Slashdot Mirror

You can't just say "I didn't vote for this" and absolve yourself from responsibility. Your tax dollars are paying for this and there is something that you can do about it:

1. Go here: https://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup.
2. Type in your info.
3. Call each number and leave a message stating "I am one of your registered constituents. I do not support the drone program. I perceive it to be illegal and may constitute war crimes. My name is Doofus O. Death and I live at *your address here*."
4. Done!

That would take 1-4 minutes depending upon which state you live in and how many representatives you have.

Well, first you're going to have to explain in which ethical framework you think I'm trying to absolve myself, and why I failed to do so, and why I should accept that framework as relevant to me in the first place.

Second, you might want to consider the expected payoff of me calling my congressman on each of those issue, given the fact that I have no reason to believe that other constituents are adding their voices as well.

Third, you'd have to show that the expected payoff is worth sacrificing the other things I could do with that time, which you can only guess at, and would also be a value judgment which I might not share.

You can't just say "I didn't vote for this" and absolve yourself from responsibility. Your tax dollars are paying for this and there is something that you can do about it:

1. Go here: https://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup.
2. Type in your info.
3. Call each number and leave a message stating "I am one of your registered constituents. I do not support the drone program. I perceive it to be illegal and may constitute war crimes. My name is Doofus O. Death and I live at *your address here*."
4. Done!

That would take 1-4 minutes depending upon which state you live in and how many representatives you have.

Write to your congress-critters! I have. If enough people write, there could be a chance.

http://www.house.gov/represent...

  https://www.opencongress.org/p...
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/US-...
http://www.contactingthecongre...

Have you tried google? One of the interesting things that came up for me is http://www.opencongress.org./

Also, lobbyist and special interest can be helpful here. Many put out a report card. So, have an issue you care about, go to the biggest special interest group for that issue. It doesn't matter if you agree with their position or not. If you agree with them their high rating are a good sign, if you disagree with them then their low ratings are a good sign.

Remember MCI? Yes, tell us all about how much less competition we'll have when you're forced to compete on service instead of in disservice. Blow it out your interconnect. We've already been down this road. ISP definition of "competition" is how much more they can over charge for shit than their competitors without actually delivering service. Thus the throttling unless the endpoints pay even more for the shit they already paid for.

ISPs are quadruple dipping: The website pays for access, the end user pays for access, OK, but then they charge extra for non-NATted IPs (hello, IPv6 exists) and unblocked ports ("business" class), and now they want to sell the websites "faster" access to the customers when we both already paid for that speed of access to each other, AND they want to put caps on the number of bits downloaded -- Hint: That's not how it works. They have to have the hardware to handle peak load, it doesn't matter if I suck in tons of gigs during off-peak time, caps are not about congestion, they're just yet another way to monetize. Not to mention "bursting" plans where they allow the first n-bytes of a download to come in fast, then throttle the shit out of it. "Up To X MB/s, (minimum 0 BAUD, yes Zero)", WTF. Damn, that's more that quadruple, but I lost count of how many dippings that is.

Visit OpenCongress and locate your congress critters via zipcode. Politely call each of them and say, "I want the FCC to classify broadband Internet services providers as common carriers", and have them repeat it (a real person will answer, and they'll have written down your words). I also mention that it should be considered illegal anti-competitive business practices for municipalities to granted ISPs monopolies, and that breaking up said monopolies will allow new competition to flourish. You can leave a comment on Issue #14-28 via the FCC Comment Filing System. Contact the FCC by Email: openinternet@fcc.gov, or call the FCC comissioners (but remember they're not beholden to voters). The most effective thing to do is write a letter to the editor mentioning your congressman's name and the net neutrality issue and send it to your local news outlet, that really gets their goat -- they care about the newspaper for some odd reason, maybe because old folks read it? Here's a petition, but these don't do shit, really it's just the illusion of shit-doing.

