Slashdot Mirror

Thanks for the link to wikipedia... but for those who would like to go to the actual National Film Registry (NFR) site:

• The NFR home page: National Film Preservation Board - National Film Registry
• Films added in 2010: Films Selected to the National Film Registry, Library of Congress - 2010
• Films added before that: Films Selected to The National Film Registry, Library of Congress 1989-2009

Also, if you'd like to make recommendations for next year's list, here are some ideas on possible films to nominate. You can nominate up to 50 titles per year by sending an email to: dross@loc.gov.

Thanks for the link to wikipedia... but for those who would like to go to the actual National Film Registry (NFR) site:

• The NFR home page: National Film Preservation Board - National Film Registry
• Films added in 2010: Films Selected to the National Film Registry, Library of Congress - 2010
• Films added before that: Films Selected to The National Film Registry, Library of Congress 1989-2009

Also, if you'd like to make recommendations for next year's list, here are some ideas on possible films to nominate. You can nominate up to 50 titles per year by sending an email to: dross@loc.gov.

Thanks for the link to wikipedia... but for those who would like to go to the actual National Film Registry (NFR) site:

• The NFR home page: National Film Preservation Board - National Film Registry
• Films added in 2010: Films Selected to the National Film Registry, Library of Congress - 2010
• Films added before that: Films Selected to The National Film Registry, Library of Congress 1989-2009

Also, if you'd like to make recommendations for next year's list, here are some ideas on possible films to nominate. You can nominate up to 50 titles per year by sending an email to: dross@loc.gov.

Thanks for the link to wikipedia... but for those who would like to go to the actual National Film Registry (NFR) site:

• The NFR home page: National Film Preservation Board - National Film Registry
• Films added in 2010: Films Selected to the National Film Registry, Library of Congress - 2010
• Films added before that: Films Selected to The National Film Registry, Library of Congress 1989-2009

Also, if you'd like to make recommendations for next year's list, here are some ideas on possible films to nominate. You can nominate up to 50 titles per year by sending an email to: dross@loc.gov.

Thanks for the link to wikipedia... but for those who would like to go to the actual National Film Registry (NFR) site:

• The NFR home page: National Film Preservation Board - National Film Registry
• Films added in 2010: Films Selected to the National Film Registry, Library of Congress - 2010
• Films added before that: Films Selected to The National Film Registry, Library of Congress 1989-2009

Also, if you'd like to make recommendations for next year's list, here are some ideas on possible films to nominate. You can nominate up to 50 titles per year by sending an email to: dross@loc.gov.

Except the bill specifically states what can be funded.

The Senate bill, which is what specifically what the Republicans voted down, is here. There is a list of things that can be done. None of it is even providing health care, just encouraging nations to enable to access to health care.

The idea that 'support for community-based activities that encourage community members to address beliefs or practices that promote child marriage and to educate parents, community leaders, religious leaders, and adolescents of the health risks associated with child marriage and the benefits for adolescents, especially girls, of access to education, health care, livelihood skills, microfinance, and savings programs;' somehow is causing abortion is absurd. It's trying to get people to accept the idea that young girls are actually human beings.

Plus, um, nothing was stopping Republicans from putting an amendment into the bill to stop any hypothetical issues WRT abortion.

It's just an absurd goddamn excuse because the Republicans don't like to spend any money that doesn't benefit their rich friends.

I also don't know about the history of this legislation, but if you were cynical, you might consider the idea that some politicians could use exactly this type of legislation to paint others as "pro-raping children."

Oh, they're not pro-rape.

They're just not anti-rape. Attempting to discourage rape is a huge overreach of government power.

Or the alternate idea is that Senate Republicans are horribly sexist, which, frankly, is not insane.

The bill was attached to a huge omnibus spending package.

No, it wasn't. You need to actually pay attention.

The bill was S. 987. The text is here. It's three fucking pages on my screen.

And you do realize that the bailout was under Bush, right?

index page and PDF

I see no reason to listen to a socialist who wants to censor the net.

Falcon

Here is a better link for that piece of proposed legislation that clearly shows that it hasn't even come up for a vote yet. The "vote" you, techdirt and cnet are reporting about merely brings the bill out of committee and to the Senate floor...nothing more.

