Slashdot Mirror

That may be one of the things the Dem's financial reform bill did. The thing was over 1300 pages long. It does a hell of a lot more than just address oil drilling.

Oh, so nobody told you that the actor on television wasn't really a doctor?

As it happens, there are also 'real scientists' who disagree with those you list (realclimate.org's misinformation)(US Senate Minority Report)(Wikipedia (I know, its wikipedia....)).

Called my Senator's office and gave my opinion. I keep their numbers in my phone so this kind of thing is easy to do.

Everybody (US Citizens) should call theirs to shoot this bill down. The FCC has been doing a good job so far to protect consumers. There's no need to limit them like this. You can find your senator's contact information here: http://senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

When you call the number, just tell the person who answers that you'd like to give your opinion. They will ask for your name and address and what message you wish to pass along to the senator. You might get a letter back in the mail concerning your opinions and what actually happened with the bill. You can hang these letters on your fridge and any ladies passing by will be impressed with your official correspondence with the government.

I am absolutely sure that nobody in the industry has submitted research on this subject and the numbers are purely arbitrary.

Nobody on the Committee is from Utah, BTW. If this were a slaughterhouse order, it's more likely the big contracts would be proposed in New Mexico.

Intentionally supplying misleading figures is scientific misconduct.

By the way, I've seen several people try to defend the "trick" and "hide the decline" as if they were innocent. If you, the reader, believe in scientific integrity, this should disgust you. Their main excuse is that you should read the fine print, and that the "trick" is meant as "clever" and scientifically justified. It isn't. It was done purely for political reasons, to hide the decline. They didn't like what the data showed them so they fudged it, and presented it as a compelling graph that the whole political movement latched on to.

Truly, if you don't know what the trick is, I urge you to read up on what was done. It's very basic and easy to understand, and if you have integrity, you will be outraged:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=25ffc2ad-802a-23ad-4c40-9efa4d43663d

And by your logic, the fame one would gain by proving George Bush was a criminal would be the holy grail of liberalism... So why hasnt it happened?

Here is a list of some of the research papers that somehow never made it into the IPCC inner circle of journals.

Here are some scientist associated with the fields of climatology and atmospherics who dissent.

Here's a report on the US Senate Commitee on Environmental and Public Works about 100 scientists (many formerly of the IPCC) who are skeptics and who sent letters to the UN declaring so

Here's a Senate report on scientists who were proponents, but are since turned skeptics of global warming:

If none of that is bad enough, lets talk about the intimidation?

Here is a link, again on the US Senate Committe on Environment and Public works talking about the NASA scientist calling for charges of Treason against for skeptics.

Here's another Senate report on the Intimidation that skeptics face for "climate blasphemy":

Here's a Washington Post article about a skeptic fired from his post as Virginia State Climatologist becuase he used it as a "platform as state climatologist to promote his views on global warming, including that the issue was overemphasized" after clashing with the Governer

Another case of intimidation

Here's an aricle about a man whose career in television as a science journalist ended because of his beliefs about global warming

Here's a Senate report about a climatologist calling for the scientific certifications of skeptics to be revoked:

So yeah... There's no evidence of intimidation or ignoring the legitimate dissent....

And by your logic, the fame one would gain by proving George Bush was a criminal would be the holy grail of liberalism... So why hasnt it happened?

Here is a list of some of the research papers that somehow never made it into the IPCC inner circle of journals.

Here are some scientist associated with the fields of climatology and atmospherics who dissent.

Here's a report on the US Senate Commitee on Environmental and Public Works about 100 scientists (many formerly of the IPCC) who are skeptics and who sent letters to the UN declaring so

Here's a Senate report on scientists who were proponents, but are since turned skeptics of global warming:

If none of that is bad enough, lets talk about the intimidation?

Here is a link, again on the US Senate Committe on Environment and Public works talking about the NASA scientist calling for charges of Treason against for skeptics.