P.S. Here's a vid explaining the net neutrality issue. Here's another more sarcastic and long winded vid on the subject. and here's a video from an actual honest ISP. (NSFW, for brutally honest language).

Protip: Use a download accelerator to open multiple connections to the same file and trick the ISP into allowing you a faster speed. When the D/L starts getting throttled (hover to view the speed graph), pause it then unpause it and the speed goes back up (new connections = new "bursting" counter).

Found it, the law was H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013. It passed with more than 2/3 of both houses.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the senators that shut gov't down are is still being paid.

You could save a fortune if you defunded them and kicked them out of our home.

Ref Ref Ref You know, what, Lemme just google that for you

"I am The Law!" - Judge Dredd and the NSA

The Patriot Act needs to go! Join the EFF Today! and start writing you your Senators and members of congress now to get this horrid piece of legislation repealed. The only way it will stop is if we tell them both in writing and in the voting booth that we want this violation of our privacy to stop.

We have a huge hidden intelligence network that has ballooned since 9/11 and it just feeds on data and money. It's largely ineffective and couldn't actually target a couple of brothers that were directly warned by the Russians, leading to the bombing of the Boston Marathon. If you think the current administration is in support of your privacy rights, Think Again!"

“All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing...” - Edmund Burke

I’m a constituent calling on you to reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030. This law contains vague language that broadly criminalizes accessing a computer "without authorization," carries heavy-handed penalties, and shows no regard for whether an act was done to further the public good. We saw how these laws could be abused in the case of Aaron Swartz, a recently-deceased 26-year-old coder and social activist who was hounded by the Justice Department in a relentless and unjust felony prosecution.

The CFAA needs three critical fixes: first, terms of service violations must not be considered crimes. Second, if a user is allowed to access information, it should not be a crime to access that data in a new or innovative way -- which means commonplace computing techniques that protect privacy or help test security cannot be illegal. And finally, penalties must be made proportionate to offenses: minor violations should be met with minor penalties.

While it is too late to intervene on behalf of Aaron, it’s not too late to ensure that this harm is not done to future social justice activists and security researchers. Please hold a Congressional hearing to examine the ongoing abuses of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and similar laws, and champion reform so that the potential punishments fit the crimes.

You can write to them easily here: https://www.eff.org/aarons-law

Take the time to add a note to the end of the boilerplate about how you WILL NOT vote for them if they don't act.

Senators and Representatives, even somebody like me who doesn't follow all things politics-related can still see how you vote and how well you represent my interests via http://www.opencongress.org/ , at the very least. Just remember, we are watching.

Yep. They're out to make as much money as possible by *DROPPING* the average price by $2.

Reading comprehension for the win!

Maybe you should take a look at who made that $2 claim that you are spouting off as fact. Who made it again? Senator Charles Schumer made that claim in an op-ed to the Wall Street Journal. The SAME Charles Schumer that has taken at LEAST $100k in legal bribes (campaign contributions) from the book industry according to latest figured released.

Maybe you have a reliable source for that $2 claim that isn't getting kickbacks from the same industry?

1) Never even tried to bring single payer to the table as he promised he would. Obamacare is literally less progressive than Nixon's health care plan. Was Nixon a progressive?

He tried, but it was a non-starter with Blue Dog Democrats. (and Republicans as well, though that didn't matter at the time). Obama believed the total package of reforms was more important than a hard stance on the public option:
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18talkshows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1092-Blue-Dogs-Don-t-Want-a-Public-Option-That-Works

4) Medicare, medicaid, etc have been increasing exponentially. But they've been increasing exponentially for decades. And hell, Bush passed Medicare part D. Was he progressive?