To the extent that states were free, until the 14th amendment, to ignore the provisions of the Constitution that limited the federal government, sure, states could have a state religion, though you're statement about 'gradually phased out' doesn't seem all that accurate going by the loc page.

But even ignoring that - So what? I will concede that properly prior to 1868 the statement should have been "The founders 'Clearly' believed these rights came from a higher power . . . and immediately initiated first and foremost an amendment explicitly banning the Federal government from formally recognizing said higher power?", but c'mon - despite the propoganda out there the public record clearly shows that yes the founders wanted government thoroughly segregated from religion. Even the State governments had lost the fashion well before 1868.

Trying to claim the founders had some other intent despite their repeated public writing to the contrary? Bullshit.

Pug

No it wasn't. The right wing bill counter to Hillary care did not force everyone to get insurance. It also did a few things differently too.

You can read it yourself. It's S.1770.PCS in the 103rd congress if the link doesn't work.

There has been several GOP health care bills over the years. They all pretty much boil down to the same things though. This latest incarnation is somewhat of an extra with placing high risk patients on the state pools and prodding them to assist in the coverage fees.

In fact, I was under the impression they were trying to limit obmacare to that but the dems wouldn't let them be involved in the open and transparent government. You know, like Nancy said, we won't know what's in the bill until after we vote for it. Anyways, they prepared their own bill which has been available in summery form at their road map page since sometime last year. Here is a sample of their 1993-4 bill in full context.

In both examples, they provided for pre-exisitng conditions quite well.

I prefer to rely on Ron Paul's legislative history rather than his speeches or books.

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States

Ron Paul has no problem trying to pass legislation to restore the imperialistic land grab perpetrated in 1903 when the United States signed a treaty with a French diplomat to give away sovereign territory to the United States.

I don't know about Rand Paul because he doesn't have the legislative history to form an opinion, from comments he has made I disagree with him in most cases.

However, Ron Paul does have an extensive legislative history and in fact is trying to revert the United States back to the Articles of Confederation where state government law can supersede federal law and the rights of individuals.

Case in point is his Religious Freedom Restoration Act that would remove citizens access to the third branch of the government, the Supreme Court, when addressing grievances against state laws that are religion based. This in effect will establish mob rules democracy at the state level and remove Constitutional law that protects citizens against such oppression.

Exactly.

Ron Paul makes popular statements about the big bad Federal government but gets a free pass on the real legislation he tries to ram through Congress that is designed specifically to give state government the right to infringe on citizens rights. Ron Paul is no friend of freedom nor the Constitution of the United States. In fact, James Madison noted that the infringement of citizen's rights by these "State's Rights" goons was likely the sole driving factor that made the Constitution of the United States possible...

James Madison, October 24 1787

A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects.

The Constitution of the United States was meant to protect against the flagrant oppression of mob democracy that was practised at the state level and that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to bring back. And whether they realise it or not Ron Paul supporters are supporting establishment of a Christian State Theocracy with oppressive religion based laws.

These are some pertinent Ron Paul bills that highlight his true political nature:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress...

Exactly.

Ron Paul makes popular statements about the big bad Federal government but gets a free pass on the real legislation he tries to ram through Congress that is designed specifically to give state government the right to infringe on citizens rights. Ron Paul is no friend of freedom nor the Constitution of the United States. In fact, James Madison noted that the infringement of citizen's rights by these "State's Rights" goons was likely the sole driving factor that made the Constitution of the United States possible...

James Madison, October 24 1787

A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects.

The Constitution of the United States was meant to protect against the flagrant oppression of mob democracy that was practised at the state level and that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to bring back. And whether they realise it or not Ron Paul supporters are supporting establishment of a Christian State Theocracy with oppressive religion based laws.

These are some pertinent Ron Paul bills that highlight his true political nature:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress...

Exactly.

Ron Paul makes popular statements about the big bad Federal government but gets a free pass on the real legislation he tries to ram through Congress that is designed specifically to give state government the right to infringe on citizens rights. Ron Paul is no friend of freedom nor the Constitution of the United States. In fact, James Madison noted that the infringement of citizen's rights by these "State's Rights" goons was likely the sole driving factor that made the Constitution of the United States possible...

