Slashdot Mirror

This isn't an obvious question, so I too am surprised that that many people got it right. From This Chart, it would appear that the 3rd ranking member is the Majority Leader, behind the Vice President (1st), and the President Pro Tempore (2nd).

https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

rj

Tell me what you think of this article. It seems that the debate started politicized.

And yes, I have looked at a lot of the literature and understand quite a bit of it. The thing is, that even the people who wrote the literature don't seem to think it says what some political entities like the IPCC want to claim it says. There are some 400 scientists that says the IPCC misrepresented their works.

The later had been submitted to slashdot but I don't remember it being on any of the lists or the front page of slashdot. It is as if it was ignored. And while it should be noted that they don't dispute AGW, they are disputing how the IPCC claimed their works represented stuff that it didn't and removed comments or rewrote them for added effects. In any case, it does bring some things into question which should make you ask again on a few understood beliefs.

"The scientific debate *is* over, just as the scientific debates over the age of the earth and the reality of evolution are over."

Sure:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/schumer_around_ny/record.cfm?id=264754&

and Barbara Boxer (D)

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=4447425

Of course what is really happening with these two is that they don't care that much about the technology or the program but by pushing for it they can say "I told you so" if anything were to get shot down.

The Senate only passed 27 bills this year. The house passed many more bills but business is different and a passage of a bill might mean cloture or the changing of a rule.

All in all, pretty dismal.

practically everyone voted for the war on Iraq. (i know Obama was against it, but he wasn't given the option to vote against it, so it's easy for him to say that.) but, i don't hold many candidates voting history against them, espically on votes that would probably pass anyways.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

I'm more concerned about what bills they actually tried to start.

BTW, personally, I don't like Clinton too much -- I'd rather have Edwards by far. But, if she wins the Democratic primaries, you'd better believe I'll still be voting for her.

Mining itself causes zero CO2 to be released, it's the burning that is in question.

If you don't like mountain top removal or other coal mining operations, drink more bottled spring water. This will create an economic incentive to preserving a natural state.

So don't store CO2 underground? I suppose we can't store nuclear waste underground either. Because a long time ago, NO ONE was poisoned by it.

Or just forget about storing it and accept the fact that it has nothing to do with climate change.

There is much debate to the validity of glodal warming and man's impact to it.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Perhaps instead of blindly siding with what the biased media tells you, you can do this research yourself next time.

just to save people a search and a couple of clicks, dodd's senate contact form

After Dodd made it sufficiently obvious that he was going to drag this out all week until the end of the session, while there are still other bills Reid would like to get on the agenda, Reid gave in for now and postponed further consideration of the bill until the next session in January.

If you feel strongly enough about this, send him a message; let him know how you feel about it. And if you're like me, you'll let him know how much you appreciate that he has some balls. http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3128&cat=Opinion

Great idea, but the Senate appears to have voted on a "cloture motion", which allows only 30 hours of debate and eliminates the filibuster.

Here's the vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00435

Here's the "cloture" definition:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

Great idea, but the Senate appears to have voted on a "cloture motion", which allows only 30 hours of debate and eliminates the filibuster.

Here's the vote:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00435

Here's the "cloture" definition:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S. 2248

I don't know if there are more who support this, but look at the letter here to see a list of Senators who are also a part of Senator Dodd's cause. I don't know who among them will be involved directly in the filibuster, but they all support the Judiciary Committee's version of the FISA revisions.

Senate contact information

Great points. For those interested here are some links dealing with the many issues surrounding "global warming". http://links.veronicachapman.com/OriginsOfOil.htm http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...9-68c808e8809e http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2871211.shtml http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...s/Aerosols.pdf http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articl...6_highlow.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/?ic http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269886,00.html http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/20_1-2_CO2_Scandal.pdf http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=438 http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070507martianwarming.htm http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8gfbewe7&keywords=global%20warming#dest http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

Cheney was encumbered by a conflict of interest because, in classic Washington revolving-door style, he was re-entering politics having just served as CEO of Halliburton who ended up profiting heavily from the Iraq war.