Here's another Senate report on the Intimidation that skeptics face for "climate blasphemy":

Here's a Washington Post article about a skeptic fired from his post as Virginia State Climatologist becuase he used it as a "platform as state climatologist to promote his views on global warming, including that the issue was overemphasized" after clashing with the Governer

Another case of intimidation

Here's an aricle about a man whose career in television as a science journalist ended because of his beliefs about global warming

Here's a Senate report about a climatologist calling for the scientific certifications of skeptics to be revoked:

So yeah... There's no evidence of intimidation or ignoring the legitimate dissent....

And by your logic, the fame one would gain by proving George Bush was a criminal would be the holy grail of liberalism... So why hasnt it happened?

Here is a list of some of the research papers that somehow never made it into the IPCC inner circle of journals.

Here are some scientist associated with the fields of climatology and atmospherics who dissent.

Here's a report on the US Senate Commitee on Environmental and Public Works about 100 scientists (many formerly of the IPCC) who are skeptics and who sent letters to the UN declaring so

Here's a Senate report on scientists who were proponents, but are since turned skeptics of global warming:

If none of that is bad enough, lets talk about the intimidation?

Here is a link, again on the US Senate Committe on Environment and Public works talking about the NASA scientist calling for charges of Treason against for skeptics.

Here's another Senate report on the Intimidation that skeptics face for "climate blasphemy":

Here's a Washington Post article about a skeptic fired from his post as Virginia State Climatologist becuase he used it as a "platform as state climatologist to promote his views on global warming, including that the issue was overemphasized" after clashing with the Governer

Another case of intimidation

Here's an aricle about a man whose career in television as a science journalist ended because of his beliefs about global warming

Here's a Senate report about a climatologist calling for the scientific certifications of skeptics to be revoked:

So yeah... There's no evidence of intimidation or ignoring the legitimate dissent....

And by your logic, the fame one would gain by proving George Bush was a criminal would be the holy grail of liberalism... So why hasnt it happened?

Here is a list of some of the research papers that somehow never made it into the IPCC inner circle of journals.

Here are some scientist associated with the fields of climatology and atmospherics who dissent.

Here's a report on the US Senate Commitee on Environmental and Public Works about 100 scientists (many formerly of the IPCC) who are skeptics and who sent letters to the UN declaring so

Here's a Senate report on scientists who were proponents, but are since turned skeptics of global warming:

If none of that is bad enough, lets talk about the intimidation?

Here is a link, again on the US Senate Committe on Environment and Public works talking about the NASA scientist calling for charges of Treason against for skeptics.

Here's another Senate report on the Intimidation that skeptics face for "climate blasphemy":

Here's a Washington Post article about a skeptic fired from his post as Virginia State Climatologist becuase he used it as a "platform as state climatologist to promote his views on global warming, including that the issue was overemphasized" after clashing with the Governer

Another case of intimidation

Here's an aricle about a man whose career in television as a science journalist ended because of his beliefs about global warming

Here's a Senate report about a climatologist calling for the scientific certifications of skeptics to be revoked:

So yeah... There's no evidence of intimidation or ignoring the legitimate dissent....

What happens when Congress pushes through a bill without a single business day for public review? A bill introduced on Saturday afternoon is voted on at 1 AM Sunday morning. That's not too open now, it is?

You are one of those armchair quarterbacks.

The vote you're complaining about, 385, was a cloture vote on an amendment (SA 3276) to an amendment (SA 2786) to the health care bill (HR 3590). (Incidentally, that amendment itself had an amendment.)

SA 3276 was introduced on 12/19 and passed on 12/22, three days later.
SA 2786 was introduced on 11/21 and passed on 12/23, over a month later.
HR 3590 was received by the Senate from the House on 10/8, was discussed ad nauseum for almost three months, and passed on 12/24.

All of this, each version of each of the amendments and bills, is printed in the Congressional Record and is available via THOMAS.

Go and read some of it, please.

Okay, let's do some math. How many successful filibusters did the Republicans mount during Obama's first year in office? Don't need an exact number, ballpark will do. Give you a hint, it rhymes with nero.

What part of filibuster-proof majority is so hard to understand? The reason Dems haven't accomplished much isn't the Republicans, it's that they delved too deeply and had to back off due to public backlash.

Joe Lieberman is a republican mole in the Democratic party. This much should be obvious from everything that he has done so far, his stance on the health insurance is a good example.

