Slashdot Mirror

We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

I must admit, I didn't think about that particular reason for the electoral college to exist. However, I do agree with you in wondering why we haven't seen the House of Representatives permanently increase in size since 1911. We have about 400 million people in this country that's approximately 1 representative per 919,540 people. Even though HR 1905 which was passed by the House, would give DC a voting representative (finally) and give Utah another representative bringing the total to 437, that wouldn't be much better. However, one representative per 100,000 people would be about 4000 Representatives at a salary of $165,800 apiece...$660,800,000 per year. Maybe there's a middle-ground somewhere. I'd consider it to be something to think about at least. All of my data about the US House is from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_House_of_Representatives and I verified the info about HR 1905 at the Library of Congress' website http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR1905:

I really would like to join the conspiracy crowd. However, much as I try, I just can't get there from here. Seems to happen a lot around here...

First, most classified matter I've seen is so because of where it's born. If I write a memo to my boss requesting a vacation using a classified machine, it's classified. I can get it declassified by requesting same and, after approval, it almost certainly would be. Why would I do that, though? Do you really want me wasting your tax dollars that way?

Second, if you were truly interested in what the government is doing, or spending money on, try reading the budget submissions from the related agencies and the funding bills. For instance, since you mentioned the Manhattan program, let's try DOE/NNSA. For this year's funding request see http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/08budget/Content/Volumes/Vol_1_NNSA.pdf. You're probably interested in the section that starts on page 53. The office of the President takes that and makes a budget submission -- See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/appendix/doe.pdf. Then, for what they were authorized to spend and do, try http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110HxtKyt:e379988:

You already knew all that, though, of course. No? What? Too much like work? Yes, it certainly is easier to whine than dig for those answers you claim you want.

The common thing I've noticed about conspiracy theories is that so much of our time is wasted on what's not available that the nagging issue of what *is* available will be reliably ignored. Let's justify this laziness by telling ourselves that this is what "they" want you to know. It just must not be true, right?

Lemmings. Gotta love 'em. Their life is so short :)

Well, according to Wikipedia:

___________________
The Supreme Court addressed 'executive privilege' in United States v. Nixon, the 1974 case involving the demand by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski that President Richard Nixon produce the audiotapes of conversations he and his colleagues had in the Oval Office of the White House in connection with criminal charges being brought against members of the Nixon Administration. Nixon invoked the privilege and refused to produce any records.

The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties.

The Supreme Court however rejected the notion that the President has an "absolute privilege." The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.
----------------

So, the Supreme Court has stated that Executive Privilege exists and is valid.

However, I still don't see how this applies to the EPA...
This site http://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html lists executive branch websites, but EPA is listed under "independent agencies." The page also states "Agencies are often included because they requested to be listed."
So that would lead me to believe they do not fall under the privy of Executive Privilege and can be forced by the courts to produce the full records, but that'll take time and money, and who's to say the executive branch won't interfere and back up the EPA.

But, even magazines in the shipping industry need to (or as a courtesy and self-protection measure) seek permission of vessel owners (not the ship's master or captain, but the holding or owning company) before running even favorable or industry-improvement/kudos articles and such in professional journals.

Even museum ships and other ships (except military, which are funded by tax dollars; however, since the DOD and other nations' MoDs farm out whole jobs to commercial concerns, these firms ay try to claim image rights... just look at Boeing and Lockheed Martin, et al; to use their craft in movies you might need or dearly WANT to get their permission. They may or may not fund your project, but if they give you money, you better not turn on them and write a scathing review or produce embarrassing/humiliating footage...) try to claim copyrights over the STRUCTURES. Some of it surely is tourism dollars funneling...