James Madison, October 24 1787

A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights. The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil. The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism. I am persuaded I do not err in saying that the evils issuing from these sources contributed more to that uneasiness which produced the Convention, and prepared the public mind for a general reform, than those which accrued to our national character and interest from the inadequacy of the Confederation to its immediate objects.

The Constitution of the United States was meant to protect against the flagrant oppression of mob democracy that was practised at the state level and that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to bring back. And whether they realise it or not Ron Paul supporters are supporting establishment of a Christian State Theocracy with oppressive religion based laws.

These are some pertinent Ron Paul bills that highlight his true political nature:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the States to prohibit the physical destruction of the flag of the United States and authorizing Congress...

I think you have misunderstood Ron Paul's political position and his political objectives.

When you compare Ron Paul's speeches to his legislative record there are some glaring inconsistencies. What most people listening to Ron's speeches don't realise though is that the purpose of his speeches on Wikileaks, the Iraq war, etc. are not necessarily in defence or opposition to those causes, he is only taking advantage of what he sees an an opportunity to induce distrust, confusion and anger into the public mind when dealing with anything in the Federal government because Ron Paul wants to place state governments at the forefront of law and governance in the United States.

In 1997 Ron tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow states to make it illegal for citizens to deface the flag of the United States. Clearly an infringement of citizens rights to freedom of speech that are now protected by the Constitution of the United States.

In 1999 Ron tried to pass a congressional bill that would declare the land in Panama on which the Panama Canal resides as sovereign United States territory. This appears contradictory to statements he has made about recent wars but in reviewing his statements I think people misunderstand what he is saying, Ron Paul is not against Imperialist actions by the United States but he believes they are only legal if they are initiated by the Congress and not by the Executive Branch.

And the real humdinger, in 2003 Ron tried to remove the check and balance of the Supreme Court with legislation that would bar the Supreme Court from addressing citizen's grievances against unconstitutional state laws that arose from religious dogma. I think Ron dreamt this one up after a few Texas state laws were struck down by the Supreme Court like the Texas sodomy law that tried to outlaw gay sex.

The reality is that Ron Paul is against Constitutional law and wants nothing short of a return to the Articles of Confederation that allowed individual states to determine for themselves what rights would be protected and when it is okay for the majority to oppress the minority.
 

I think you have misunderstood Ron Paul's political position and his political objectives.

When you compare Ron Paul's speeches to his legislative record there are some glaring inconsistencies. What most people listening to Ron's speeches don't realise though is that the purpose of his speeches on Wikileaks, the Iraq war, etc. are not necessarily in defence or opposition to those causes, he is only taking advantage of what he sees an an opportunity to induce distrust, confusion and anger into the public mind when dealing with anything in the Federal government because Ron Paul wants to place state governments at the forefront of law and governance in the United States.

In 1997 Ron tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow states to make it illegal for citizens to deface the flag of the United States. Clearly an infringement of citizens rights to freedom of speech that are now protected by the Constitution of the United States.

In 1999 Ron tried to pass a congressional bill that would declare the land in Panama on which the Panama Canal resides as sovereign United States territory. This appears contradictory to statements he has made about recent wars but in reviewing his statements I think people misunderstand what he is saying, Ron Paul is not against Imperialist actions by the United States but he believes they are only legal if they are initiated by the Congress and not by the Executive Branch.

And the real humdinger, in 2003 Ron tried to remove the check and balance of the Supreme Court with legislation that would bar the Supreme Court from addressing citizen's grievances against unconstitutional state laws that arose from religious dogma. I think Ron dreamt this one up after a few Texas state laws were struck down by the Supreme Court like the Texas sodomy law that tried to outlaw gay sex.

The reality is that Ron Paul is against Constitutional law and wants nothing short of a return to the Articles of Confederation that allowed individual states to determine for themselves what rights would be protected and when it is okay for the majority to oppress the minority.
 

I think you have misunderstood Ron Paul's political position and his political objectives.

When you compare Ron Paul's speeches to his legislative record there are some glaring inconsistencies. What most people listening to Ron's speeches don't realise though is that the purpose of his speeches on Wikileaks, the Iraq war, etc. are not necessarily in defence or opposition to those causes, he is only taking advantage of what he sees an an opportunity to induce distrust, confusion and anger into the public mind when dealing with anything in the Federal government because Ron Paul wants to place state governments at the forefront of law and governance in the United States.

