Slashdot Mirror

Wrong. This bill was introduced April 1st as S.778 to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

THOMAS link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:10:./temp/~bdcFpU::|/bss/|

Here's Rockefeller's press release: http://rockefeller.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=311060&

Run, don't walk, to call your senators.

If you want to know how the senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee got scared into this bill, take a look at the testimony before the committee at the bottom of this page, especially that of Joseph Weiss.

While I applaud the Senators' efforts to assist in securing cyberspace, historical efforts to legislate cyber-security have not proven effective. (that was tough to say with a straight face) To wit, examine the Government's own record: Currently all federal agencies are required to follow strict guidelines/policy, yet the average info-security grade given by OMB, for FY2007 was a C-. How far would you get in life if your average grade was a C-? I'd guess the average Slashdotter had better than a 1.7 average.

Further, they seem to think that if NIST establishes "measurable and auditable cybersecurity standards", then all will be right with the world. NEWSFLASH - The Fed already has that for the entire GOV, and while many agencies have improved it has not shown to be the panacea they intended. According to OMB's report out 3 weeks ago(go to page 9), the DOD, the agency with the most important security concerns and highest risk (and consequently the most stringent InfoSecurity program) is failing miserably.

Funny, if you read the FISMA top page, it refers to 'cost-effective' security programs, but nowhere does it mention effective programs...

New legislation is not the answer - holding people accountable is. [to keep this relatively short I'm not going to expand on this - you know how to find the laws]

As one previous poster noted, a bunch of us posting here is not going to change anything. So, I will end this with a call to action for all Slashdotters - write a letter to your Senator and Congressman and let them know (using clear, thoughtful words) that this is an f'ing stupid idea and that they should not support it.

Find your congressman

Find your senator

Every last one of these kind of ppls should be swinging for the traitors to the Constitution that they are.

If you want to hang everybody who is a traitor to the Constitution then I hope you have lots of rope -- you'll be hanging most of Congress. You'll also need a plan to get past the Secret Service if you plan on holding Obama accountable for his failures to uphold his oaths.....

regulation of the free market caused this mess (housing bubble, subprime lending).

That's not really true. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 had a lot to do with it, and it did so by making the market freer. In essence, it repealed portions of the original Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which was put in place to limit some of the banking practices that contributed to the Great Depression. At least, that's how I understand it ... anyone who knows better feel free to correct me.

Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work, at least, it doesn't work unless you happen to be at top of the corporate food chain. In a previous century they called that laissez faire, and it didn't work. Look, like it or not we need the institution of government and the corporations that provide goods and services require regulation. The people that run them have demonstrated unequivocally that they cannot be trusted with our lives or livelihoods without some form of governmental controls in place.

We just have to make sure that that regulation works for all of us.

You are right. I am hopelessly naive and clueless. I didn't even know that the POTUS votes for bills! ROTFLMAO

I take it back. You aren't naive and clueless. You are a fucking moron. He voted for it while he was a member of the Senate. See where it says "Obama (D-IL), Yea" on that page? Since your memory apparently only goes back to Jan 20th 2009, here is one of the news stories that covered when he promised to filibuster any bill containing telecom immunity.

Democrat-controlled Congress was in power for the last two years of Bush's term

I think you meant to say "Democrat slight majority", since they only had 49% of the Senate and 53% of the House.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary

The 53% majority wasn't enough to stop the documented record number of filibusters by the Republican minority, effectively stopping the Democrats from doing anything they wanted.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/110.htm

On what basis are you assuming he's Republican?

Because everybody who questions Obama must be painted as a neo-con who agreed with every single stupid policy of GWB. That way can dismiss them without having to think about whether or not they are making valid points.

Love Obama or hate him he's using some of the exact same political tactics that most of his fans deplored when it was Bush using them. Claiming that he'll "halve the national deficit in four years" comes to mind. Yeah, he might be able to pull that off, but it really isn't that impressive when half of the current national deficit is still greater than the biggest deficits GWB managed to saddle us with. Nor is claiming that he's "removing politics from science" (the stem cell decision) -- hmm, when have Federal funds of any sort ever come without politics?

And don't forget a Democrat-controlled Congress was in power for the last two years of Bush's term and did exactly squat to mitigate his abuses.