I think you underestimate the size and breadth of Obamacare -- it's a 2000 page bill -- it added another 10% of the country to the health insurance industry -- it makes vast sweeping changes to the entire healthcare segment (including literally dictating how insurance companies will do business (who they must add to their roles, who they can't drop drop their roles, how much profit they can make, etc). Comparing it to Medicare part D in entitlement scope is like comparing something the size of Texas to something the size of Rhode Island. It'd be like comparing "privatizing social security" to "raising the social security age by a few years". Obamacare is a substantial increase in entitlements, of the like we haven't seen in most of our lifetimes. A public option would have been even moreso an increase in entitlements, but the lack thereof doesn't suddenly make that existing clusterfuck of a bill any less massive.

Obama was bipartisan throughout the process. He encouraged congressional democrats to work with republicans on the matter. Committees were formed and drafts were written by bipartisan committees.

His language, demeanor, AND the process disagree with you. When even moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe say they are shut out of the process (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748704007804574573841915542278.html), you can be certain nothing "bipartisan" is occurring. What proof do you have that it was? Were you there? Or did Obama just TELL you he was working with Republicans, so naturally that must be true? Hell, Snowe voted FOR the initial healthcare bill out of committee (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/29/snowe-explains-decision-to-leave-defends-tough-criticism-of-senate/). She wanted healthcare reform. She did not get the kind of cooperation she expected. Even moderates in your own party were of the same opinion: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/08/blue-dog-will-vote-against-bill-with-public-option/

"In July, Ross urged congressional leaders to slow down the pace of health care negotiations and said reform "needs to be done in a deliberate, bipartisan and common sense way." "

If Obama is the socialist monster that the conservatives paint him as, why would he have had "his goons" write a bill that changes so little? A true socialist would have insisted on socialised medicine - or at least a single payer option.

I just TOLD you why -- he couldn't get his own party behind it. Proof: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1092-Blue-Dogs-Don-t-Want-a-Public-Option-That-Works
http://www.progressiveblue.com/diary/3962/will-corporate-democrats-sink-the-public-option

Where's your proof? STOP REWRITING HISTORY: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/01/26/171901/blue-po-ahip/

And YES the final product was written solely partisan, behinds closed doors -- the final draft did not go through bipartisan committee: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/healthcare-senate-house-democrats-obama.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/01/democrats-reid-pelosi-healthcare-cspan.html

He could have vetoed it, but that would have been a huge victory for the republicans.

Then he chose career advancement over healthcare reform. Good for him, he's no different than any other career-minded stubborn Republican who refuses to raise taxes because they're worried about their job because of some asinine "agreement" they made with the populace.

He would have never seen another bill in any way related to health care had he vetoed this one.

Proof of this? Lots of people and politicians were clamoring for health care reform. I honestly doubt taking this back to square one would have simply ended the discussion of healthcare reform.

You appear as if you'll believe whatever you want to believe -- this is why none of your dialogue comes with cites, facts, or proof.

For instance Obama initially wanted to include a pubic option in the Affordable Care Act but dropped that in hopes of getting some Republican buy in.

The only reason he dropped it was because he couldn't sell it to Blue Dogs: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1092-Blue-Dogs-Don-t-Want-a-Public-Option-That-Works

When it came down to it, those compromises were put in to get his own party on board. Couple that with the fact the entire 1000-page monstrosity was written behind closed doors by a single partisan side and I find it hard to give Dems credit for "compromise". There's a difference between hashing out something together and hashing out something on your own and then trying to buy off the other side with riders.

... what the best way will be, any anybody who professes omniscience on this is lying to you. We'll have to experiment to find the best solution.

If you're in the US, ask your legislators to support a short act to make such experiments legal. Right now, trying to figure this out is a good way to land in prison.

OpenCongress.org provides RSS feeds for anything you like:

http://www.opencongress.org/about/rss

Took about 10 seconds to Google.

This bill looks more like "cyber patriot act" to me

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2489-CISPA-Rushed-to-Passage

Would you like to tell me how Ron Paul Voted on NDAA? I hear that was a pretty important bill.

Nay. What else would you expect?

Here's him introducing the bill to repeal indefinite detentions.

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/new?bill=112-h3523&position=oppose

That list is very, very short.