I'm a Republican, and I really can't stand the guy. Remember, this is the same Joe Lieberman who has supported in the past activities that involved censorship of specific media (music albums, etc.).

I'm currently reading the bill as was linked from this comment, and it reads as though it were crafted by Symantec, McAfee, Sophos, and all the other "security" vendors who would very much like to be granted a fantastic revenue stream required by law to line their pockets (aside: I suspect it was crafted by them or by lobbyists for their industry)! What I mean specifically can be best explained by reading a small snippet of S. 3480:

develop and acquire predictive analytic tools to evaluate threats, vulnerabilities, traffic, trends, incidents, and anomalous activities;

This is on page 49 of the PDF. There's 10 pages of recommendations about acquiring "tools" to achieve specific goals--in other words, purchasing the required devices from recommended vendors. The entire bill if it survives as it is written is nothing other than a government-issued directive to dump a significant amount of taxpayer money into various security firms in effort to protect national resources. Though, what worries me is that there appears to be mandates for federal oversight of private systems to ensure that they're following best practices. Coming from the same government that has used the password "password" to protect critical systems, I can only fear that such a mandate would be much more harmful than any sort of purported "cyberattack."

If you read the FAQ the Senate has posted relating to the bill it is clear that no one on the panel has any understanding of what "security" really is. Worse, while the FAQ claims that this bill restricts the powers given to the President under the Communications Act of 1934, I can't help but read into S. 3480 that it is going to involve so much government oversight that we might be swamped simply trying to implement all of the requirements. I hope I'm wrong; I am not a Congress critter, so it's feasible this language might be directed exclusively toward Federal networks.

The Slashdot summary appears to be incorrect. It appears that the time limit placed upon such measures is 30 days. However, I can't help but think that it can be extended indefinitely. From the bill:

(1) IN GENERAL.--Any emergency measure or action developed under this section shall cease to have effect not later than 30 days after the date on which the President issued the declaration of a national cyber emergency, unless--
* (A) the Director affirms in writing that the emergency measure or action remains necessary to address the identified national cyber emergency; and
* (B) the President issues a written order or directive reaffirming the national cyber emergency, the continuing nature of the national cyber emergency, or the need to continue the adoption of the emergency measure or action.
** (2) EXTENSIONS.--An emergency measure or action extended in accordance with paragraph (1) may--
*** (A) remain in effect for not more than 30 days after the date on which the emergency measure or action was to cease to have effect; and
*** (B) be extended for additional 30-day periods, if the requirements of paragraph (1) and subsection (d) are met.

I really hope that doesn't imply such an action could be extended indefinitely, but the way I'm reading it sort of suggests that if the President or the director of the office this bill creates d

Does anyone have a link to the text of the proposed bill?

Ask, and ye shall receive. Note: PDF link

I found it at this page.

Does anyone have a link to the text of the proposed bill?

Ask, and ye shall receive. Note: PDF link

I found it at this page.

Sorry, but I couldn't let this pass because it's just entirely wrong. Successful companies are the ones who get tax breaks when deciding where to move or stay. They are the ones that grease the wheels in government to make sure they don't pay taxes, while less successful companies often still have to.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/20/business/study-finds-that-many-large-companies-pay-no-taxes.html

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=712ae8a2-20d2-4334-abef-3191dd63fb59

http://www.actwv.org/press/Firms_Avoid_Tax.mx

"This, people, this right here is the natural result of electing a pile of leftist socialists"

Wow, I have never heard of the republicans referred to as leftist socialists. They are, after all, the party that started the trend toward more and more surveillance, and Bush administration officials have publicly voiced approval of Obama administration policies.

Oh, yeah, and the one socialist in the US Senate does not approve of the increased surveillance: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=1cabd1b9-84c1-4f8f-a93d-2731bfe273fe

wastes $60 billion annually on Medicare fraud.

I was surprised by that figure - losing $60 billion to fraud on $600 billion (roughly) total spending? That's damn scary, and would mean that one dollar out of every ten was being paid out for fraudulent claims.

Fortunately, I read the linked press release. The actual quote is:

Fraud, waste and abuse in our health care system account for three percent of our total health care spending, costing Americans more than $60 billion every year.

