Slashdot Mirror

Going a few links into that site, we find a list of how each person voted on roll call votes at http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/index.asp

(ironically enough, the list is as tallied by the electronic voting machine)

Article V, Section 3:

Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

This was put in to prevent people from being charged with treason just because the government didn't like what they'd done, as had happened a number if times in Britian in the "bad old days." Because we had not declared war on North Vietnam, and Fonda didn't do anything but talk, what she did was not treason, although it could be argued that morally it was. (That's another question that I'm not getting into.)

Show me where "legally back[ing] up [your] DVD . . . is described in fair use"? Fair use is defined in 17 USC 107 (try actually reading it, before presuming rights which don't exist), which does not discuss backups. The only time a backup copy is mentioned is in 17 USC 117, which is exclusive to computer programs, which the audio-visual / motion picture (see 17 USC 106) portions of a DVD most certainly are not (setting aside the issue of menus and special feature bells and whistles, which may or may not be covered under 17 USC 117). As for the addresses above - why not go directly to the top? Jack_Valenti@mpaa.org should work, based on the format of Pascale's email.

I've read a lot of statutes in my day, believe me immunity for government officials (in criminal cases at least) is very, very rare.

What somethinghallow is referring to is this response to a local newspapers editorial staff.

Here is a little sampling of my favorites for the lazy slashdot reader:

"...what is shocking is that the entertainment industries are now being completely lambasted by the editorial board for what is essentially their home town paper."
The editoral board of a home town paper is supposed to completely support any stance of local industries?

Its actually very difficult to tell what side he is on, because he keeps bringing up opposing views :
The nature of the problem is easy to describe to any consumer who has tried to jump into the digital content fray. A well-meaning consumer buys songs through the Apple iTunes store rather than downloading illegal files from Kazaa. But then, he finds those songs don?t play on his Creative Nomad MuVo digital music player, which he bought for a substantial sum only last year. Another well-meaning consumer finds he cannot sign up for Movielink because he refuses to use Internet Explorer as his browser. Another finds that, in signing up for different digital media services, each attempts to establish a different media player as his default, the result being substantial annoyance and inconvenience when trying to use a service.

But the best quote by far:
The editorial uses as a jumping off point the recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a case that pitted Verizon against the Recording Industry Association of America. ... few paragraphs later ... The editorial also characterizes the D.C. Circuit decision as ?a victory for consumer privacy rights.? I think it?s the opposite.
I always forget that not providing your customer's names away for what has been illegal finding of your customer's ISP is not a "victory for comsumer privacy".../sarcasm

I think this just serves as a reminder to go out and vote this fall.

Look for Howard Berman, et al, to start introducing rackateering-exempt bills that would protect organizations such as members of the RIAA and MPAA.

You are correct, although you're too much of a coward to receive affirmation. I was wrong in stating "from the previous year", when I should have said "in the following decade".

In 1981, the TOTAL federal revenue was approximately $1 trillion. As you noted, the tax cuts occured in 1982. By the time the 1980s were gone, the tax cuts raised approximately $1.2 trillion dollars in revenue in the 1980s. (You can go Here (specifically look at the chart). This was a direct result of the tax cuts.

You may also want to check out this page which is labeled 'economics 101'. Some interesting facts:

1) These additional federal tax revenues contributed to the reduction of the federal deficit from 6.3% of GDP in l983 to 2.9% in l989
2) From l982 to l989, l9 million net new jobs were created in the United States (more than the number of jobs created in Europe and Japan combined), two-thirds of them high or middle paying, resulting in the lowest unemployment rate in l6 years.
3) Real family income increased every year from l983 through l990 in every income group (from the poorest fifth of households to the richest fifth).
4) 86% of the tax filers in the poorest fifth of families in l980 moved out of that bottom quintile by l988 (l6% moved all the way to the top fifth of income earners).

Also of interest is this site which talks about the Reagan cuts. Interesting enough is the chart which shows that the tax burdon increased for the highest wage earners while decreasing for the lowest wage earners. And a quote, " The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988."

Those supply-side economics... wow, such a terrible thing. Worked twice before and yet you refuse to learn from history.

Good thing is technology is advancing and will innovate away from monopolies such as TWX and the phone companies. I'll bet if ten years ago someone would have told you people would no longer have home phones then you'd not have believed it.