Even yachts and small craft are being copyrighted. See:

U.S. Copyright Office - Registration of Vessel Hull Designs
http://www.copyright.gov/vessels/

U.S. Copyright Office - Protection for Fashion Design
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html

The Learning Page-Getting Started: Copyright
http://memory.loc.gov/learn/start/cpyrt/

U.S. Copyright Office - Forms
http://www.copyright.gov/forms/

The lame thing is that in the early days of this new program (say, around 2000-2003-ish) USLIBCONG expected these "fashion designs" to fit on a single sheet of 8.5"x11" paper. But, people seeking to contain or constrain competition began submitting multiple sheets (despite the cost of doing so) because all the details could not fit and be legible. I even submitted 5 sheets of 24"x36" for a ship I designed*. I modeled it after the USN DDG-51, but "enhanced" it (for fictional, not hydrodynamic) reasons. (They WILL charge extra for over-sized and over-count sheets, last I checked...)

* Yes, I did contact the USN Public Affairs Officer, told them what I was doing, and I was told that the US public paid for the work on the DDG-51, and the US public can model after it. But, people modeling ships and planes and affixing company names will be in a different category and in need of rights permissions in some scenarios. Obviously, Boeing doesn't want 747s being depicted in crashes attributed to passenger mischief.

So how about how Paul wants to repeal birthright citizenship, which is part of the 14th Amendment? OK, fine, it's not part of the constitution proper. But neither is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Also, he made a rather veiled attack against gays; he wants to [prohibit] the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style. Now, this could be construed as reduction of federal funding in general, but he specifically singles out organizations that promote homosexuality.

He also opposes a renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and thinks the Constitution is "replete with references to God", which it really isn't.

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Re: your sig. Ron Paul on Martin Luther King: "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration"
Ron Paul on the closet: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul on San Francisco gays: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Ron Paul on protecting oneself against 'urban youth' "If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Also:
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy, pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories.

Don't listen to this drivel, read the actual law which restricts the federal courts from hearing cases which should be heard at the state level (state issues)

Don't listen to me and definitely don't listen to Yunzil who repeatedly spews nonsense about the good Dr, read the bill yourself. HR 5739

So you believe that the individual should be protected against the mob? Then do you support the We the People Act, which would prohibit the Supreme Court from overturning laws discriminating against people of a certain sexual orientation or laws discriminating against people of a certain religion, as well as having the government spend money to enforce its decisions? Think about what'll happen to gay people, non-Christians, etc., especially in deep-South states such as Texas.

With credit to Pope Guilty of the SA forums: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (which would bar atheists from holding office in Texas, prevent the striking down of antisodomy laws, prevent the government from spending any money to enforce its decisions, among many other things), pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories. He also said: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

With credit to Pope Guilty of the SA forums: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (which would bar atheists from holding office in Texas, prevent the striking down of antisodomy laws, prevent the government from spending any money to enforce its decisions, among many other things), pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories. He also said: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

With credit to Pope Guilty of the SA forums: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (which would bar atheists from holding office in Texas, prevent the striking down of antisodomy laws, prevent the government from spending any money to enforce its decisions, among many other things), pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories. He also said: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

With credit to Pope Guilty of the SA forums: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (which would bar atheists from holding office in Texas, prevent the striking down of antisodomy laws, prevent the government from spending any money to enforce its decisions, among many other things), pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories. He also said: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

With credit to Pope Guilty of the SA forums: Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (which would bar atheists from holding office in Texas, prevent the striking down of antisodomy laws, prevent the government from spending any money to enforce its decisions, among many other things), pull out of the UN, end birthright citizenship, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories. He also said: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" and "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

Above all it represents freedom and self determination. But take a look at this:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01430:

These types of things show that America is becoming more and more like Europe.

You say my "facts are not exactly unbiased" but you don't refute anything I said. Talking about facts being biased makes no sense. That corporate news kept shilling for war while the US public was in favor of war can't be explained by your entertainment/sensationalism rationale.

The news media has an obligation to question power and the government's most serious act is to go to war. So it is part of the media's job to challenge the government to justify going to war. They didn't do that in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Millions of people in the streets before the war began had a hard time getting serious coverage in most corporate news outlets.