It's worse than not mitigating them. They actively aided and abetted some of them. Obama had a hand in it too.

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

• The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
• Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/staged_angst/a_climate_of_staged_angst.html
• Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.
• Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?
• Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Educate yourself!

Antarctica is getting colder and thicker: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/05/sea-level-rise-not-from-antarctic-melting/), and we know that any fluctuating warming/cooling is due to natural occurrences, and not human activity.

MUST READ LINKS:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
"http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/03/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

There are several motives for the media and politicians to lie to you about global warming, aside from money and control.

• The media sells more papers, magazines, and television ratings soar when their audience is scared of some imminent catastrophe that your respective service is reporting on. Although, they can't decide whether we're going to burn to death, freeze to death, or drown. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
• Environmental organizations and some scientists will lie to you because their funding depends on it. If theres no crisis to work through, then they start losing funding. This is well documented. http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/von_Storch/staged_angst/a_climate_of_staged_angst.html
• Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets.
• Development and industrialization of third world countries will be stamped out, along with hundreds of millions of lives, all under the guise of "saving the planet from climate change". It's absolutely sickening. So, who's really on the "immoral" side? Us or the alarmists?
• Wanna talk about new taxes and restricted freedoms? Try carbon taxes on everything and strict regulations for everyone....all coming soon by convincing you that CO2 & greenhouse gases are somehow evil and you must pay to emit them. Too bad they can't tax the oceans since they are the cause of 96.5% of all greenhouse emissions, naturally, eh! Also too bad they can't go back in time and tax the dinosaurs since CO2 levels were MUCH higher back then and it must have been their fault.

The motives for deception are there. Do your part to fight alarmism!

CO2 is NOT a pollutant!

Educate yourself!

Antarctica is getting colder and thicker: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/12/05/sea-level-rise-not-from-antarctic-melting/), and we know that any fluctuating warming/cooling is due to natural occurrences, and not human activity.

MUST READ LINKS:
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
"http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/03/
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.junkscience.com/challenge.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc
http://www.cei.org/pdf/5331.pdf
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/sunclimate_3b.gif
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

The most efficiently run medical payment service in this country right now is medicare with over 95% efficiency in terms of money going to treatment vs. overhead.

I've found this report that specifically talks about how INEFFICIENT Medicare is and makes recommendations to change that.

This USA Today article complains that Medicare funds the vast majority of residency training in the USA. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a substantial amount of money that is not going to treatment as you said.

This report says fraud is costing in the billions. And this article says that fraud is a growing problem in Medicare costing $60 billion per year and says that fewer than 5%... that's 5% of claims are audited.

According to this Congressional Research Service report Medicare's budget is $420 billion for 2009. If $60 billion is just fraud, that means nearly 15% of Medicare's budget is NOT going to treatment not including all the rest of Medicare's expenses (funding residency, other misc overhead).

Sorry, but to say that Medicare is efficient is just plain wrong.

So I'm at Chuck Schumer's Contact Page http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm and I can only select from a number of items to comment on, which in turn has a sub-category I need to select... None of which apply to Technology or Stupid Bills we're thinking of passing.

Guess I need to pick Defense/Personal or Education/Other (as in his)?

After I RTFA, to refer to the correct Bill (S.436 in the Senate and H.R.1076 in the House), I see this bill is call "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act," or Internet Safety Act, more Think of the Children BS. Guess I know what category to use now....

The Democrats want this so they can save the children from all of that evil kiddie porn

Are you kidding? The Republican party is divided between Bible thumpers and free market jihadists. You can name 10 moralizing Republicans for every moralizing Democrat. Throw in the Republican penchant for authoritarianism, and it's no contest as to who's going to run around screaming "why wont someone please think of the children?" more.

and also so the **AA can better control the media you consume, kill P2P and net neutrality, and bill you for it appropriately.

Big business rents most of the Democratic Party, but it owns the Republican Party. And what's the **AA? Big Business. Case in point, the 1996 Telecom Act. The Senate vote was 91 to 5, with four out of the five nay votes coming from Democrats. The only Republican Senator to vote against it was McCain.

Senators and Representatives. There you go, it doesn't get much simpler than that.
1. Follow the links
2. Cut and paste the above post
3. Slap your name on it
4. ??
5. Profit! We as a nation will profit from having one less retarded bill rammed through.