First, the $60 billion isn't solely from fraud. It's from the somewhat more nebulous "fraud, waste, and abuse". No breakdown is provided for those three categories. ("Waste" is a particularly difficult one - does that include the unnecessary blood tests or CT scans ordered by a physician who fears malpractice suits?)

Second, the $60 billion figure is linked to the "health care system", and identified as only three percent of "total health care spending". The wording is unclear, but it may be referring to fraud, waste, and abuse in health care in general, rather than simply confined to the Medicare program. What is the scope of programs covered by this claim?

Finally, the same press release also notes that

In 2008, better enforcement measures to fight fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare netted Americans more than $16 billion in savings.

This seems to suggest that there are steps being taken to reduce the size of the problem; in one year this "waste" was reduced by a quarter.

I hope you are being sarcastic in your praise of the government. Yes of course they should fight to get more out of our tax dollars but we are talking about a few million here, when the federal government

- loses $25 billion (Yep, lost as in nobody knows what happened to it. Yep, $25 billion)- google "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position" section in the Treasury Dept financial report
- wastes $60 billion annually on Medicare fraud. Just wait until Obamacare kicks in.
- spends at least $90 billion on programs that are "ineffective, marginally adequate, or operating under a flawed purpose" (partial audit by the white house)

..etc etc this is just the first 3 examples I found on google with easily linkable references. Here's some more.

Even assuming that ALL of the hundreds of government agencies and spending programs are necessary, there are 100s of billions wasted annually just through inefficiency and carelessness with which those programs are managed.

To put things in perspective, some figures from 2009 budget:

NASA: $17 billion
Welfare (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment): $1.9 trillion

We could have a decent space program for rounding error money in entitlements budget. Medicare alone wastes $60 billion a year in overpayments and fraud.

Wars are a different matter, you gotta fight wars.

A republican controlled congress introduced the legislation and passed it with a veto-proof majority.

Which would still imply that the Democrats share some of the blame, because at no point in recent memory have the Republicans had veto-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress on their own.

of which the republican repeal of Glass-Steagall (with the "bipartisan" help of conservative blue-dog democrats-only-in-name

I've never heard Chuck Schumer described as a blue dog before. Here's the roll call vote for it. I see a lot of Democrats in the "yea" column that are considered "progressive". Why don't you just own up to the fact that the Democrat's hands are just as dirty as those of the GOP?

To quote a US Senator from my home state, "Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

This is just a horrible, horrible idea. And once the government gets a hold of your DNA:

* You will have no idea what it is used for, by whom, nor how often
* You will never really be able to get that data removed
* You will be put in a position to have to prove innocence instead of being assumed innocent
* You are giving up yet more control over your life and privacy to the government
* The data WILL be used to make assumptions about you
* Your DNA data WILL be unreasonably searched, every time a search is done, and without probable cause
* The data WILL be shared with other agencies- state and fed
* The data WILL be leaked in one way or another
* The data WILL be used to also implicate others in your family with "close" DNA profiles

There are lots of other ramifications, these are just the ones that pop into my mind immediately. Perhaps it is time to Email/Fax/Call your Senator and tell them what you think before the House gets its way... http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

It hasn't been "We the people" since about 1865. The imperial federal government decided that states could no longer rule themselves and took over. Since then the imperial federal government has been at war with "We the people". They started taking our money in 1913 with the addition of the 16th amendment. Then they tried to subdue us by removing our booze in 1920 with the 18th amendment. This failed but then they succeeded later in 1972 when Richard Nixon started the war on the people. Then in 2001, Bush gave us the Patriot act. Finally in 2010 they completed the assault on "We the people" by making it so that if you were to rebel or even think about it and propagandize about it they would revoke your American citizenship and strip you of all civil liberties including your Miranda right and label you a combatant and keep you imprisoned indefinitely. That being the "terrorist expatriation act".

So no, the government hasn't been "us" for a long time. That and the fact that all the Supreme Court Justices are from NYC and attended either Harvard or Yale should tell you something about the ruling elite in this country.