What would be sensational is for major corporate media to report on what Iraqis want (do they want the US in or out of their country?), to report on what American people said they want in their own polls—according to Jeff Cohen and Normon Solomon, most Americans want a national health insurance program run by the government and are willing to pay higher taxes for it but CBS' Jeff Greenfield says the opposite in a news piece responding to Michael Moore's "SiCKO" (which advocates for universal health care, particularly HR676, a single-payer universal health care bill):

Reflecting what became mainstream media's conventional wisdom in the wake of Michael Moore's "SiCKO" documentary, CBS correspondent Greenfield explained that the U.S. lacks a universal healthcare system not because of the powerful insurance lobby -- but because "Americans are just different." He quoted an academic who said Americans, unlike Canadians and Europeans, don't want government involvement in healthcare: "It's a cultural difference."

Actually, CBS's own poll of Americans had found 64 percent supporting the view that the federal government should "guarantee health insurance for all" -- with 60 percent approving of higher taxes to pay for it. A CNN poll found 64 percent American support for the idea that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes."

We know the corporate media can do better. During hurricane Katrina mainstream media covered ordinary people on-air talking about what their families went through including criticism of government inaction. It's no coincidence that the media had no managers from the government controlling the message; the soldiers who would fill that role were all shipped off to Iraq.

If you believe the federal government should be involved in abortion law and education then amend the Constitution.

Maybe you should tell that to Ron Paul, who has repeatedly sponsored bills to ban abortion on the federal level, despite his hypocritical rhetoric otherwise.

I screwed up my link.

UIGEA

Ron Paul has sponsored several bills that would effectively ban abortion. To prevent the courts from overturning these laws, he's also sponsored multiple bills to remove the authority of the courts to make judgments on any abortion-related cases. I can't recall that power being in the Constitution.

Ron Paul has done everything he can to ban abortion. What, exactly, do you think the purpose of declaring a zygote to be a human life is? Making it legally equivalent to a human life makes killing one legal murder. That makes it a federal ban. Removing the jurisdiction of the courts is clearly a way to attempt to keep them from overturning an abortion ban. You might want to look up Ron Paul's other positions too. His positions on abortion is only the tip of the iceberg. He's also against net neutrality, federal privacy laws, he's tried to repeal all federal antitrust laws, worker safety laws, federal overtime rules and the minimum wage, and he's sent millions to his local Texas shrimp industries while decrying pork-barrel spending. Some of these actions go along with libertarianism, but I have a hard time believing there are Slashdotters out there that'd be happy if Microsoft had never had to worry about antitrust laws. ;)

Ron Paul is not the savior he's made out to be at all. He's as bad, if not worse, than a lot of the other candidates running.

Ron Paul has sponsored several bills that would effectively ban abortion. To prevent the courts from overturning these laws, he's also sponsored multiple bills to remove the authority of the courts to make judgments on any abortion-related cases. I can't recall that power being in the Constitution.

Ron Paul has done everything he can to ban abortion. What, exactly, do you think the purpose of declaring a zygote to be a human life is? Making it legally equivalent to a human life makes killing one legal murder. That makes it a federal ban. Removing the jurisdiction of the courts is clearly a way to attempt to keep them from overturning an abortion ban. You might want to look up Ron Paul's other positions too. His positions on abortion is only the tip of the iceberg. He's also against net neutrality, federal privacy laws, he's tried to repeal all federal antitrust laws, worker safety laws, federal overtime rules and the minimum wage, and he's sent millions to his local Texas shrimp industries while decrying pork-barrel spending. Some of these actions go along with libertarianism, but I have a hard time believing there are Slashdotters out there that'd be happy if Microsoft had never had to worry about antitrust laws. ;)

Ron Paul is not the savior he's made out to be at all. He's as bad, if not worse, than a lot of the other candidates running.