Compare it to the list of interests that supported SOPA.

Found only two matches: National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the US Chamber of Commerce. There were a few matches on the opposing side, but not many.

Now we know who the real players are in the game of controlling the government.

According to the article this was authorized by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. According to OpenCongress, Barack Obama voted AYE. Biden and Hillary voted NO. McCain did not vote.

Hope & Change, everybody!

Of course. Why do you think the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing BMW, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Jaguar, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Toyota, the Volkswagen Group (which includes Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, SEAT, and koda), and Volvo, supported SOPA?

Here is the list of sponsors and co-sponsors.
Representative Daniel Lungren R-CA
Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9]
Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2]
Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7]
Rep. Thomas Marino [R, PA-10]
Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10]
Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10]
Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15]
Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9]
Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7]

Yup, that must be a democrat bill.
How did you get modded up?

This is another expanding neo-con effort. So, the neo-cons created DHS to secure America. DHS then had some of the most inept people at the top back when it was formed (I worked with 2 of them). DHS has done nothing but push MS. Just last week, they claimed that anybody using tools like PGP, VPN, Linux, other OSS tools were likely terrorists. Now, they say that they want control over networks.

Does anybody get the feeling that the party of lincoln has become the party of stalin?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: How is that any excuse to give up without a fight?

If someone comes to you every day and eats your lunch, do you just acquiesce because you know he'll come back tomorrow if you don't? No, you give him a good swift kick in the jewels and then try to have them prosecuted. Then you get together with all their other victims and start planning out a strategy to stop them from coming back again.

The "new version" has been in play since last year. Good luck trying to rally anyone to fight on the side of child pornographers.

So this sounds like your guessing what he would do. I guess the opposite, seeing as how he's always had more small contributions from non-corporations than his competitors, and also I'd guess he actually does care about the public interest.

Now, if we switch to facts, then I'd like to point out that H.R.3261 was put forward by a Republican, and seems to be backed more from that party than Obama's:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
Interests that support this bill: Republican/Conservative, Christian Conservative
Interests that oppose this bill: Democratic/Liberal

Don't get me wrong, I consider all politicians manipulative jerks, but I try to keep track of which are behaving in the least evil way.

Last post, so I know there will be no mods. But, I have my opinion, and then, to help answer the question asked, I wondered what Slashdot thought, combined with looking for bills that support/disprove my opinion.

> Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What
> issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is
> 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"

I'm going to list the Slashdot articles I found - emphasis on actual bills put forward, mostly more recent stuff.

H.R.3261: Anti Net Neutrality (1): Stop Online Piracy Act
http://yro.slashdot.org/tag/sopa
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
Interests that support this bill: Republican/Conservative, Christian Conservative
Interests that oppose this bill: Democratic/Liberal

H.R.96: Anti Net Neutrality (1): End FCC's regulation of internet
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2163-Republicans-Waste-No-Time-Moving-Against-Net-Neutrality
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h96/money
Interests that support this bill: Republican/Conservative

Open-Source Textbooks (2)
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/01/05/1615210/california-state-senator-proposes-funding-open-source-textbooks
Darrell Steinberg (D-CA)

Location Privacy (3)
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/06/15/1847256/franken-bill-would-protect-consumers-location-data
Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Pro Net Neutrality (1): Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/01/26/1820236/senators-bash-isp-and-push-extensive-net-neutrality
Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Al Franken (D-MN)

Here is my take on what /. thinks:
(1) Slashdot is vehemently for Net Neutrality, and it seems D's are for, R's against. This looks like by far the biggest issue for slashdotters, and easiest issue to see who falls where.
(2) Given the corruption of the current system, OS textbooks is a geeky, cheap solution. Not a high priority issue.
(3) Slashdot really doesn't like big companies following their location.