Global warming is not only not man made, it hasn't gotten warmer in the last 5 years. The only global warming anyone can actually point to is a bunch of erred NASA reports from the 80's and statistical analysis by computers of the errorous data. I'm sure everyone here on slashdot appreciates the inaccuracy of any analytical computer program predicticting the outcome of anything in the real world. These computer climate models, while entertaining, have absolutely nothing to do with reality, it's a kin to a gigantic magic 8 ball. The best proof that global warming is a crock of shit is how defencive proponents are of any skeptics : http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c . This global warming farce and gone on long enough! It's time for the halfway intelligent people to say "Enough politics in science!"

Nobody doubts anymore blah blah blah

Time didn't ask these guys:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c

Senator Russ Feingold will be raising many serious questions about this bill when it comes up in the Senate (or so said the guy on the phone in his DC office).

Senator Herb Kohl is going to look into the bill and get back to me on it (or so said the guy on the phone in his DC office).

Call your senators. Ask some questions. Let them know what you think.

Actually, the only senator to vote against the Patriot ACT was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Kucinich is in the House, where there was quite a few votes in addition to his own that voted against it.

then you stick them in a monkey and his testicles melt or his hair falls out

Military members are statutorily barred from suing the government for injuries arising in the line of duty. See here.

Government contractors are also immune from products liability suits, so long as the product in question was designed according to military specifications. See here.

Things the recruiter doesn't tell you... Hopefully the government tests carefully before using!

Apparently he's also pro network neutrality: http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAOMGTOOFUNNNY!!!!!11!!!!!!!!one!

May I remind you of Walter Reed Medical Hospital travesty that *recently* made headlines?

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-161076682.html

http://akaka.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=newsarticles.home&month=3&year=2007&release_id=1570

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-21-va-review_N.htm

Indeed. This isn't the first time William Tobin has blown the whistle by any stretch of the imagination. Tobin, who was formerly the chief metallurgist at the FBI, also called into question the investigative practices of individuals involved in the FBI's investigation of TWA Flight 800 and has testified as to various fraudulent activities that took place within various FBI investigations. Apparently this test was the same test used to convict Lee Harvey Oswald, and guess who called it into question? Yup. William A. Tobin.

Curiouser and curiouser, no?

For reference: Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, House Judiciary Committee

Because Bush vetoes or threatens to veto legislation, and the "upordownvote" Republicans keep pushing hypocrisy to new heights by shattering all records on blocking legislation through cloture votes.

None of the appropriations bills have even reached Bush's desk for him to veto, and none of the appropriations bills have been filibustered. The Defense Appropriations Bill had a cloture motion filed on it, but the motion was withdrawn and debate closed without a vote.

There's actually something we can do right now to make the US patent system a little less bad. If you're an American - or someone who does business in the US or the like - write your senators and tell them to support the Patent Reform Act of 2007, S. 1145.

It's essentially a bill to make the lives of patent trolls harder. By limiting damages, making prior art defenses easier, and preventing a lot of the forum shopping we currently see, it should reduce the incentive to game the system. (The fact that its opponents are bemoaning it as "patent repeal, not patent reform" and "patent deform" is enough for me to be positively inclined towards it.) Hurting patent trolls seems esp. important given the virtual desktop patent suit that was recently filed against Red Hat and Novell.

Now, this bill isn't a panacea; it won't fix the USPTO. Will this do much to stop large companies (that actually, you know, make stuff) from filing bogus patents like this one, defensively or otherwise? I don't know. Nevertheless, it should decrease the incentives for filing gazillions of patents and the incentives for actually threatening or taking legal action. And that's a good step.

The bill passed the House and seems to have decent support in the Senate. But there's intense lobbying against it by some patent lawyers and especially the pharmaceutical industry. (Drug patents are a rather different beast than other sorts of patents. I kind of wish the law didn't treat them the same.) So we all need to write our senators to tell them we support clamping down on patent trolls and making the patent system a bit less of a minefield.

Come on, Slashdot, channel your patent-anger at Congress!

What Democrat has offered to repeal USA PATRIOT?

1. US Senator John Tester. He won election as a Democrat in Montana, with a platform built largely from anti-federal-government planks. He's been anti-patriot act all along.

