /., but few of us are willing to go to jail for our beliefs. Is wireless surfing outside a library important enough to you to take a hit?

Please name one piece of legislation that the GOP has put forth to begin the process of turning the USA into a theocracy?

You may have heard of this document called The Constitution. See, it turns out that it trumps all other laws in the land...

Would this be the "right to free warez and MP3s" amendment?

I think it's in article I, section 8, clause 8...

"Clause 8: 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"

Which they've failed horribly at in both "limited times" and "authors and inventors".

If corporate America wants to hamstring citizens such that they have a legal workaround (here's a dollar, we own it... or... here's your signing contract, take it and eat or leave it and go back to living under the bridge) for our exclusive rights to our creations then I have no guilt about sharing everything they sell.

People don't cry for the poor television manufacturers, all they care about is they can get a 51" TV with surroundsound for less than $2k.
You can't "expect to get paid very well", you do what you love, or you follow the money, if the two happen to be the same, then consider yourself lucky.

Congressman Jeb Hensarling spams my vanity domain regularly, even after being told I don't want any "updates."

I've also regularly been targeted by various Texas Republican mailing lists, despite past assurances I've been removed from their lists.

I'm an independent that often votes for Democrats, and this just bolsters my opinion that many Republicans, at least in Texas, don't care about individuals' wishes, just want votes. I don't care if they want to litter my postal mailbox, except for the environmental impact of all that trash, but email costs me a lot more to read than for them to send, even when I'm filtering. They're the majority party down here - can't they just leave me alone?

[Congress shall have the 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;

As I said in another post, I'm amazed they have the rights to "Pan-American".

Ron Paul, (R. Texas)
Before the Iraq war in 2003, he posed are series of questions that other congress critters should ask themselves. Read them here

I didn't hear any serious debates about it anywhere.

-metric

Guess what! You do have to worry about a draft. There are a pair of bills (HR 163 and S 89) in congress now, which would require service from all young persons (18-26).

The bills are "languishing in committee" and appear unlikely to pass (and their existence has been used to stir up a lot of political noise by folks willing to exaggerate the facts), but they do exist, and if you want to express your opinion about them, now is the time..

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr163.html
http://www.house.gov/stark/documents/108th/univdra ftstate.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/? billnum=H.R.163&congress=108&size=full

-Brian

Look though at 36 USC 220506 or here at Cornell - this statute gives certain exclusive word rights to the US Olympic Committee for various terms including Olympics, Olympiad, and among other things Pan-American. See (a)(4). Not only Olympics et al. but Pan-American? How outrageous is that?

There are however some exceptions in subsection (d) for prior use and limited other uses.

I fully agree. Another critical angle is to contact your representatives and be heard. Your phone call is actually more powerful than your vote in many ways. Your vote gets the person into/out of office, your phone calls/email/letters gives them direct feedback on specific issues.

Followup ideas on How To Do It Better to follow shortly, but I've got to knock out a conference call first. Yeah, work. The nerve of them. ;-)

He was elected by Americans. I'd say that makes him representative.

He's a Congressional Representative, all right, which means he represents his constituents only, who are the ones responsible for electing him. Three counties in one state. 650k people. Two tenths of one percent of the USA.

Nice, big over-generalization you've got there.

Here you go....

Article 2 speaks about exactly what the president is required to do. Representing public opinion is not one of them. That's the task of the legislative branch. The legislative branch are the representatives. The executive branch makes executive decisions. Incidentally, the way it was initially set up, the president was chosen by the legislative branch (article 2, section 1, clause 3).