In 1997 Ron tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow states to make it illegal for citizens to deface the flag of the United States. Clearly an infringement of citizens rights to freedom of speech that are now protected by the Constitution of the United States.

In 1999 Ron tried to pass a congressional bill that would declare the land in Panama on which the Panama Canal resides as sovereign United States territory. This appears contradictory to statements he has made about recent wars but in reviewing his statements I think people misunderstand what he is saying, Ron Paul is not against Imperialist actions by the United States but he believes they are only legal if they are initiated by the Congress and not by the Executive Branch.

And the real humdinger, in 2003 Ron tried to remove the check and balance of the Supreme Court with legislation that would bar the Supreme Court from addressing citizen's grievances against unconstitutional state laws that arose from religious dogma. I think Ron dreamt this one up after a few Texas state laws were struck down by the Supreme Court like the Texas sodomy law that tried to outlaw gay sex.

The reality is that Ron Paul is against Constitutional law and wants nothing short of a return to the Articles of Confederation that allowed individual states to determine for themselves what rights would be protected and when it is okay for the majority to oppress the minority.
 

They will enforce it by adhering to the standards that were written long before the law was.

Obama and his crew are EXTREMELY leftist, with respect to what the majority of US citizens want to see in government.

Please provide at least one example, comparing Obama policy versus opinion polls.

Here are two counter-examples:

Health care: polls suggest that Americans are not opposed to single-payer health care. For example: the July 2009 Kaiser Health Tracking Poll.

• If asked their opinion of "Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance through an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for-all", respondents were 58% in favor and 38% opposed.
• Using alternative wording, "Having a national health plan – or single-payer plan – in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan", respondents were 50% in favor and 44% opposed

By contrast, Obama and the Democrats worked against those advocating single-payer:

Baucus and many others, including President Barack Obama, say single-payer is not practical or politically feasible.

"Everything is on the table with the single exception of single-payer," Baucus said recently. "This country is not going to adopt single-payer, at least not at this time."

The plan finally passed by the Democrats was based on the reforms implemented under Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and has many similarities to the bill introduced by Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) in 1993 (with a number of Republican cosponsors).

On Afghanistan, based on polls, Obama seems to be pretty centrist: about half of respondents think the U.S. should not be involved in Afghanistan now, and those opposed to current policy appear to be roughly divided evenly between opposite views.

I seem to recall that the Library of Congress gets a copy of every book published in the US.

You look at their record. It may surprise people to know that the entire legislative agenda for the US Government is online, and has been for years. You want to see what your elected officials are doing? Look it up. Be informed.

This release from Wikileaks does nothing to create more openness in government. Nobody benefits from hearing about some diplomat's opinion about another country; all this does is annoy people. There's no deeper truth to be gained here, like there was from the release of the Pentagon's papers (which revealed some disturbing problems with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan); it's all just gossip.

Unfortunately it's also dangerous gossip. Example: the biggest bombshell in this data is the fact that--surprise!--nobody likes Iran, even the other Arabs. We all pretty much knew that already; nobody said it because it would just hurt its ruling party's feelings, and that's probably not a good idea considering Iran already sponsors suicide bombers and militant extremists around the world. Iran's prime minister is already frothing at the mouth and calling for more violence against the West as a result of this release; how much more money will be going to the Taliban and Al Queda because of that?

It is being enforced or pushed by the names above in a way not likely originally intended. The four above are definitely the ones to have the idea to try and misinterpret the law in a way to fuck over NASA to bring their district more money. (Three Republicans and a Democrat). But they didn't table the bill.

The actual bill (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010) however can be found here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:s.03729:

Sponsored by Jay Rockefeller (D)
Unanimous pass in the senate
74% of dems and 69% of republicans.
A rather bi-partisan effort given the political climate shortly before midterms. Which I think highlights that dems and republicans can actually work together to get things done. Not probably the most popular sentiment but I find it comforting that things are as divided as the media would have us believe.

If some kid posts a clip of a TV show on You Tube, under this 'law', the courts could block access for every single citizen, even though YouTube is not directly responsible for that kids' actions.

Not really,

`(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is `dedicated to infringing activities' if such site--
                                    `(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--

                                                `(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

                                                `(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946' or the `Lanham Act'; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and
`(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.
Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

I would think that Youtube would have a demonstrable, commercially significant purpose. The part that worries me is that this bill would task the USG with going after these "Internet Bad Guys", yet shielding the complaintants.