I doubt even 50% of the people polled even understand that Congress and Senate are part of the same government branch...

Actually, it's the House of Representatives and the Senate that are part of the same government branch, which is collectively referred to as the United States Congress.

If you're going to be calling half the people in the country idiots, make sure you're in the other half first ;-)

"An error occured while rendering your error request."

If the internal server errors on her website are any indication, technology and the internet are lost on her.

I use to love that she was my state Senator, but the last few years she has... changed. I've lost a lot of respect for her based on the stances she has taken recently, including sticking up for the telcos in the whole warrentless wiretapping issue.

I bet the Republicans thought it was true when it was GWB saying it. Personally I don't believe a word that comes out of any of their mouths. Mr. Obama hasn't exactly proven himself to be particularly trustworthy.

Well, she's in office now. Fortunately it's easy to contact her.

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

Please tell the Senator how you/we feel about her addition, I sure did!

or this to get to Diane and Barbra boxer Member Name DC Phone DC FAX Electronic Correspondence Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) 202-224-3841 202-228-3954 http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe Senator Barbara Boxer (D- CA) 202-224-3553 202-224-0454 http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm Representative Jane Harman (D - 36) 202-225-8220 202-226-7290 http://www.house.gov/harman/contact/email.shtml

or this to get to Diane and Barbra boxer Member Name DC Phone DC FAX Electronic Correspondence Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- CA) 202-224-3841 202-228-3954 http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe Senator Barbara Boxer (D- CA) 202-224-3553 202-224-0454 http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm Representative Jane Harman (D - 36) 202-225-8220 202-226-7290 http://www.house.gov/harman/contact/email.shtml

The Democrats have always been in the pocket of RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood types.

Republicans have always been in the pocket of big business. What are the RIAA/MPAA/Hollywood studios? Big business.

Republicans have scr*w*d up the country but on this issue, they have always been a better alternative.

Only if by "Republicans" you mean "Ron Paul". The "Sonny Bono" of "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" fame was a Republican. All the recent media friendly legislation has passed a Republican Congress with Republican sponsors and broad Republican support.

Take the 1996 Telecom Act, for example. The vote was 91 to 5.

Sure, Democrats have their heads buried far too deep in Hollywoods ass - but it's time to stop pretending that the Republicans are any better.

Not a Cal. resident?

Out of State:

Thank you for sending me your electronic mail message. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

Because of the volume of e-mail that is received by my office, we can only respond to email that includes a California postal address. Please resend the text of your e-mail message, including your postal address, and I will respond to you as soon as possible.

Should you need additional information about the Congress, or my offices in Washington and California, please visit my homepage on the World Wide Web. The address is http://feinstein.senate.gov./

Thank you again for contacting me, and I hope you will continue to do so in the future.

Sincerely,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

If you're in California, you might want to contact your Senator and let her know how you feel about this.

Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501


Or you can email her at this link

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

I understand why we would all like to comment here, but why not send your comment to her directly, as this bill is supposed to come out of committee today... http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

Here:
http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

Go tell her what you think http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUS.EmailMe She is a senator it doesn't matter what state she is from just go tell her.

I do not live in California and am unlikely to be given any consideration from a politician elected in that state. For those that do live in California please contact Mrs Feinstein and let her know that you will definitely not vote for her again if this rider gets added to the stimulus bill. Her contact info (http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.WashingtonDCOffice):

Senator Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3841
Fax: (202) 228-3954
TTY/TDD: (202) 224-2501

Cheers,
the_crowbar

Ms. Feinstein,

I do not believe it is your place to single-handedly eliminate this country's technological future by sneaking in an anti-net-neutrality provision at the conference committee.

You should leave that decision up to your colleagues by introducing a separate bill. You wield a very might sword, one whose power you seem to be unacquainted with.

Have some honor, respect, and dignity. For six of the last eight years, our country was plagued with a congress that did the sort of despicable things that I speak of - and you were thwarted from doing.

Take the removal of your provision from the stimulus bill as a sign: this stimulus bill has no place legislating communications policy. You are sabotaging this country's Internet future.

I should know, I work for one of our nation's largest telecoms and my team and I engineer the core networks that make the Internet possible.