Ron Paul has sponsored several bills that would effectively ban abortion. To prevent the courts from overturning these laws, he's also sponsored multiple bills to remove the authority of the courts to make judgments on any abortion-related cases. I can't recall that power being in the Constitution.

Ron Paul has done everything he can to ban abortion. What, exactly, do you think the purpose of declaring a zygote to be a human life is? Making it legally equivalent to a human life makes killing one legal murder. That makes it a federal ban. Removing the jurisdiction of the courts is clearly a way to attempt to keep them from overturning an abortion ban. You might want to look up Ron Paul's other positions too. His positions on abortion is only the tip of the iceberg. He's also against net neutrality, federal privacy laws, he's tried to repeal all federal antitrust laws, worker safety laws, federal overtime rules and the minimum wage, and he's sent millions to his local Texas shrimp industries while decrying pork-barrel spending. Some of these actions go along with libertarianism, but I have a hard time believing there are Slashdotters out there that'd be happy if Microsoft had never had to worry about antitrust laws. ;)

Ron Paul is not the savior he's made out to be at all. He's as bad, if not worse, than a lot of the other candidates running.

Ron Paul has sponsored several bills that would effectively ban abortion. To prevent the courts from overturning these laws, he's also sponsored multiple bills to remove the authority of the courts to make judgments on any abortion-related cases. I can't recall that power being in the Constitution.

Ron Paul has done everything he can to ban abortion. What, exactly, do you think the purpose of declaring a zygote to be a human life is? Making it legally equivalent to a human life makes killing one legal murder. That makes it a federal ban. Removing the jurisdiction of the courts is clearly a way to attempt to keep them from overturning an abortion ban. You might want to look up Ron Paul's other positions too. His positions on abortion is only the tip of the iceberg. He's also against net neutrality, federal privacy laws, he's tried to repeal all federal antitrust laws, worker safety laws, federal overtime rules and the minimum wage, and he's sent millions to his local Texas shrimp industries while decrying pork-barrel spending. Some of these actions go along with libertarianism, but I have a hard time believing there are Slashdotters out there that'd be happy if Microsoft had never had to worry about antitrust laws. ;)

Ron Paul is not the savior he's made out to be at all. He's as bad, if not worse, than a lot of the other candidates running.

Ron Paul has sponsored several bills that would effectively ban abortion. To prevent the courts from overturning these laws, he's also sponsored multiple bills to remove the authority of the courts to make judgments on any abortion-related cases. I can't recall that power being in the Constitution.

Ron Paul has done everything he can to ban abortion. What, exactly, do you think the purpose of declaring a zygote to be a human life is? Making it legally equivalent to a human life makes killing one legal murder. That makes it a federal ban. Removing the jurisdiction of the courts is clearly a way to attempt to keep them from overturning an abortion ban. You might want to look up Ron Paul's other positions too. His positions on abortion is only the tip of the iceberg. He's also against net neutrality, federal privacy laws, he's tried to repeal all federal antitrust laws, worker safety laws, federal overtime rules and the minimum wage, and he's sent millions to his local Texas shrimp industries while decrying pork-barrel spending. Some of these actions go along with libertarianism, but I have a hard time believing there are Slashdotters out there that'd be happy if Microsoft had never had to worry about antitrust laws. ;)

Ron Paul is not the savior he's made out to be at all. He's as bad, if not worse, than a lot of the other candidates running.

Ron Paul has sponsored several bills that would effectively ban abortion. To prevent the courts from overturning these laws, he's also sponsored multiple bills to remove the authority of the courts to make judgments on any abortion-related cases. I can't recall that power being in the Constitution.