So I'm going to get back to work so I can pay my taxes which pay for two foreign wars I don't believe in, an auto company I think should have gone under, the mortgages of half the people in this country and the police force that makes it so I can't even smoke a joint on the weekends without fear of being put in jail. Oh and if I miss report my taxes they'll also put me in jail. Oh and if during my commute I get into the music on the radio and don't watch my speed I'll end up in court as well. Luckily when I get home I can watch TV and play video games; well censored TV with no expletives because my government doesn't think its appropriate. Oh and nothing with skin, because the human body is so offensive. Oh and no salt or sugar either.

...the ACLU has never opposed watchlists that are narrowly targeted and properly run. When there is sufficient individualized suspicion that a person is involved in actual criminal terrorist acts — as apparently was the case with Mr. Shahzad — then we have no problem with it.

The ACLU filed a class action suit in 2004 regarding the No-Fly list, which they settled, resulting in a few (completely mistaken) people being taken off the list, and no legal change. I have to wonder whether even the ACLU takes the Fifth Amendment seriously anymore.

The two failed attacks of 2010, both of which would have been dwarfed by 9/11 had they succeeded, have thrown the country into another frenzy of liberty-denial. If terrorists individually attempted attacks of that caliber or better (and how could they be worse, really?) once a week (even once a month?), somewhere in the United States, I think we would lose what small sanity we have kept, and throw liberty out the window altogether. That has not happened, and indeed only a few subnormals have deigned to attempt an attack, so I think the proper conclusion is that there just aren't any people/groups out there making serious attempts at the United States. If it is impossible to keep a small conspiracy secure in Afghanistan, then why the hell has the occupation lasted ten years? The Taliban seems like a pretty big conspiracy, and they're as strong as ever. The terrorists can't be trying very hard at all.

9/11 did change everything, but in the opposite way that Schneier claims. Post 9/11, even a tiny attack will throw the country into a frenzy. Nothing of that size is strictly needed anymore, just a succession of pinpricks that will eventually push us over the edge.

Schumer added, “There is nothing more important than keeping New Yorkers safe from an attack. If anything was made clear on Saturday night, it’s that New York is a target. We need to do everything in our power to deliver the funding to protect New Yorkers.”

Judging by his press releases, he also takes credit for 1-5 federal appropriations for New York state per business day.

Who? I've never seen anyone on the left call for silencing anyone.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

The hate crime laws, now, as implemented, how are they censorship? You DO know that nothing in the laws criminalizes hate speech, right? They only provide higher penalties for actual violent crimes.

I wasn't aware what the the progressive left desires is perfectly reflected by current law, nor was I aware that the progressive left exists exlcusively within the United States.

There have been hate crime laws already enacted and struck down by the USSC ( example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._V._v._City_of_St._Paul ), and there are plenty of hate speech laws in other countries that wouldn't pass constitutional muster in the US.

Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate?

To this level? No. Have a look at the Senate voting history. Go to 2010 and click on a few, scroll down to the senators list. Republicans are always, without fail, either the exact opposite of the majority of Democrats (usually Nay) or Not Voting. Now go back and click on 2005. Pick any issue you want, and either some Democrats voted with Republicans or vice versa. It's not just people's imagination, the country really is more polarized than ever.

And the worst part about it is that the rest of your post is correct.

Well, yeah, because until Scott Brown was elected, the Democrats had a 60-vote supermajority and completely excluded Republicans on ANYTHING. Given Democrats hold the Presidency and the House, when the had that 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, they didn't NEED any Republican votes for ANYTHING.

Since the Democrats were going to get their way and had excluded Republicans from any substantive decision-making, why would any Republican vote for anything they did?

(And not that I'm NOT saying the Democrats should have included Republicans in any substantive decision-making.)

I'd bet if you looked all through US history, when any one party controlled the House, the Presidency, AND had a supermajority in the Senate, whoever the opposition party was, they probably voted pretty much lock-step against the party in power. They'd have absolutely no influence otherwise.

Unless, of course, you're delusional and really think Democrats are oh-so-much-better than those EEEEVIL Rethuglicans....

Are you suggesting that Democrats didn't go nuts with Bush hate, or that Republicans didn't go nuts with Clinton hate?