Please hear my plea of openness and transparency - we, the People, expect - and should receive - more from our leaders than shadow amendments inserted into much needed legislation.

Thank you,

Mr. XXXXXXX

Ms. Feinstein,

I do not believe it is your place to single-handedly eliminate this country's technological future by sneaking in an anti-net-neutrality provision at the conference committee.

You should leave that decision up to your colleagues by introducing a separate bill. You wield a very might sword, one whose power you seem to be unacquainted with.

Have some honor, respect, and dignity. For six of the last eight years, our country was plagued with a congress that did the sort of despicable things that I speak of - and you were thwarted from doing.

Take the removal of your provision from the stimulus bill as a sign: this stimulus bill has no place legislating communications policy. You are sabotaging this country's Internet future.

I should know, I work for one of our nation's largest telecoms and my team and I engineer the core networks that make the Internet possible.

Please hear my plea of openness and transparency - we, the People, expect - and should receive - more from our leaders than shadow amendments inserted into much needed legislation.

Thank you,

Mr. XXXXXXX

Right here.

What about this?

Or stuff like this?

And what would life be like if I didn't mention this? (pdf wanting)

call your senator
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

This is how Rush Limbaugh rules, this is how he falls. Do not email, but call.

And what if it turns out not to be a myth?

And *what if* a solar flare hit the Earth and knocked out all communications? Quick, let's spend a trillion dollars and ruin the world economy to fix something not proven to be imminent, but do it "just in case" anyway...

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a MERRY Christmas... Despite the media hype you've obviously gobbled up as a good sheep, there is not the complete consensus on the issue that pols and the media seem to insist upon...

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

The issues are not quite so clear-cut as you make them seem. Claim after claim of the alarmists has been debunked...

The Hockey Stick Graph

1998 was the hottest year on record. Not in the USA (try 1934

October 2008 was the warmest October on record? Nope!

Are GISS's data out of line with other sources of climate / temperature data?

NASA is not the only source of long-term temperature data used to evaluate climate change. Like NASA, the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies depends on a network of ground-based weather stations using thermometers. Both are limited by their number of stations, the heat-island effects on many of the sites located in urban areas, changes in thermometer types over time and the loss of station sites over the historical periods being measured. Data gathered from these systems often has to be adjusted to remove "noise" caused by the local environment so it can be standardized for analysis.

The University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems provide data gathered by Earth-observation satellites. Satellite temperature data has the advantage of being gathered across the entire surface of the Earth, except for regions near the two poles, but it is unavailable for the period prior to 1978.

How do these other data sources compare to NASA?

According to Hadley's data, worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998 and the Earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.

Both the UAH and RSS satellite data agree with Hadley and show temperatures declining over the past decade with only a slight increase above the 30-year average between 1978 and 2008.

Round and round we go, when the alarmists will stop, nobody knows...

And what if it turns out not to be a myth?

And *what if* a solar flare hit the Earth and knocked out all communications? Quick, let's spend a trillion dollars and ruin the world economy to fix something not proven to be imminent, but do it "just in case" anyway...

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a MERRY Christmas... Despite the media hype you've obviously gobbled up as a good sheep, there is not the complete consensus on the issue that pols and the media seem to insist upon...

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

The issues are not quite so clear-cut as you make them seem. Claim after claim of the alarmists has been debunked...

The Hockey Stick Graph

1998 was the hottest year on record. Not in the USA (try 1934

October 2008 was the warmest October on record? Nope!

Are GISS's data out of line with other sources of climate / temperature data?

NASA is not the only source of long-term temperature data used to evaluate climate change. Like NASA, the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies depends on a network of ground-based weather stations using thermometers. Both are limited by their number of stations, the heat-island effects on many of the sites located in urban areas, changes in thermometer types over time and the loss of station sites over the historical periods being measured. Data gathered from these systems often has to be adjusted to remove "noise" caused by the local environment so it can be standardized for analysis.

The University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems provide data gathered by Earth-observation satellites. Satellite temperature data has the advantage of being gathered across the entire surface of the Earth, except for regions near the two poles, but it is unavailable for the period prior to 1978.

How do these other data sources compare to NASA?

According to Hadley's data, worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998 and the Earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.