Ron Paul has done everything he can to ban abortion. What, exactly, do you think the purpose of declaring a zygote to be a human life is? Making it legally equivalent to a human life makes killing one legal murder. That makes it a federal ban. Removing the jurisdiction of the courts is clearly a way to attempt to keep them from overturning an abortion ban. You might want to look up Ron Paul's other positions too. His positions on abortion is only the tip of the iceberg. He's also against net neutrality, federal privacy laws, he's tried to repeal all federal antitrust laws, worker safety laws, federal overtime rules and the minimum wage, and he's sent millions to his local Texas shrimp industries while decrying pork-barrel spending. Some of these actions go along with libertarianism, but I have a hard time believing there are Slashdotters out there that'd be happy if Microsoft had never had to worry about antitrust laws. ;)

Ron Paul is not the savior he's made out to be at all. He's as bad, if not worse, than a lot of the other candidates running.

Ron Paul has sponsored several bills that would effectively ban abortion. To prevent the courts from overturning these laws, he's also sponsored multiple bills to remove the authority of the courts to make judgments on any abortion-related cases. I can't recall that power being in the Constitution.

Ron Paul has done everything he can to ban abortion. What, exactly, do you think the purpose of declaring a zygote to be a human life is? Making it legally equivalent to a human life makes killing one legal murder. That makes it a federal ban. Removing the jurisdiction of the courts is clearly a way to attempt to keep them from overturning an abortion ban. You might want to look up Ron Paul's other positions too. His positions on abortion is only the tip of the iceberg. He's also against net neutrality, federal privacy laws, he's tried to repeal all federal antitrust laws, worker safety laws, federal overtime rules and the minimum wage, and he's sent millions to his local Texas shrimp industries while decrying pork-barrel spending. Some of these actions go along with libertarianism, but I have a hard time believing there are Slashdotters out there that'd be happy if Microsoft had never had to worry about antitrust laws. ;)

Ron Paul is not the savior he's made out to be at all. He's as bad, if not worse, than a lot of the other candidates running.

"Early" 2001, February 2001, like before the Clintons had left the grounds, as Nacchio has said all along- PRIOR to 9/11! If you read the text of the latest FISA bill that includes retroactive immunity, it says they would drop civil suits only for spying AFTER 9/11. Plus, the amendment says it would have to be shown they didn't think it was illegal because the Bush administration said it wasn't, and last time I checked, the executive branch doesn't make the law...unless you count signing statements.

It's H.R. 4279. The resolution can be found here. It looks quite bipartisan.

What I'd like to see is a representative or senator brave enough to say, "I think we need to stop making laws for a while, to see how what we have works, or not." A key feature that is seemingly absent from our legislative process is a feedback loop. One that asks: Is this working as intended? Do we need to change it? Is it being abused? I like sunset clauses too, but I'm only aware of one piece of legislation that had it, the so-called Assault Weapon Ban.

About 10 years ago, I read "Spock's World." One interesting concept from that book was that the Vulcan legislature had a branch dedicated to purging useless legislation. It would be nice to have one of those too.

Just had a thought: that would be one heck of a community project.

I'm surprised the writer didn't evaluate Koha, which is a GPL'ed integrated library management system. It can handle Z39.50 MARC lookups. (For those that don't speak the lingo, that means getting cataloging data, usually from the Library of Congress' public gateway.)

Koha may have been overkill, I guess, since it also has a bazillion features for things like managing branch libraries, cataloging serials, and keeping track of vendor relationships.

I used LCC for my modest library of 500 books. Looked the books up at the Library of Congress then copied and pasted the LCC information into an StarOffice8 spreadsheet. Also looked up on Amazon to get the price. Sorted by LCC and printed out.

LCC Search Website
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

Now for oddities. Edward R. Tufte's books were one. I would appreciate any illumination on this.
"Visual Explanations" CALL NUMBER P93.5.T84 1990 Subject area: Visual Communication (from full record tab)
"Envisioning Information" CALL NUMBER P93.5.T846 1997 Subject area: Visual Communication (from full record tab)
"The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" CALL NUMBER QA276.3.T83 1983 Statistics Graphic Records (from full record tab)
Seems odd to me that one of Tufte's is way over in Statistics Graphics.