Good idea wold be for Fed gov. to step in and require states counties, and cities to open up the right-of-way to EVERYONE and not just those few elite who are on the list with the politicians. I once consulted on a project to do this for a city in 1998. Well, the city officials had allowed the local energy monopoly to lay fiber as well as the ILEC but told us we'd have to pay them to lay the fiber and pay rent to them for it!

Do you realize how much taxes we pay on roads? $660/family. Every year. Surely a national fiber network could be really cheap but take a look at the mail system. Their fees are extreme compared to other delivery companies especially if you consider their volumes. I have no illusions that socializing technology would make it any better. Maybe it would not be $660/year but I'll bet my fast Internet bill in two years will be down to $250/year.

This is truly horrible... apparently Florida has decided that since it is not possible to do a recount for electronic voting machines, it is not necessary to attempt anything of the sort. Realize that the next election might be hacked, support Rush Holt's Voter Confidence bill, and don't forget to get the Diebold memos from the SCDC.

First (quick) point: most of the US debt is owed to US citizens.

This is correct. However, the percentage owned by foreign entities has been rising as a percentage of the total.(reference)

It is much more fiscally responsible to balance the budget (erring slightly either way doesn't make a big difference), and reduce the effect of the debt due to (1) an increased GDP and (2) inflation (the time value of money decreases).

The idea of reducing the federal debt through "inflation" is ludicrous. Remember that the debt is earning interest as well. Increase GDP does not directly reduce the debt.

needs to read more articles where Nobel Laureate economists give their insight

Ok, lets look at some of the information in that article...

ROBINSON: What about option two, using the surplus to pay off the national debt?

FRIEDMAN: From a purely economic point of view that makes a great deal of sense. If it were feasible to take the whole surplus and use it to pay down the debt, I might well be in favor of it. The argument against doing that is political. Even if politicians say they are going to pay down the debt, the political pressures to spend it will be so strong that they will in fact spend it.

Notice that he says paying down the debt is a good idea and that political reasons stand in the way. I'm not arguing with that. The source of political opposition is in the electorate.

...But I personally would rather it go back in the form of lower taxes. The argument that people will make for paying back the debt is that, if you pay it back, the money will go to people who will invest it. The sellers of government securities will want to replace them with other assets, which will mean investment.

Friedman only cites one argument for paying down the national debt. The argument he cites is true, and I agree with that argument. I will deal with his opinion on it in a moment. First, consider the other reasons for paying down the debt which he did not cite: Reducing interest payments and obligations, reducing foreign ownership of american government debt and increasing our future capability to borrow in times of need.

Taken from here:

World War II required surge borrowing of an extra 72% of GDP (above the prior 50% debt ratio) to meet the surge production and economic shifts necessary to meet our war needs. Now, that really was not all that difficult, since the private sector's share of the economy's national income at that time was itself 80% of the economic pie, as shown in the

Government Spending Report. But now the private sector's share has been shrunk to 60% of the economic pie, leaving less capacity for a surge to war-time needs. Now, today's debt is 60% GDP (or, 72% of national income). Can you imagine trying to add another 72% on top to meet an equivalent war in the future, considering the smaller relative private sector? Who are we going to shift from peace-time production to war-time production - - our higher ratio of seniors, state & local government employees and welfare recipients? And who will loan us the additional $7.3 trillion, since we are already tapped out with record domestic and foreign borrowings today?

This challenge is covered in the chapter National Security Report.

Back to the article you cited...

FRIEDMAN: Solow's argument is a valid argument. But here's the question: Is it appropriate for the government to decide how much of the

Declaration of Independence

U.S. Consititution

That's where they DON'T.

Here's just one example

Sixty companies have filed bankruptcy as a result of asbestos liability. Bankruptcy courts have allowed firms to establish trusts to take responsibility for their pending and future asbestos liability. Bankruptcy judges often allow companies to pay less than the full value of claims against them. In recent years, several corporations have had their asbestos-related subsidiaries file bankruptcy while the parent corporation remained solvent and outside the reach of the bankruptcy court.

Article II. Section 1. Clause 3. US Constitution.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See Note 8)

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

Don't worry, there's a separate arm of the government specifically in charge of wasting our money.