Some other interesting articles/discusions:
Al Franken (compared to other representatives) is often discussed and ./ seems to appreciate his work. Here's a couple:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/20/1835204/al-franken-makes-a-case-for-net-neutrality

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tells Facebook to quit sharing more of its users' data than they signed up for.
joined Schumer's call: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Al Franken (D-MN).
http://search.slashdot.org/story/10/04/27/1824236/senators-tell-facebook-to-quit-sharing-users-info

Interesting:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/12/27/1910219/americas-turn-from-science-a-danger-for-democracy
Although they mostly debate religion, it's interesting, and my take is that slashdot seems agnostic with an aversion away from attacki

Last post, so I know there will be no mods. But, I have my opinion, and then, to help answer the question asked, I wondered what Slashdot thought, combined with looking for bills that support/disprove my opinion.

> Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What
> issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is
> 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"

I'm going to list the Slashdot articles I found - emphasis on actual bills put forward, mostly more recent stuff.

H.R.3261: Anti Net Neutrality (1): Stop Online Piracy Act
http://yro.slashdot.org/tag/sopa
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
Interests that support this bill: Republican/Conservative, Christian Conservative
Interests that oppose this bill: Democratic/Liberal

H.R.96: Anti Net Neutrality (1): End FCC's regulation of internet
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2163-Republicans-Waste-No-Time-Moving-Against-Net-Neutrality
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h96/money
Interests that support this bill: Republican/Conservative

Open-Source Textbooks (2)
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/01/05/1615210/california-state-senator-proposes-funding-open-source-textbooks
Darrell Steinberg (D-CA)

Location Privacy (3)
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/06/15/1847256/franken-bill-would-protect-consumers-location-data
Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Pro Net Neutrality (1): Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/01/26/1820236/senators-bash-isp-and-push-extensive-net-neutrality
Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Al Franken (D-MN)

Here is my take on what /. thinks:
(1) Slashdot is vehemently for Net Neutrality, and it seems D's are for, R's against. This looks like by far the biggest issue for slashdotters, and easiest issue to see who falls where.
(2) Given the corruption of the current system, OS textbooks is a geeky, cheap solution. Not a high priority issue.
(3) Slashdot really doesn't like big companies following their location.

Some other interesting articles/discusions:
Al Franken (compared to other representatives) is often discussed and ./ seems to appreciate his work. Here's a couple:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/20/1835204/al-franken-makes-a-case-for-net-neutrality

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tells Facebook to quit sharing more of its users' data than they signed up for.
joined Schumer's call: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Al Franken (D-MN).
http://search.slashdot.org/story/10/04/27/1824236/senators-tell-facebook-to-quit-sharing-users-info

Interesting:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/12/27/1910219/americas-turn-from-science-a-danger-for-democracy
Although they mostly debate religion, it's interesting, and my take is that slashdot seems agnostic with an aversion away from attacki

Last post, so I know there will be no mods. But, I have my opinion, and then, to help answer the question asked, I wondered what Slashdot thought, combined with looking for bills that support/disprove my opinion.

> Consider the candidates (all of them, of any party) as a set. What
> issue can I use to divide them into two groups, such that one group is
> 'for' something and the other is 'against'?"

I'm going to list the Slashdot articles I found - emphasis on actual bills put forward, mostly more recent stuff.

H.R.3261: Anti Net Neutrality (1): Stop Online Piracy Act
http://yro.slashdot.org/tag/sopa
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money
Interests that support this bill: Republican/Conservative, Christian Conservative
Interests that oppose this bill: Democratic/Liberal

H.R.96: Anti Net Neutrality (1): End FCC's regulation of internet
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2163-Republicans-Waste-No-Time-Moving-Against-Net-Neutrality
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h96/money
Interests that support this bill: Republican/Conservative

Open-Source Textbooks (2)
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/01/05/1615210/california-state-senator-proposes-funding-open-source-textbooks
Darrell Steinberg (D-CA)

Location Privacy (3)
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/06/15/1847256/franken-bill-would-protect-consumers-location-data
Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)

Pro Net Neutrality (1): Internet Freedom, Broadband Promotion, and Consumer Protection Act of 2011
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/01/26/1820236/senators-bash-isp-and-push-extensive-net-neutrality
Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Al Franken (D-MN)

Here is my take on what /. thinks:
(1) Slashdot is vehemently for Net Neutrality, and it seems D's are for, R's against. This looks like by far the biggest issue for slashdotters, and easiest issue to see who falls where.
(2) Given the corruption of the current system, OS textbooks is a geeky, cheap solution. Not a high priority issue.
(3) Slashdot really doesn't like big companies following their location.