Foreign Language
LCC is happy to catalog some more modern mainstrame foreign language books. For example: "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia"
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&ti=1,1&SEQ=20071211155612&Search_Arg=Biblia%20Hebraica%20Stuttgartensia&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=11419&SID=1

Thanks for all the comments,
Jim

I used LCC for my modest library of 500 books. Looked the books up at the Library of Congress then copied and pasted the LCC information into an StarOffice8 spreadsheet. Also looked up on Amazon to get the price. Sorted by LCC and printed out.

LCC Search Website
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First

Now for oddities. Edward R. Tufte's books were one. I would appreciate any illumination on this.
"Visual Explanations" CALL NUMBER P93.5.T84 1990 Subject area: Visual Communication (from full record tab)
"Envisioning Information" CALL NUMBER P93.5.T846 1997 Subject area: Visual Communication (from full record tab)
"The Visual Display of Quantitative Information" CALL NUMBER QA276.3.T83 1983 Statistics Graphic Records (from full record tab)
Seems odd to me that one of Tufte's is way over in Statistics Graphics.

Foreign Language
LCC is happy to catalog some more modern mainstrame foreign language books. For example: "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia"
http://catalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v3=1&ti=1,1&SEQ=20071211155612&Search_Arg=Biblia%20Hebraica%20Stuttgartensia&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=11419&SID=1

Thanks for all the comments,
Jim

While he the grandparent was uncouth about it, he is right, Ron Paul has a lot of bad ideas.

Ron Paul runs on a platform of states rights and openly says it is so the states can remove those rights currently protected by the Federal government. There is nothing in the earth or the stars that proclaims a state government would be any more sane with guaranteeing our freedoms than a federal government. In fact if you go into the South you'll find state's rights as an excuse for racism as much as anything else, if you go to the bible belt you'll find state's rights as an excuse to teach creationism Christianity using public funds while ignoring the scientific aspects of evolution that would be just as if not more important to a growing mind. Ron Paul doesn't want to limit the government to protect the citizen he wants to limit it to restrict the citizen.

Ron Paul runs on a platform of strict-constitutionalism but he supports amendments to tear down the Full Faith and Credit clause (src: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html). He wants to limit the ability of the supreme court to protect separation of church and state, the right to an abortion, the right for people to have sex with whomever they wish (be it man and women out of wedlock, or woman and woman, or a married couple getting a little freaky) and even the right to marry. (src: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300.IH:;)

Ron Paul wants to return the legislating of environmental policies to states, but fails to recognize that pollution in one state can cause serious or worse implications in other states.

Ron Paul wants to remove the IRS, but seems to have no firm plan on how to make up lost funds. In some places he has said he won't replace it with anything, in some places he claims to use what amounts to a regressive tax policy to replace it meaning people who make less end up paying more percentage-wise (this is in direct contradiction to reforms suggested by billionaire Warren Buffet).

Again in his currency policy he is unclear, he wants to return us to a system similar to the gold standard and even endorsing multiple currencies. He seems not to recognize the strength of having one clear currency and the fact hat our economy has been for the most part more resilient because we stopped using the gold standard.

There are a number of other issues with his platform, but I'll end on a conciliatory note with the parent. If all RP does is stop the drug war we will be better off, because if he does even 1/10th of the other things we will not be better off.

What you really want to know is the status of the bill. This one has just been introduced and passed to the Judiciary Committee, from the looks of it. But here's a helpful link to the list of cosponsors of the bill.

• John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) (sponsor)
• Howard Berman (D-CA)
• Steve Chabot (R-OH)
• Steve Cohen (D-TN)
• Tom Feeney (R-FL)
• Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
• Darrell Issa (R-CA)
• Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX)
• Ric Keller (R-FL)
• Adam Schiff (D-CA)
• Lamar Smith (R-TX)
• Robert Wexler (D-FL)

If you are represented by any of these people in Congress, you have a special duty to write and explain how poorly-represented you are.