To this level? No. Have a look at the Senate voting history. Go to 2010 and click on a few, scroll down to the senators list. Republicans are always, without fail, either the exact opposite of the majority of Democrats (usually Nay) or Not Voting. Now go back and click on 2005. Pick any issue you want, and either some Democrats voted with Republicans or vice versa. It's not just people's imagination, the country really is more polarized than ever.

And the worst part about it is that the rest of your post is correct.

I don't hear you complaining about the "liars" who lied on their loan docs.

That's funny, what about the mortgage "flippers" ... sorry, I meant brokers ... who were just getting outsmarted when they were paid thousands and thousands of dollars to create mortgages. Who'da thunk that the homeless bum might be lying when he says he's got a million dollar salary?

Who do you think invented the NINJA Loan? Why, it was HCL Finance, Inc. a "finance company" (not a bank, not subject to CRA) that openly named their "finance product" after the fact that they're giving money away to people without income, job, or assets. (No wonder they imploded... and all without the government forcing them to do a thing!)

As for the CRA, banks accounted for half the subprime loans. The other half were unregulated institutions like ditech.com (better known as "GMAC"), "investment banks" and mortgage brokers. Yes, Clinton ordered Fannie and Freddie to buy shitty loans which sucked for us since the government didn't have the balls to cut them loose, but in case you haven't noticed so was everyone else. The government didn't force Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers to do jack.

If you absolutely must have one single point who MUST be the sole carrier of fault, the single institution that could have put the brakes on everything are the bond rating organizations, who were paid to rate this shit AAA:

It shows that 91% of the AAA subprime RMBS securities issued in 2007, and 93% of those issued in 2006, have since been downgraded to junk status. The numbers for Option ARM mortgages are even worse. Option ARMs, which we examined at our first hearing on Washington Mutual Bank, allow borrowers to pick from several types of payments each month, including a “minimum payment” that results in a growing, rather than declining, loan balance. The chart shows that 97% of the Option ARM securities issued in 2006 and 2007 are now in junk status.

an S&P analyst commented: “Version 6.0 [of the ratings model] could've been released months ago and resources assigned elsewhere if we didn't have to massage the sub-prime and Alt-A numbers to preserve market share.”

  At least the Senate is good for something. Man, such a shame that S&P had to delay their release so that they could make sure to keep their paying clients happy.

Had these securities been rated as the junk they were from the start rather than the AAA rating that the pushers paid for, most of the institutional funds would have stayed the hell away. Most of the banks would have demanded higher quality mortgages, cutting off the flow of money to brokers who looked the other way when filing "ninja" loan paperwork. It would have also stabbed Goldman's "synthetic" CDOs in the back, since they were designed to fail and thus rate less than junk, if that were possible. Fannie and Freddie would still have to be bailed out from Clinton's mistakes, but that would have been the end of it.

...short review periods before votes on multi-thousand page legislation

HR 3590 is indeed 2,074 pages long, but if you actually go look at the document yourself (really, please do), you'll see that after the actual bill begins on page 15, there are only 25 or so lines of text per page, set in a big font, and the margins and line numbering consume about 40% of the width of the page. Don't let misleading talking points stick in your head.

Yes I have, actually.

I've emailed both senators from my state:

Senator Kyl
Senator McCain

And my congressman:

Jeff Flake

But thanks for assuming that I haven't done anything and being sarcastic. Hey it's ok - there's different ways to karma-whore.

Yes I have, actually.

I've emailed both senators from my state:

Senator Kyl
Senator McCain

And my congressman:

Jeff Flake

But thanks for assuming that I haven't done anything and being sarcastic. Hey it's ok - there's different ways to karma-whore.

A lot of monied families got where they are through scams, usually made possible through more family money or connections. One that we are still seeing the political aftershocks of is the Teapot Dome Scandal. It started out as bribery in the 1920's and leaves us today in the Middle East.

That's an awfully broad statement. There's evidence, though it's mostly based on circumstance. I don't think I need to be linking articles about the China Cyber Attack stuff, or North Korea, as that's all fresh.

But I'm happy to offer other links from the recent and not so recent past that are relevant.