Infant mortality skyrocketed in the rest of Iraq during the sanctions years. Lack of access to medicines, clean water, basic nutrition.

TheGuardian says that your claim of 500,000 children being killed is false.

Of course, it is a shame that Saddam spent the money for their food and medicine on building large lavish palaces, buying weapons, building illegal missiles, and stashing billions abroad. Don't you agree?

The U.S. Constitution. Lawyers and politicians seem to have been forgetting it lately. Course its kind of useless outside of the US and her "territories".

The first thing I would do would be to learn as much as you can about the current system, find out exactly what the requirments are for filing, allowing and rejecting patents. Also read the PTO's 21st Centruy Strategic Plan to see what they are already planning on changing. It would also be good to find out if any bills are before Congress that would improve the situation.

After that, write (on real paper, sent through the old fashioned mail system) a letter to your Senators and Representavies explaining the current problems with the system and how they should be fixed, if you do find current legislation before either house that you agree with, tell them that you would like to see them vote (yes/no) on that bill.

It is important to know exactly how the current system operates before you attempt to change it. Once you know what is currently in place, you will have a much better idea of what needs to be changed, and be able to write a much more conving letter to your members of Congress.

Note that this method, with a little modification, may work for other problems that you see with US government and laws.

To summarize in a way any slashdotter can understand:

1) Learn as much as you can about the current system
2) Identify problems in current system
3) Write Congress concerning those problems
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

No reasonable company (or individual) with deep pockets is going to buy SCO. They'll wait to see how the case turns out. Assuming they are crushed in court and possibly demanded to make some ammends for all their badmouthing Linux and others, they'll be filing Chapter 11 in short order. Soon thereafter I anticipate SCO will slip into Chapter 7 and be forced to sell off any of its remaining assets (such as the Unix copyrights and trademarks).

It's at this point, a smart company will buy up the valuable assets and leave the rotting corpse of SCO itself on the curb.

No reasonable company (or individual) with deep pockets is going to buy SCO. They'll wait to see how the case turns out. Assuming they are crushed in court and possibly demanded to make some ammends for all their badmouthing Linux and others, they'll be filing Chapter 11 in short order. Soon thereafter I anticipate SCO will slip into Chapter 7 and be forced to sell off any of its remaining assets (such as the Unix copyrights and trademarks).

It's at this point, a smart company will buy up the valuable assets and leave the rotting corpse of SCO itself on the curb.

No reasonable company (or individual) with deep pockets is going to buy SCO. They'll wait to see how the case turns out. Assuming they are crushed in court and possibly demanded to make some ammends for all their badmouthing Linux and others, they'll be filing Chapter 11 in short order. Soon thereafter I anticipate SCO will slip into Chapter 7 and be forced to sell off any of its remaining assets (such as the Unix copyrights and trademarks).

It's at this point, a smart company will buy up the valuable assets and leave the rotting corpse of SCO itself on the curb.

the point of copyright is to protect the rights of the artist, not the benefits to society.

No! The "point" of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Right there in the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.

However, the Berne Convention (which is utterly antithetical to natural human rights) does not contain any such reasoning as its basis, so outside the U.S. perhaps you are correct.

I write to voice my opposition to HR3261, the so-called "Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act" which just cleared the House Judiciary Committee.

It is unclear to me why this bill is required when the services that would benefit, such as LexisNexis, already have terms of service agreements that limit the users' ability to reproduce contents of the database.

I am of the belief that passing bills to look proactive, like the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Database and Collections of Information Misappropriation Act of 2004, is an abuse of congressional power and cheap politics.

Please vote NO when this bill comes up for a vote.

Thank you.

Um, this bill has been on the table for quite a while now. (see also)

The time for action is when these bills are on the table. Granted, if AT&T can't budge the rats that passed this abhoration, what chance do you have... Write (hand written) letters to your representatives and vote your conscience this November !

Besides being business as usual, it may be hard to say how big of a problem this will be, other than being a political stink for a time. Congress exempts itself from many of the laws that we live and work under. Reducing or eliminating those exemptions was part of the Republican Contract with America platform which was fiercely criticized and blocked by the Democrats.