The bill is H.R.4279.

More information including full text available from the .

The bill is H.R.4279.

More information including full text available from the .

The bill is H.R.4279.

More information including full text available from the .

H.R.4279

So as long as he didn't write any articles there on the subject, we can ignore all the pro-life, anti-homosexual bills he's sponsored? This year alone:

H.R.2597 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
H.R.1095 : To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity.
H.R.1094 : To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
H.R.300 To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.

He has a long history of sponsoring such bills -- and let's not even talk about what he's voted for -- as this, some much worse. Ron Paul is vehemently against homosexual rights, and he's especially eager to allow states to ban it and forbid the courts from judging that as discrimination. He has, however, supported laws to discriminate against homosexuality federally. Look it up. This is great resource.

I'm curious about what you mean by "principled" voting record. Is talking about leaving things up for the "states to decide" while trying to ban abortion on the federal level principled? Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and federal antitrust law, plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? What about his earmarks for the local shrimp industry while decrying those evil politicians wasting out money? What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning?

I'd be all for the kind of candidate people think Ron Paul is, but this guy ain't him. Aside from that, you also have to take into account his lunatic economic theories, his stance regarding the Internet, and complete withdrawal from all international organizations. I mean, Jesus. I see all these people talking about how great he is, and then very fre of them seem to actually be aware of, you know, his actual record.

I'm curious about what you mean by "principled" voting record. Is talking about leaving things up for the "states to decide" while trying to ban abortion on the federal level principled? Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and federal antitrust law, plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? What about his earmarks for the local shrimp industry while decrying those evil politicians wasting out money? What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning?

I'd be all for the kind of candidate people think Ron Paul is, but this guy ain't him. Aside from that, you also have to take into account his lunatic economic theories, his stance regarding the Internet, and complete withdrawal from all international organizations. I mean, Jesus. I see all these people talking about how great he is, and then very fre of them seem to actually be aware of, you know, his actual record.

I'm curious about what you mean by "principled" voting record. Is talking about leaving things up for the "states to decide" while trying to ban abortion on the federal level principled? Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and federal antitrust law, plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? What about his earmarks for the local shrimp industry while decrying those evil politicians wasting out money? What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning?

I'd be all for the kind of candidate people think Ron Paul is, but this guy ain't him. Aside from that, you also have to take into account his lunatic economic theories, his stance regarding the Internet, and complete withdrawal from all international organizations. I mean, Jesus. I see all these people talking about how great he is, and then very fre of them seem to actually be aware of, you know, his actual record.

I'm curious about what you mean by "principled" voting record. Is talking about leaving things up for the "states to decide" while trying to ban abortion on the federal level principled? Is talking about the need to remove power from corporations while at the same time sponsoring bills to repeal worker safety laws, the minimum wage, and federal antitrust law, plus dozens of other laws, even including child labor and overtime laws, principled? What about his earmarks for the local shrimp industry while decrying those evil politicians wasting out money? What about proclaiming himself as a purveyor of libertarianism while trying to outlaw flag-burning?

I'd be all for the kind of candidate people think Ron Paul is, but this guy ain't him. Aside from that, you also have to take into account his lunatic economic theories, his stance regarding the Internet, and complete withdrawal from all international organizations. I mean, Jesus. I see all these people talking about how great he is, and then very fre of them seem to actually be aware of, you know, his actual record.

If my links to the LOC don't work,
go here and search for "SAFE Act of 2007".
There are different versions, including a Senate and House version.

Here are the relevant ones I found.

SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3791.IH]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3791.EH]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.519.IS]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.876.IH]

I don't think you understand what this bill means.

I've posted links to the LOC elsewhere, but they don't seem to work anymore.

Go here and search for "SAFE Act of 2007".
There are different versions, including a Senate and House version.

Here are the relevant ones.

SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3791.IH]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3791.EH]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)[S.519.IS]
SAFE Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)[H.R.876.IH]