This is the difference between the purpose of a public education (ideas established in the later industrial revolution)

I think I agree with your distinction of "university education" versus "industrial education"; but I don't think it's accurate to conflate public education with "industrial education". The idea of public education predates the industrial revolution -- Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of public education, for example.

It certainly may be the case that public education has been twisted and perverted to be more of a system for producing workers than citizens -- though that was not my experience in the Baltimore County Public Schools of the 1970s and 80s. Indeed, I think that the public education I received was more geared towards developing independent critical thought, than the education I would have received in the private alternatives -- which were Catholic schools, military-style academies, or boarding schools.

But then, I was in a lot of "gifted and talented" classes, in the very early days of BCPS's GT program, so my experience might not be representative. Plus, it was the touchy-feely 1970s.

Agreed. I'd love to see them offer a copy of this to the United States Library of Congress, whose mission is "... to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations." As the US Copyright Office is part of the Library, they should know the right way to handle this distribution (or they should realize that there's no right way and that they should create one.)

And yes, I know that Geocities hosted pages from people all around the world, but the majority are probably from the US and so in some sense "under the US LoC's jurisdiction." At the very least it's a good place to start. Then maybe the LoC can work with other national libraries.

The ridiculously complex tax code is to blame. It's time to flush it and start again. That's one of the concepts behind H.R.25, also known as the FairTax.

It's a misconception that corporations pay taxes. They don't. They get all their money from their customers (and some from investment). If you raise corporate taxes, the corporation raises prices to cover the tax. Why hide it like this? Just tax the customer, so we can all SEE how much tax we're paying. It's the only way to keep people involved in the battle to lower government spending, which is out of control.

Now might be a good time for the House of Representatives to look at HR.25, and if they pass it, then getting the IRS back on its feet would suddenly become a VERY low priority.

The house counterpart is worded a bit more broadly. It would extend the provisions described to cover text based messages as well.

That version was sidelined. Real status is in Thomas, Congress's revision control system. Check the "related bills" link and see which version is furthest along.. S.3304's revision history ("Major Congressional Actions") reads:

• 5/4/2010 Introduced in Senate
• 8/3/2010 Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported by Senator Rockefeller with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
• 8/5/2010 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
• 9/28/2010 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
• 9/28/2010 Cleared for White House.

Tthe House version went to the Senate, the Senate substituted their version and passed it, that version went back to the House (both houses must approve the identical text), was passed there yesterday, and the bill is off to the White House for signature or (unlikely) veto.

This has nothing to do with the Web. It's about telephony in its VoIP form, broadcast content redistributed over the Internet, and mobile browsers. It doesn't affect web sites. See S.3304.

A "preservationist" is someone like Martin Scorsese who has worked tirelessly to make sure old celluloid films aren't lost. He's doing it to make sure others can get the kind of exposure to the history of our culture as shown in cinema.

Thanks for mentioning Scorsese. Besides working to preserve old films through his Film Foundation and as the DGA representative to the National Film Preservation Board), he has spoken eloquently and often on such evils as "pan-and-scan" and time compression, and how profoundly they can alter a director's work. I have great respect for that man.

Really? This USA PATRIOT Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR03162:%5D Or is there another one we're now talking about?

Sorry to break it to you, but 3D was THE dominant form of visual home entertainment from the 1860s until about 1915. The Holmes stereoscope was found in almost every middle-class household, and the production of stereo cards was big business. Visit the Library of Congress Stereograph Cards site to get an rough idea of the popularity of the art form.

As for 3D movies, there have been five major waves of popularity:

• The 1920s, with gooseneck rotary-shutter viewers (much like current liquid crystal shutterglasses) mounted on the seat in front of you. Admittedly this was limited mostly to a couple of theaters in NYC.
• The 1952-53 3D boom, which produced most of the cliches so annoying now. Although if you want to see 3D done right, watch Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder" in 3D sometime. The only time anything pokes out of the screen, it's for precisely the right reason. Cameron followed his example for "Avatar." I can also recommend "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" and "It Came from Outer Space" as superior 3D movies from the period.
• The early Seventies sexploitation movies, mostly typified by "The Stewardesses" (mostly unwatchable), and "Andy Warhol's Frankenstein," which is very, very watchable, and uses 3D to compound the jokes.
• The unfortunate 1983 3D boom, which had precisely zero good movies. The two most famous are "Jaws 3D" and "Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone," which should give you an idea of the craptaculosity of the rest of them.
• The current period, which shows some promise.