Besides being business as usual, it may be hard to say how big of a problem this will be, other than being a political stink for a time. Congress exempts itself from many of the laws that we live and work under. Reducing or eliminating those exemptions was part of the Republican Contract with America platform which was fiercely criticized and blocked by the Democrats.

You can bet Barney Frank was involved!

Can anyone find the security hole?

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.

Note the phrase "petition the Government..."

Yes, SCO is still full of shit, but they have the right to advertise to Congress that they're full of shit.

you claim that it is valid to presume that she must have done so?

I claim that under uniform state laws, it is valid to presume that somebody without a degree in medicine or osteopathy shouldn't practice medicine. I claim that under uniform state laws, it is valid to presume that somebody without a law degree shouldn't practice law. I claim that the major publishers will likely try to argue that Congress should presume that somebody without some sort of musicology training shouldn't practice songwriting. A more enlightened Congress could solve the problem by restricting the scope of what constitutes "substantial similarity" and "access." However, I see no way to produce a more enlightened Congress other than through deep reform of campaign finance, up to and including constitutional limits on consecutive terms of representatives and senators.

The current copyright law is obscenely extended, to the point of vile injustice.

Have you complained to Congress yet?

None of this justifies prior restraint.

U.S. copyright law requires copy-protection in analog video recording devices and both a levy and SCMS on digital audio recording devices and media. Apparently, past Congresses have found that the threat of music piracy requires some sort of prior restraint. However, it makes an exemption for "professional" grade devices marketed by their manufacturers to serious authors and publishers.

$5 million is not much money as far as NASA is concerned. Even office buildings cost more than $5 million.

Consider this:

Expenditures byNASAin 2003:
$15.00 billion

The current NASA budget is 3.809% of the current defense budget.

If the National Defence budget was cut by just 10%, and that money given to NASA, the NASA budget would be increased by more than 260%.

And $5 million is just .1% of NASA's budget.

I like people who are willing to offer some opposition, frequently there is a actualy working brain behind. :-)

Hopefully you won't consider this a case of jumping to conclusions. :)

I probably wouldn't have reacted the way I did if not for the fact that I have, on more than one occasion, interacted with Americans that *genuinely* believed for example that Norway is a district in Sweden, that polar-bears roaming the streets in general prevents norwegians from letting their kids play outside and that the average scandinavian has 20 reindeer, drives a snow-mobile and hunts whale in the season.

Please forgive me if I happen to use some of these little-known facts in a future post. These individuals weren't in management by chance? But yes, I confess to knowing a few particularly dense individuals myself... the type that don't know and just don't want to know.

It's also surprising to hear how many Americans where never in other countries than USA and at most Canada. Yes, we understand that USA is a huge country, and that you can travel 1000 miles and still be in your own country. (that's also true for Norway by the way) But to me that's still enormously strange. It's not like you can't afford it, the average American has more money than the average .

The concept of American (U.S.) prosperity is somewhat overestimated. If I told somebody how much the VAT and income and property taxes would work out to for them based on what they earn and consume here, he'd think you were all insane. If I then explained what you get for what you put in, both in taxes and on the job, he'd decide he's getting screwed. To get an idea of what the average citizen is left with, using the best statistics I could put together in three minutes (sorry), Norway's wealthiest 10% grossed 27% of Norway's total income in 2000. On the other hand, America's wealthiest 10% controlled 73% of America's wealth in 1997 (this was originally a Wall Street Journal source and I believe was regarding net income). Life insurance, medical insurance, dental insurance, car insurance, medical procedures not covered by medical insurance, medicine not covered by medical insurance, schooling, and sometimes lawyers combine to take a pretty large chunk out of paychecks. Some of these may be provided by an employer with varying degrees of coverage, but the expense is becoming such that employers are cutting back.

We consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources in relation to our population, which along with our reputation for knowing how to party may give the impression of having lots of disposable income and free time, but the average worker gets a vacation allotment of two weeks a year. Among those who can leave a job that long without things going to hell, and those who don't have kids or whose kids are grown up, and those who have a couple of thousand dollars saved (depending on vacation location of course), the plan is usually to take a week to visit a beach in our hemisphere and try to forget everything for a bit. The other week is generally used to get more time off around two major holidays (Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanza/? and Thanksgiving), either to visit distant relatives or prepare for them to visit you. Extra money also tends to go into vehicles or electronics or gadgets instead of vacations, I think.