2. US Rep and (sorta) presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. He's running for president against the patriot act.

There are probably others; these are the two I can think of right off the top of my head. Note also the absence of any D-prez frontrunners from this list... I bet Hillary can't wait to get her hands on the levers of power that work the police state. And, truth be told, if she promises to stick an electric cattle prod up Dick Cheney's ass and show it on national television, she would win my vote in a heartbeat.

"Look at the facts. What Democrats opposed passage of the full 9/11 commission recommendations - essentially turn the USA into a police state. What Democrat has offered to repeal USA PATRIOT? "

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin did. The lone vote against the original Patriot Act, and the main fighter of its renewal. Also, he's pissed about the warrentless wiretapping too.
http://feingold.senate.gov/

My understanding is that a sentor only gets one opportunity to speak in a debate, so while they can speak for as long as they'd like they can't take a break (other than adjournments, which the majority can in theory not grant - and the majority doesn't have to all be in the room at the same time).

Not quite. First, it's "no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate" (according to Senate Rule 19). This allows for multi-day fillibusters by the same Senator. Second, while I'm not 100% sure they're accurate, the West Wing's "Stackhouse Fillibuster" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" both suggest one may yield for a question without yielding the floor; this PDF from the Senate website says the same (although the yielding Senator must remain present and standing, this provides a break for the voice and a pause for a drink). The PDF also notes a filibuster burdens the supporting majority by requiring they maintain enough votes handy to sustain a quorum call if an opponent demands one.

I certainly support the continued existence of the filibuster. It can provide a block to some really stupid legislation wanted by a narrow majority — such as this amnesty. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't object to the majority not settling for "oh, it's a hold; well, we don't want to deal with that, I guess the bill is dead." Make 'em filibuster, dammit.

My understanding is that a sentor only gets one opportunity to speak in a debate, so while they can speak for as long as they'd like they can't take a break (other than adjournments, which the majority can in theory not grant - and the majority doesn't have to all be in the room at the same time).

Not quite. First, it's "no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate" (according to Senate Rule 19). This allows for multi-day fillibusters by the same Senator. Second, while I'm not 100% sure they're accurate, the West Wing's "Stackhouse Fillibuster" and "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" both suggest one may yield for a question without yielding the floor; this PDF from the Senate website says the same (although the yielding Senator must remain present and standing, this provides a break for the voice and a pause for a drink). The PDF also notes a filibuster burdens the supporting majority by requiring they maintain enough votes handy to sustain a quorum call if an opponent demands one.

I certainly support the continued existence of the filibuster. It can provide a block to some really stupid legislation wanted by a narrow majority — such as this amnesty. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't object to the majority not settling for "oh, it's a hold; well, we don't want to deal with that, I guess the bill is dead." Make 'em filibuster, dammit.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm

I did find other more disturbing than the article:

Let's take money from NASA, we need more control of the people: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00367

The children! the children!... we don't need stinking advance technology, the country is outsourcing anyway:http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00366

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm

I did find other more disturbing than the article:

Let's take money from NASA, we need more control of the people: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00367

The children! the children!... we don't need stinking advance technology, the country is outsourcing anyway:http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00366

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm

I did find other more disturbing than the article:

Let's take money from NASA, we need more control of the people: http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00367

The children! the children!... we don't need stinking advance technology, the country is outsourcing anyway:http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00366

Would threatening to expose a security flaw in a server or website unless it was patched open you up to prosecution under cybercrime laws then?

If you ask for money in return for keeping your mouth shut, you are already an extortionist. At the same time, it's hard to see them using the bill to come after an honest disclosure, where you simply published details. Must find bill to know.

Of course, in the U.S. there is no parliament, so Google can't be biased based on the left-wing right-wing political scale. Is that clear?

Umm... Bush has nothing to do with "ratifying" treaties, nor does any other President. The Senate does that.

Clinton signed the treaty, even though a Senate advisory vote went 95-0 against it. Clinton KNEW the treaty would never be ratified, but signed it as a cold-blooded political maneuver. All Bush did was decide to stop wasting time on it.

Sorry if that wrecks your fantasy, but it's true.