For recent films, you must distinguish between movies specifically photographed in 3D, such as Avatar, Coraline, and any of the computer-generated animated films, and the synthetic 3D done in post-production, like most of the really crappy cardboard-cutout abominations out there now.

3D isn't going to go away, although its popularity may wax and wane. Personally I hope this time it's finally here to stay. There are always idiot filmmakers going to throw things at the screen, and idiot studios who think you can use a computer to make a 2D movie 3D.

There have been less than a hundred movies originally filmed in 3D (not 2D conversions) since the invention of the cinema. It's an expensive process that requires a director able to visualize in three dimensions. How many silent films were made before we got Griffith or Eisenstein or Lang?

Also, I take issue with this meme that 25% of all those incarcerated are locked up ONLY for non-violent drug charges. For that to be true, it would require that ON AVERAGE one in for convicts behind bars was guilty of either using or selling drugs, without any associated crimes, like robbery, assault, possession of a gun, etc., and that is simply unbelievable.

Drug users poison themselves, and I find very few possession charges of "individual use" quantities of drugs that carry mandatory prison time...

Up until a few weeks ago, possession of crack cocaine (but not powder) carried a minimum five-year sentence.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S.1789:@@@D&summ2=m&

Not only was the minimum sentence a ridiculous circumvention of our judicial system, having it only apply to crack cocaine possession unduly targets low income users/addicts (who statistically tend to be underrepresented minorities).

Really? Where are you buying these zetabyte hard drives?

Um....where? If you mean the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" bill, it is available here. If you mean the amendment "Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010", the text is available at THOMAS, from the Library of Congress. Where does it say that?

I'm not saying that I know that they do or do not include a provision for 17 year olds to issue IRS forms, but that doesn't sound right. And a quick search for the value $600 doesn't come up with anything like the above.

/sigh

"The Virginia Plan was proposed. That plan called for putting into the Constitution language such that the Federal government could override state law whenever the two conflicted."

No, it was the plan to have the national legislature apportioned by population, giving big states like New York and (wait for it...) Virginia the advantage in lawmaking. It was, predictably, rejected by the smaller states, like Connecticut, who produced the compromise of a bicameral legislature, one chamber apportioned while the other had equal representation.

"That plan was overwhelmingly voted down."

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

--Article VI, clause 2, emphasis mine.

"The Supreme Court can declare that certain things are un-Constitutional, but it is not the final arbiter of what is Constitutional. Only the States are empowered to do that."

South Carolina called, they want their Nullification Crisis back.

"NO branch of the Federal Government, including the Supreme Court, was given authority to decide what the Federal Government may or may not do. That power was left to the States themselves."

Then what, exactly, is the point of Congress? If there's hard-and-fast answers to all possible political questions about what the government can and cannot, will or won't, should and shouldn't do, what's the point of having a deliberative body at all, let alone a deliberative lawmaking body?

"Allowing the Federal government decide what its own powers may be is called "putting the foxes in charge of the henhouse","

No, it's called "the political process." And if there is going to be a metaphor involving foxes and henhouses, the fox is the states themselves, whose efforts to cripple the federal government under the Articles of Confederation were the entire catalyst for the Annapolis Convention to begin with.

"and the Founding Fathers were much too smart for that. Want proof?"

Can I have a side-order of context with your proof?

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson

First and foremost, TJ wasn't there, he was in France. I likely know more about what happened in Philadelphia than he ever did.

Secondly, this quote doesn't appear real, but rather a mash-up of two unrelated quotes, one where he expresses his concerns that the "specifically enumerated" powers don't include a national bank (Hamilton disagreed; the bank was his idea), and one where he insists that Congress' ability to "provide for the general welfare" is limited "only" to levying and expending taxes towards that goal.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare(...)"--James Madison

Awfully popular on Tea Party websites (much like the previous manufactured quote), but nobody likes talking about the source. The best I've found is a claim that this was from a debate in the House of Representatives. Y'know, after the ratification, debating what the government can and can't do... i.e. the political process.