Still, I guess when it comes to languages the US is not *that* multi-cultural. Maybe there's also some french along the Quebec-border ? And quite likely you've got some "ghettos" of immigrants that speak their only language. But still.

As far as language is considered, for most people they've got the option to tak

Where do I even start? New home for humanity. Unprecedented Scientific discovery. Easy access to the asteroids ($trillion apiece in ore!). Tech jobs at home. Youngsters inspired to go into science and engineering. Plentiful fusion fuel (this will be important in the next 10-20 years). I could go on.

No, you're the liar.

Republican YEA: 209 NAY: 15 NO VOTE:4
Democratic YEA: 55 NAY:147 NO VOTE:3
Independent NAY: 1

source

*fixed formatting

In case anyone actually reads your comment, I'd like to point out that:

Republican YEA:209 NAY: 15 NO VOTE:4
Democratic YEA: 55 NAY:147 NO VOTE:3
Independent NAY:1 (wtg bernie)

You're a fucking liar. (Link supplied in this comment.)

According to this comment, the original Senate voice vote (in June) was supported unanimously among both parties. Maybe that's what you were talking about?

Or maybe you're a Republican jackass. Or maybe you're a Democrat jackass just trying to make Republicans look bad. Or maybe you're just a troll. Well. IHBT. IHL. IWHAND.

In case anyone actually reads your comment, I'd like to point out that:

Republican YEA:209 NAY: 15 NO VOTE:4
Democratic YEA: 55 NAY:147 NO VOTE:3
Independent NAY:1 (wtg bernie)

You're a fucking liar. (Link supplied in this comment.)

According to this comment, the original Senate voice vote (in June) was supported unanimously among both parties. Maybe that's what you were talking about?

Or maybe you're a Republican jackass. Or maybe you're a Democrat jackass just trying to make Republicans look bad. Or maybe you're just a troll. Well. IHBT. IHL. IWHAND.

I'd point out that Bernie from Vermont is similarly (imho) principled. Since he's extremely liberal (and the only independent in the house), I imagine that every time Bernie and Dr. No agree, it's probably because they're right.

Democrates voted FOR this 194 - 0.

Here is the list of House members that voted against this bill. The Senate took a voice vote, so no record is available. Vote Tally

House The Senate appears to have done a voice vote - cowards.

I think the vote call is here (please correct me if I'm wrong). Looks like it passed 404 to 12.

The China Act will make it illegal, if it passes.

Considering it was written by 3 Republicans, I think it has a chance.

On Americans receiving honors from foreign states:

US Constitution

I.9.8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Here are a couple of resources:

http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/haskellinstruction al.pdf

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

Like most "sermons" your little rant is based on unproven assumptions and faith.

OK, I'll bite, it's a quiet sunday afternoon and I've little else going on. I asserted:

Where does the government get the money?Okay, 2002 budgeted income for the US government was $1,800 billion and actual tax reciepts were $1,979.518 billion. Of that, 52% comes from individual returns, 10% from corporate and 33% from "employment taxes". The remainder is from the gift tax (.09%), excise(2.6%) and estate taxes(1.3%). I think it's pretty clear where the money comes from - our pockets.

Who contributed, at gunpoint, the funds for the government to pay for things?

And what happens when you decide to stop paying taxes? Up to $100,000 in fines and 5 years in jail Oh yeah, and it's a felony which means you may be barred from voting, you lose the right to own firearms and you may find yourself unemployable.

Libertarian? Guilty as charged. Exagerate? Well, I guess I could have replaced "gunpoint" with "5 years in jail, $100k fine, loss of rights and employment". Unproven assertions and faith? Where?

In the end, I stand behind my statement. We fund the government, some of us unwillingly. The "government's money" comes not from some magical well outside Washington DC but from our pockets, and at the expense of other things we could be doing with it. You want to fund open source software - cool, write them a check, send them a paypal, leave some cash on Linus' doorstep or whatever but do it with your own money, stop spending mine.

But producers of audio-playback devices are stuck with a problem: because the vast bulk of digital sound out there stored on PCs is in MP3 format, they have to support MP3, and both Microsoft and Apple are not helping by pushing users to their own particular patented formats, thus providing little incentive to support an open format. This causes problems: it encourages people to continue using the closed formats, and that in turn encourages manufacturers to only support the closed formats. This is wrong, seriously wrong, and serious issues of liberty - both personal and civil - are at stake here. For without an open format, the plug can be pulled.