Somewhat recent -

Russian Cyber Attacks on Georgia
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1670

PowerGrid Vulnerability of the US
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1891562,00.html

In a Galaxy Far Far Away... 1998, a brief description of L0pht testifying before congress.Excerpt included.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/l0pht.htm

""We have become so dependent on communications links and electronic microprocessors that a determined adversary or terrorist could shut down federal operations or damage the economy simply by hacking into our computers. The two General Accounting office reports which will be released at our hearing--one on the State Department and one on the Federal Aviation Administration- -raise serious concerns about the risks to the public because of information security weaknesses.""

From Sen. Feinstein (D-CA): "Currently, S. 773 is awaiting action in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and is currently undergoing some major revisions." If this information is still current, anyone concerned with this issue should contact the appropriate members of the committee.

Here's the list, by the way.

Simple bills do not require 60 votes to pass in the Senate. A simple majority is all that's required to pass ordinary bills. That's straight from the home page of http://www.senate.gov/ for crying out loud. I'm not sure which magical land of civics you grew up in, but it wasn't the one that covers the United States Senate.

60 votes are required to end debate when a senator or senators choose to deny the Senate the opportunity to vote for a bill. Sometimes there's a legitimate reason for doing so, if issues remain for discussion in the "deliberative" legislative body. Other times it's a procedural trick to prevent the passage of a bill a senator (or senators) simply don't like.

Tragically, the Senate seems to have an informal agreement not to require Senators to actually be debating in order to prevent a vote. Someone threatens to filibuster, and the proponents of the bill cave and don't even attempt to call for an end to debate so that a vote can be taken.

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy, but those of us who are knowledgeable and have a strong opinion on this should contact the White House as well as your Senators and Congresspeople to let them know why we should not be supporting ACTA.

White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Congresspeople:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

A lot of good that will do to buttered hands and well-paid lobbyists with personal access to those in power.

But I would agree we should all still do this. As soon as our calls and letters stop, America loses. I'm only being realistic when I say it probably won't work, but you never know, our leaders have listened to us before *sarcasm*.

I know that Obama is more tech-savvy than any President prior and is trying to do everything he can to boost the current US economy, but those of us who are knowledgeable and have a strong opinion on this should contact the White House as well as your Senators and Congresspeople to let them know why we should not be supporting ACTA.

White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Congresspeople: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

It just happened, and not the way you described. Jim Bunning is currently reviled by lots of people for trying to enforce the Paygo system. The bill did not have a way to pay for continued unemployment benefits, and he held it up until someone came up with a way to pay for it. His explanation was legit, or seemed to be, but all of the coverage is "Bunning is a dickhead."

Bunning's explanation:
http://bunning.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsCenter.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=21648539-d0e8-4c3b-6078-362af45228d7&Region_id=&Issue_id=

News coverage:
House Moves to Repay U.S. DOT Workers Furloughed by Bunning Filibuster
Crazy Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning throws a curveball at helping poor, struggling Americans
Seven states hit hard by Jim Bunning's delay on unemployment benefits

anyone who has an opinion about this can contact Senator Schumer and Senator Graham

anyone who has an opinion about this can contact Senator Schumer and Senator Graham

Well, don't just stand there, do it.

http://www.house.gov/
http://www.senate.gov/

I think if the Veterans Affairs system or the USPTO system were implemented fresh today they would be very different.

The Veterans benefit system was already in the process of being upgraded long before Kundra showed up... http://veterans.senate.gov/hearings.cfm?action=release.display&release_id=2b3c1e81-a85c-4cdf-8af6-51ce711dad8f

Lots of low tech intertia there. It's easy to use a new system with electronic documents with new accounts, but not so easy to deal with migrating the 2.7 million existing accounts, especially when a lot of physical paper is involved. It just won't happen overnight. Meanwhile you have to support both the old and new systems.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns regarding the ongoing negotiations of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

"I will pretend to listen to you because I like votes."

The protection of intellectual property rights is important to the U.S. economy. Every year industries that rely on these rules, such as pharmaceuticals, entertainment, and high technology, contribute to 40% of all private sector growth, which amounts to almost 20% of Gross Domestic Product. The infringement on intellectual property rights is estimated to cost over $200 billion and around 750,000 high-paying jobs every year. In our current economy, these are worrying figures.