Both the UAH and RSS satellite data agree with Hadley and show temperatures declining over the past decade with only a slight increase above the 30-year average between 1978 and 2008.

Round and round we go, when the alarmists will stop, nobody knows...

And what if it turns out not to be a myth?

And *what if* a solar flare hit the Earth and knocked out all communications? Quick, let's spend a trillion dollars and ruin the world economy to fix something not proven to be imminent, but do it "just in case" anyway...

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a MERRY Christmas... Despite the media hype you've obviously gobbled up as a good sheep, there is not the complete consensus on the issue that pols and the media seem to insist upon...

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming

The issues are not quite so clear-cut as you make them seem. Claim after claim of the alarmists has been debunked...

The Hockey Stick Graph

1998 was the hottest year on record. Not in the USA (try 1934

October 2008 was the warmest October on record? Nope!

Are GISS's data out of line with other sources of climate / temperature data?

NASA is not the only source of long-term temperature data used to evaluate climate change. Like NASA, the UK Meteorological Office's Hadley Center for Climate Studies depends on a network of ground-based weather stations using thermometers. Both are limited by their number of stations, the heat-island effects on many of the sites located in urban areas, changes in thermometer types over time and the loss of station sites over the historical periods being measured. Data gathered from these systems often has to be adjusted to remove "noise" caused by the local environment so it can be standardized for analysis.

The University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems provide data gathered by Earth-observation satellites. Satellite temperature data has the advantage of being gathered across the entire surface of the Earth, except for regions near the two poles, but it is unavailable for the period prior to 1978.

How do these other data sources compare to NASA?

According to Hadley's data, worldwide temperatures have declined since 1998 and the Earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941.

Both the UAH and RSS satellite data agree with Hadley and show temperatures declining over the past decade with only a slight increase above the 30-year average between 1978 and 2008.

Round and round we go, when the alarmists will stop, nobody knows...

Actually it is true. Early in the transition, waivers were needed. Towards the end, this was eliminated. You might want to read some details here.

As an American, I must say, we need to take a look at this nomenclature: Shadow Minister sounds so much cooler than Senate Minority Leader or the like.

Hey, we've got Whips, which are almost as cool.

I fully expect to see (by AD 2505 when Idiocracy is in full swing, perhaps) a House of Representin' in which legislation features full-on battles between teleporting Shadow Ministers and weapon-wielding Whips. C-SPAN's ratings should go sky high!

"Quit rocking our boat, or we'll take our toys and go home."

At least he's not throwing things this time.

No, I am not. But I see you're still lying. Here are comments from Sen. Dianne Feinstein on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I know you think DNI McConnell lied to Harvard, lied on Charlie Rose, and that I'm lying; do you also think Sen. Feinstein is lying?

This bill, in some respects, improves even on the base bill, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. [b]It provides clear protections for U.S. persons both at home and abroad. It ensures that the Government cannot conduct electronic surveillance on an American anywhere in the world without a warrant. No legislation has done that up to this point.[/b]

Care to comment?

"Pen register" is the legal construct which supports the metadata collection. In this discussion, it has nothing to do with actual pen registers, which is why it is in quotes. But since that is the legal framework under which warrantless metadata collection is understood, I include the term. The collection mechanism that is occurring for digital data enables collection of the CONTENT of communications which may be lawfully monitored without a warrant after examination of the metadata confirming it as such, tied with other identifying information that confirms the target as not representing a US Person.

I did it both ways:

• recording the TV version (here in Channel NewsAsia Singapore, the coverage was marred by extremely talkative voiceovers)
• watched the pic2009.org version (marred by a shaky video camera and poor colours), and
• watched the inaugural.senate.gov version (same as the local TV version, minus the talkative voiceovers and tickers and logos on screen (thank goodness))

Driving is a practical necessity in most places. You can't go to the store in some places without being able to drive, you can't find gainful employment in some places without being able to drive. There are a lot of things in society that we are expected to participate in that cannot be accomplished without driving.

Not all places have public transportation, even the places that do, not all of them are affordable nor are they effective. The city buss system in the closets town with public transportation where I live doesn't go anywhere near the industrial areas and if you don't live in a small section of down town, it is pointless to you because you won't even see it.