Some other interesting articles/discusions:
Al Franken (compared to other representatives) is often discussed and ./ seems to appreciate his work. Here's a couple:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/20/1835204/al-franken-makes-a-case-for-net-neutrality

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tells Facebook to quit sharing more of its users' data than they signed up for.
joined Schumer's call: Michael Bennet (D-CO), Mark Begich (D-AK), and Al Franken (D-MN).
http://search.slashdot.org/story/10/04/27/1824236/senators-tell-facebook-to-quit-sharing-users-info

Interesting:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/12/27/1910219/americas-turn-from-science-a-danger-for-democracy
Although they mostly debate religion, it's interesting, and my take is that slashdot seems agnostic with an aversion away from attacki

$3.5M for the top dog pushing SOPA is pathetic, Google could throw in like $100M if they really wanted to. Most of the opposers are just opposing and not paying, and having TorrentFreak and 4chan among the figures against it might only hasten passage of this bill.

Write to your senators, your representatives! Tell them you oppose this bill!

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/new?bill=112-h3261&position=oppose

Tell your family, friends, even the guy at the gas station to do the same!

This bill WILL get passed if we don't make our position clear to elected officials!

There's a reason the guy at the gas station hasn't heard about SOPA yet. I can't help but use quotes when I refer to American "news" agencies. We used to make fun of the USSR for this crap.

Write to your senators, your representatives! Tell them you oppose this bill!

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/new?bill=112-h3261&position=oppose

Tell your family, friends, even the guy at the gas station to do the same!

This bill WILL get passed if we don't make our position clear to elected officials!

Be sure to include a check for at least $10,000.

Write to your senators, your representatives! Tell them you oppose this bill!

http://www.opencongress.org/contact_congress_letters/new?bill=112-h3261&position=oppose

Tell your family, friends, even the guy at the gas station to do the same!

This bill WILL get passed if we don't make our position clear to elected officials!

Your info is outdated, Kirk is closing on $1M now, see the real source, scroll down on that page to see all supporters, opposers and all the money donated to those senators involved.

If the government is publishing the list of supporters, shouldn't they publish the list of people who have objected?

perhaps nobody has objected?

Uh, they did:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money

See "Interests that oppose this bill" and below.

This (second half) is as close as I have found: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3261/money Permission granted to be amused by the 3rd listed "organization".

Oh, following the money is exactly how you can understand things. Here's how the outrageous SOPA gets passed by our corrupt Senate and promoted in the House. The following 20 major supporters of the bill, and its sponsor (Leahy D-VT), are listed with the campaign contributions they received from the organizations that support the bill (1st dollar amt after name) and the contributions they received from organizations that oppose the bill (the 2nd dollar amt following the name). Do the math. This isn't democracy, it's corporate oligarchy. Src: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s968/money
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] $864,265 $254,975
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] $665,420 $295,640
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D, NY] $556,525 $284,849
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] $544,424 $402,425
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] $416,250 $insignificant
Sen. Michael Bennet [D, CO] $347,406 $1,346,579
Sen. Roy Blunt [R, MO] $341,700 $insignificant
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH] $337,525 $insignificant
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC] $275,950 $insignificant
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] $272,750 $insignificant
Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] $376,600 $insignificant
Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] $269,050 $insignificant
Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5] $250,250 $insignificant
Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1] $184,932 $insignificant
Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8] $183,100 $insignificant
Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] $168,000 $insignificant
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14] $163,450 $insignificant
Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4] $154,000 $insignificant
Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] $150,550 $insignificant
Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45] $150,350 $insignificant

Such optimism brings a tear to my eye. Unfortunately, I'm probably going to destroy it.