The Constitution: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

From wikipedia (I know, I know, but these are pretty easily verifiable facts and you can go look them up yourself)

Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States CIA program to arm Islamic mujahideen during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1979-1989. The Program relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution. Along with similar programs from Britain's MI6 and SAS, Saudi Arabia and other nations, the opponents to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan collectively trained over 100,000 insurgents between 1978 and 1992. Somewhere between $3-$20 billion in US funds were funneled into the country to train and equip troops with weapons, including Stinger surface-to-air missiles.

Here is the Senate's page breaking down the original USAPATRIOT act vote. Here is the same data for the House of Representatives.

For what it's worth, the police involved were doing their jobs and doing them correctly and efficiently. Sure, you can disagree whether or not IP infringement (in whatever form) should or should not be a crime, but as of right now it is one. A police officer, presented with a crime in plain sight, cannot (and, I would dare to argue, should not) ignore it because they disagree over whether or not it should be a crime.

Their job is to uphold the law. They did so. There is nothing wrong with that.

If you're angry, then I seriously suggest that you write your Representative(s) and Senators.

That would be the day that all the Senate Republicans stopped all the Senate Democrats from restoring Habeas Corpus.

Which is exactly what I'm talking about.

Here's one very good example, just from today.

Democrats are trying to restore Habeas Corpus, to protect the Constitution, as they swore to do. At least they're doing the minimum to sustain the republic.

Republicans voted to suspend Habeas Corpus, violating the Constitution, and just voted again to keep it suspended.

Perfectly demonstrating Republican attacks on the republic: every Democrat voted to restore it, every Republican voted to keep it suspended.

FWIW, note that I didn't say to vote for Democrats. But voting for Republicans is suicide by politics.

No... it's because of the concept of IOIYAR - It's Ok If You're A Republican.

When the Democrats were in the minority and there was even a hint of a filibuster by the Democrats, Republicans went crazy, and threatened to invoke the nuclear option, which would have basically shut down the senate.

Now that the Republicans are in the minority, they can and have threatened to filibuster. But because IOIYAR, no one's making a stink about it, and you even have the press reporting that these bills "didn't pass", or "Democrats failed to pass", or "Republicans blocked", which makes it sound like they got less than 50 votes in the senate, but they didn't pass their cloture votes, which is an agreement to stop debating a bill that needs 60 votes to pass. If the cloture vote doesn't pass, the debate can continue... In other words, a filibuster can take place.

So, in essence, the Republicans are threatening to filibuster on lots of things (this habeus legislation, Iraq-related bills, etc, etc), and therefore requiring a successful cloture vote to move the legislation forward, and raising the necessary vote threshold for anything to pass up to 60. The Republicans are voting to not allow legislation to be considered... They are not interested in giving the legislation a "fair shake" or an "up or down" vote.

Of course 2-3 years ago, that was reason enough to threaten to force a shutdown of the senate, but IOIYAR.

No... it's because of the concept of IOIYAR - It's Ok If You're A Republican.

When the Democrats were in the minority and there was even a hint of a filibuster by the Democrats, Republicans went crazy, and threatened to invoke the nuclear option, which would have basically shut down the senate.

Now that the Republicans are in the minority, they can and have threatened to filibuster. But because IOIYAR, no one's making a stink about it, and you even have the press reporting that these bills "didn't pass", or "Democrats failed to pass", or "Republicans blocked", which makes it sound like they got less than 50 votes in the senate, but they didn't pass their cloture votes, which is an agreement to stop debating a bill that needs 60 votes to pass. If the cloture vote doesn't pass, the debate can continue... In other words, a filibuster can take place.

So, in essence, the Republicans are threatening to filibuster on lots of things (this habeus legislation, Iraq-related bills, etc, etc), and therefore requiring a successful cloture vote to move the legislation forward, and raising the necessary vote threshold for anything to pass up to 60. The Republicans are voting to not allow legislation to be considered... They are not interested in giving the legislation a "fair shake" or an "up or down" vote.

Of course 2-3 years ago, that was reason enough to threaten to force a shutdown of the senate, but IOIYAR.