By the way, Jimmy was the primary architect of the Virginia Plan you vilify. Maybe you should look for other people to defend your ideals.

"...the government of the United States is a definite government(...)" -- James Madison

This one actually has a verifiable source! Once again, a debate in an already-established House of Representatives. H

The untitled version of HR 1586 does have content.

Not any more, it doesn't - clicking on that link gets a complaint that your query has timed out (perhaps not surprising, given the last component of the URL - C?c111:./temp/~c1117DsjMP). However, if you go to the page for HR 1586, you can click on the link for "XXXXXXAct ofXXXX (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)" to see it in HTML, or the PDF link, which has a slightly less temporary-looking URL.

The untitled version of HR 1586 does have content.

Not any more, it doesn't - clicking on that link gets a complaint that your query has timed out (perhaps not surprising, given the last component of the URL - C?c111:./temp/~c1117DsjMP). However, if you go to the page for HR 1586, you can click on the link for "XXXXXXAct ofXXXX (Engrossed Amendment Senate - EAS)" to see it in HTML, or the PDF link, which has a slightly less temporary-looking URL.

While the name of the bill is actually funny, haha, the rest of the submission makes a big deal out of nothing.

According to the Constitution only the House can originate a bill of revenue [1]

In order to comply with this clause, the Senate typically takes a revenue-raising bill that has already been passed in the House of Representatives and amends it (or replaces it entirely) with its own bill. [2]

For instance, TARP (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008), was originally passed by the House as the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. [3]

You could try http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.1586:, which is the Library of Congress page for this bill in particular. You'll find that all six versions of the bill are listed under "bill text," with the version placed on the Senate Calendar being the final version—which, incidentally, doesn't contain much of what the Slashdot discussion seems to think it does. It taxes bonuses received by TARP recipients who still haven't repaid at least five billions dollars worth of TARP loans; so, basically, bank executives who fucked up royally a couple of years ago AND still haven't unfucked their companies aren't getting quite as lavishly rewarded at taxpayer expense as they'd hoped. Actually, given the text of the bill, AIG may be about all that's actually covered by this point; I can't believe there are many companies out there beyond that unholy clusterfuck that used to be AIG with more than five billion dollars of outstanding TARP debt on their books.

The keepers of the law are so out of touch that they are voting on a bill with no name and no content?

The untitled version of HR 1586 does have content.

You'd know that if you and other partisan hacks actually bothered to read the bill, rather than being content to fan the flames of ignorance, hatred and mistrust. But all you and the Republicans care about is politics. It's sadly ironic that you complain about lack of content, when that's exactly what your argument amounts to.

If you can't take the time to know what you're talking about quit voting so the rest of us can fix the messes you idiots keep making.

I think you've got the wrong bill #.

HR 3961 from the 111th congress

There was no 3961 that I could find from the 110th congress, but here's HR 3961 from the 109th congress.

I'd post the actual Patriot Act renewal bill, but I cannot seem to find it.

I think you've got the wrong bill #.

HR 3961 from the 111th congress

There was no 3961 that I could find from the 110th congress, but here's HR 3961 from the 109th congress.

I'd post the actual Patriot Act renewal bill, but I cannot seem to find it.

Approximately six.

This is getting old.

H.R. 3200
SEC. 401

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

            (a) In General- Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

Much more follows.

When the Internal Revenue Code was amended by HR 3200, new taxes were created. Failing to pay or evading those taxes (like failing to pay or evading any other tax designated in the code) triggers the penalties documented within the code chapter/sections I linked.

This is a tangled web that takes more than a cursory glance. It's not rocket science, but there are no official documents that lay it out in the terms you want to see aside from the documents that you don't want to accept.

Enjoy your Mazda.

That's an intriguing way to put these old pictures into context (or to give historic meaning to present-day buildings). Even more interesting is the effect of historic pictures in color: Somehow the grayscale pictures create a distance that isn't really there. The Empire That Was Russia is a collection of color pictures from Russia during the first decade of the 20th century. They were taken as sequences of individual exposures with color filters.

Support House Concurrent Resolution 298, "Expressing the sense of Congress that the videotaping or photographing of police engaged in potentially abusive activity in a public place should not be prosecuted in State or Federal courts." US citizens, click here to write your congressional representative.