After they vote, go to this page. I predict that you'll see that almost everyone listed in the supporting section voted yes and at least half of the people listed in the opposing section abstained because voting yes would alienate their backers. The only reason this would happen is if they vote according to the money, not the public's interest.

What I see is a bill that is being rammed through congress. The record and movie companies have gotten their way with virtually every other piece of anti-piracy legislation to date and I have little hope that this will be different. Maybe my cynical viewpoint is wrong and your optimistic belief congress will vote to protect the public's interest will prevail. It would be nice if I was wrong.

Here is a link to Opencongress.org where you can post comments on the text of the Bill. You need to login to do so however.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1747/text

It's not part of the gov't, and I'm not sure if anyone up there will read it, So I'm not sure how useful it is. Anyone care to comment?

Done.

http://www.opencongress.org/

What republicans complained? The only person willing to actually do anything about the President's criminal war was Dennis Kucinich. He actually introduced a bill calling for the President to obey the War Powers Act. Republicans killed the bill when it appeared it might pass. Republicans wanted the war as much as they want every other war, they just don't want to support Obama publicly.

Start here: http://www.opencongress.org/

Tell that to your party, then. Clearly they don't represent you.

A fair chunk of Dems voted yes, too... and our Dem president signed it remotely immediately after passing the house, remember?

Just because Republicans are the ones that introduced the PATRIOT Act doesn't mean that your beloved Democratic party opposes it.

I'm not exactly sure how they are related, but this one specifically mentions the PATRIOT Act:
http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/19

I believe this is the bill, intuitively titled Small Business Additional Temporary Extension Act of 2011. Apparently, this bill was "amended" by removing and replacing the entire text with the PATRIOT ACT renewal!

Any senator NOT in the following list has some serious explaining to do:
Sen. Max Baucus [D, MT]
Sen. Mark Begich [D, AK]
Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM]
Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH]
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA]
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD]
Sen. Dean Heller [R, NV]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT]
Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK]
Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D, NH]
Sen. Jon Tester [D, MT]
Sen. Tom Udall [D, NM]
Sen. Mark Udall [D, CO]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/s/76

Ironically, anonymous cash would really help to restore trust here.

Agreed, though not really too ironic - non-tracked money ought to be obvious to people as a good thing for not being tracked.

Please ask your Congressman to co-sponsor the Free Competition in Currency Act.

No, we don't. For broadcast, we rely on existing commercial broadcast stations, which is why they test the Emergency Alert System from time to time.

The problem H.R.607 is attempting to address is the fact that police, firemen, and first responders of all stripes don't have a common way to communicate; their frequencies are spread throughout the spectrum. The attempt is to establish the so-called "D Block", 758-763 and 788-793 MHz, as a unified, interoperable public safety band to fix this (among other repairs). The part to which people object is Sec. 207(d)(1), which reads,

AUCTION- Not later than 10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the paired electromagnetic spectrum bands of 420-440 megahertz and 450-470 megahertz recovered as a result of the report and order required under subsection (c) shall be auctioned off by the Federal Communications Commission through a system of competitive bidding meeting the requirements of section 309 of the Communications Act of 1934.

In other words, the bill proposes to fund the transition by selling off this spectrum; the people who have been using this spectrum (since shortly after World War II, I might add) are, quite reasonably, upset.

Here's a better one

It's all about buying time for the United States to attempt to push the SHIELD bill through Congress.

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but how would the SHIELD Act help the US extradite Assange?

It's an amendment to existing law. I read over the amendments and the original code, and I can't see anything damning.
Here's the text of the act and here is the law it amends.

The penalty in the law states that the convicted

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years or both.

I dont see anything about the death penalty in there or references to extradition.