This quagmire of open formats dying because they need to dominate the market before they can dominate the market will not disappear by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that free and open music is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by the open source and free software communities to create an infrastructure that will support truly free - as in liberty - music, but that if the problem of lack of commercial support for open file formats is not resolved, you will be forced to use less and less secure and intelligently designed alternatives. Let them know that SMP may make or break whether you can efficiently deploy OpenBSD on your workstations and servers. Explain the concerns you have about freedom, openness, and choice, and how patented file formats harms all three. Let them know that this is an issue that effects YOU directly, that YOU vote, and that your vote will be influenced, indeed dependent, on their policies on open file formats.

You CAN make a difference. Don't treat voting as a right, treat it as a duty. Keep informed, keep your political representatives informed on how you feel. And, most importantly of all, vote.

" Was " being the key word. Tip was Speaker from January 4th 1977 to January 3rd 1987.

however not speaker as that would be a republican, Dennis Hastert

The Big Dig fiasco was the result of collusion amongts Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, the Republican governor's office and the predominantly Democratic Legislature on Beacon Hill. Both the Governor's office and the Legislature made the project a patronage bonanza. When this corruption resulted in fiascos, they simple payed Bechtel and Parsons Brinkerhoff to clean up the messes.

The main reason we still have tolls, and in fact they have gone up, is to finance the Big Dig. Two board members (one Democrat one Republican) at the Mass Turnpike Authority spoke out on Bechtel/BP corruption at the Big Dig, and in fact threatened to terminate their contracts in 2001. Republican Governor Jane Swift quickly fired them and increase tolls on the Mass Pike. Her predecessor's, predecessor Bill Weld (also Republican) at one point considered selling the whole Mass Pike, but instead used it as collateral on $2.7 billion in loans to pay for, you guessed it, the Big Dig.

Painting the Big Dig as partisan issue is ridiculous. It cuts across every level and wing of Mass politics.

I'm not sure what makes people think Romney is so much better than the last three governors, all of whom were Republican. I happen to know he is a lying sack of crap. He openly claimed my rep, who is a prominant Democratic known for his honesty and independence (one of the few who voted to fund the Clean Elections law we passed by referendum) endorsed him, which was an outright lie.

You do raise a good point about the partisan bickering over what to name the northbound Central Artery tunnel. How our Democrats could oppose naming it after the late beloved Silvio Conte is beyond me. Conte worked closely with the House Democratic leadership under Tip O'Neill and endorsed Democrat John Olver as his successor before he died.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

(Clause 2 is irrelevant to the discussion)

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Which one of David Kay's reports? Kay's most recent report conceded that there were NO production plants manufacturing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Some work had been done in the lab on bacteria, but they had not been weaponised.

Kay's belief on Iraq trying to manufacture centrifuges to make enriched uranium is not supported by the IAEA or the American Department of Energy.

whether he actually had them or not, and that was never in dispute among any intel agency, even the french, russians, and germans, what we DO KNOW, is that he did have them, did use them, did have extensive programs,

All of which were destroyed by the UN after the first Gulf War. Even the supposed 10 000 litres of anthrax is nothing more than the maximum amount of liquid growth medium that could have been created from the missing stocks - all of which would have expired now.

The only thing that brought those inspections to an end was that the very same David Kay had allowed his inspection teams to become covers for British and American intelligence. The Iraqis objected to spies wondering around their country under UN cover (and can you name another country that refused to allow intrusive inspections? Here's a clue)

Kay's spent much of the last few years saying what a great idea it would be to attack Iraq (here and here and here and here and here and here) to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. So if they aren't found, it's David Kay who is going to look stupid. He's already had to do some serious back-pedalling on the nuclear programme, centrifuges, those trucks that were supposedly mobile labs

The BBC's 'Panorama' got some good quotes out of Kay. I recommend a read of the transcript.

But why blame David Kay, here is an assessment of Saddam Hussein's capabilities straight from the top:

'He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction, he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.'
Colin Powell. (24th February 2001)

Best wishes,
Mike.