"The protection of intellectual property rights is important to my campaign contributors. Here are some bogus, scary-sounding statistics to cover up my blatant pandering."

The protection of intellectual property rights must strike a balance between necessary safeguards against abuses and policies that promote the free exchange of information so important to innovation.

"We will keep upping the penalties on intellectual property violations until people won't stand for it any more."

Congress has delegated the power to negotiate trade agreements to the Executive Office of the President, and these negotiations have historically been kept private in the initial stages. Despite the deference to the executive branch, Congress must be kept informed about the negotiations. I, too, am concerned about the lack of transparency in recent talks concerning the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement. I am hopeful that the Obama Administration will increase transparency in these discussions.

"I will now pass the buck on the secrecy issue so that no one can hold me responsible."

Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind as I continue to follow the progress of the agreement.

"I have already forgotten what you wrote."

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

"Please keep voting for me."

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov./ I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

"I will try to show that I am up on technology and the internet by mentioning my website."

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

"Sincerely,
Bob Casey
Professional Liar"

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns regarding the ongoing negotiations of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

The protection of intellectual property rights is important to the U.S. economy. Every year industries that rely on these rules, such as pharmaceuticals, entertainment, and high technology, contribute to 40% of all private sector growth, which amounts to almost 20% of Gross Domestic Product. The infringement on intellectual property rights is estimated to cost over $200 billion and around 750,000 high-paying jobs every year. In our current economy, these are worrying figures.

The protection of intellectual property rights must strike a balance between necessary safeguards against abuses and policies that promote the free exchange of information so important to innovation. Congress has delegated the power to negotiate trade agreements to the Executive Office of the President, and these negotiations have historically been kept private in the initial stages. Despite the deference to the executive branch, Congress must be kept informed about the negotiations. I, too, am concerned about the lack of transparency in recent talks concerning the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement. I am hopeful that the Obama Administration will increase transparency in these discussions. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind as I continue to follow the progress of the agreement.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov./ I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Here's the complete list of Senate Finance Committee members:

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm

Unfortunately none of them are from my state.

Many of their phone-specific pages cite the manufacturer as the only data source. This includes a phone I'm playing with at the moment, which happens to have one of the worst SAR ratings on the ewg.org list. (Worse than the Blackberry.) I followed their link, and it brought me to a user manual, which did in fact show the same values shown on the list.

Call me paranoid, but that didn't really satisfy me. For one thing, I don't trust user manuals all that much when it comes to fine details that might have changed since they were written. For another, this phone supports several different radio frequencies, including Wi-Fi and several different GSM bands, yet the manual and ewg.org fail to reflect this with multiple SAR values. So, I looked up the FCC ID for my phone and followed it to the FCC's radiation report on that model. What I found was much more informative.

As you might expect, the FCC's SAR measurements showed quite a range of values, depending on which radio is in use, which channel is in use, and how the phone is held. According to this data, my particular phone habits and service provider should yield around half the SAR that was reported by ewg.org, comparable to their best-rated models.

This exercise was interesting, and set my mind at ease a little, but I'm still going to use a wired headset whenever possible. Again, call me paranoid if you like. There simply hasn't been enough time for us to observe the long-term effects of having a microwave broadcast antenna plastered to our heads, and I don't trust studies that claim all is well when they're funded by the cell phone industry.

Some of you might find this US Senate hearing interesting:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=2a7f2e87-68a0-48a3-b16b-08ac1b98cc42
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/288879-1
http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/cell-phone-health-effects-hearing.htm

Holy shit, that shouldn't be legal!

We allow bills to pass into law without even recording who voted for them? I could plant some high quality speakers & dictate the law!

The space shuttle development ran from the late 60's to the first launch in 1981. Even Apollo was a seven year program, one year longer than the term of a senator.

Except that the average length of service in the Senate is almost 13 years. Byrd has been in there since 1959!

Source: CRS Report for 110th Congress

If only there was an institution where the states could have a voice on Federal legislation.....

I don't think you've been watching the senate lately if you think states have a voice there.