Your right, there is no right to drive but millions of people do so to better their lives. Taking that away from the poor because of some made up BS is akin to just being cruel for the sake of being cruel. I don't care what you might have been brainwashed into believing, humans come before arbitrary restrictions and manipulations designed to satisfy little more then someone's idea of how the environment which changes all the time should be.

I did find this. The senate claims that you only need Flash to view the ceremony.

We actually are a democracy and don't have hand picked successors.

Well, technically we live in a representative republic, but since George Bush and most of our politicians don't know the difference I don't expect anyone else to, either.

Obama had the most liberal voting record in the US Senate according to just about every metric

See, that I just don't buy. It makes a good soundbite but are you really going to tell me that Obama has a more liberal voting record than the self-described socialist? More liberal than Russ Feingold? These types of soundbites don't really contribute anything to the political discourse and I tend to tune them out.

and got an "F" rating from the NRA. And you, as a gun owner, actually thought he might be on your side?

I wasn't a gun owner until a friend of mine pointed out the hypocrisy in my position of shouting at the top of my lungs (1st amendment) on just about every issue while not bothering to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. My main motivation for getting a gun at this point is to exercise that right (rights not exercised will eventually cease to be rights). This also stuck out in my mind as a pretty compelling argument for gun ownership and reminded me of events in our own country where the police did nothing while innocent people were being murdered.

For what it's worth I'm now a convert to gun rights and will be doing my utmost to speak in favor of this issue and vote it at the ballot box in the future. I'm also going to try and bring some friends into the shooting sports. What else can you do?

Obama had the most liberal voting record in the US Senate according to just about every metric

See, that I just don't buy. It makes a good soundbite but are you really going to tell me that Obama has a more liberal voting record than the self-described socialist? More liberal than Russ Feingold? These types of soundbites don't really contribute anything to the political discourse and I tend to tune them out.

and got an "F" rating from the NRA. And you, as a gun owner, actually thought he might be on your side?

I wasn't a gun owner until a friend of mine pointed out the hypocrisy in my position of shouting at the top of my lungs (1st amendment) on just about every issue while not bothering to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. My main motivation for getting a gun at this point is to exercise that right (rights not exercised will eventually cease to be rights). This also stuck out in my mind as a pretty compelling argument for gun ownership and reminded me of events in our own country where the police did nothing while innocent people were being murdered.

For what it's worth I'm now a convert to gun rights and will be doing my utmost to speak in favor of this issue and vote it at the ballot box in the future. I'm also going to try and bring some friends into the shooting sports. What else can you do?

but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.

I don't. The bait and switch was telegraphed months before the election. If you voted for him anyway you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.

I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.

that was actually a good link better would be: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ef55aa3-802a-23ad-4ce4-89c4f49995d2 and for the guy who clearly didnt read the article before posting (its a huge article...) with links to sources/blogs and official pages of scientists and lobby groups stating their opinions and their research and before people say what about the x i am not ignoring evidence, quite frankly the weather systems seem f*cked the last few years all over the globe... hows about, research and evidence over silly arguments, and its silly arguments that made this public debate in the first place.... sh*t im making silly arguments.... shoot the messenger

Snowing today in Malibu, New Orleans and Vegas

Then of course there are these heretics

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

"I am a skeptic Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly..As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history.When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.". Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp.Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense.The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of P

If that's your argument how can you hate republicans? They're just supporting themelves like Obama did.

I don't claim to be unbiased, but I do try to be (at least a bit). Show me a Republican who actively campaigned and voted for removing the telecom immunity provision before and when it was voted on separately to see if it would become part of the full FISA bill (as Obama publicly did) and then voted for the final bill, and I'll show you a Republican who was in a similar situation (whether that situation be he just felt that the bill as a whole was an improvement, or needed to "play politics"), and who I would respect for his opposition to the immunity.

Oh wait, you can't (well, at least among Senators), because when the Senate had a vote to determine whether to strike the immunity provision (when the FISA bill was still in Congress), not a single Republican voted to remove it. (Paul Graham, R-SC, didn't vote.) And yes, there are a bunch of Ds down in the "nay" part, and I disagree with them as much as the Republicans there. In fact, my reaction is a little stronger because my thought is "I'm in your party, supposed to be reasonably aligned politically with you, and you're still taking a position I couldn't support in a million years."