Slashdot Mirror

Slippery Internet Pipes without using PTFE

--
Why Senator Stevens (R-AK)
can't send email for days:
http://senate.gov/~stevens

A large majority of democrat house members you just re-elected voted for the patriot act, and all but one democrat voted for it in the senate.

So much for my one consolation about this election: the hope that democrats would finally stop whining.

...the founding fathers intended.

But this won't really make any difference. What really has to occur, to make real change, is a house cleaning of all branches. On one of the cable channels last night, they interviewed John McCain (or McCain.gov) and he talked about all the corruption, abuse and waste in government. McCain has been campaigning against waste his entire career. He specifically mentioned 'earmarks'. Earmarks (designate) funds it appropriates (revenue) to be spent on specific named projects. They're attached to spending bills and they are the favorite tactic of pork purveyors. They are used as currency in the House. Committee chairs and Bill sponsor allow them to be attached in return for support. So if Joe Rep wants $1M spent on a new study of newts in his home state, he gets the okay from a sponsor whose Bill has several billion in funds, and attaches his earmark carving out a small slice of the pie for himself.

I didn't intend for this to be a campaign ad...but in '08, I intend to support McCain for president. If you think what I've discribed above is complete BS, you should too. Go to the sites I've linked and learn about the man. His ideas and priorities are just what we need in the executive office.

That worked in a small company that was a subcontractor for security related software, I promise you the prime contractors have outsourced big software projects to far-off lands.

The PHB's on the prime contractor's side don't know and won't care until a big contractor gets a very public hanging for it.

The beauty of the prime contractor outsourcing strategy is they pass the blame onto a sub-contractor of their choosing.

FYI:
Prime Contractor: The company that wins public agency contracts and packages the sub-contractor's work.
Sub Contractor: The one that does some/most/all of the grunt work.

Sadly, I can only post AC. I like my former employer and they followed the rules very closely as opposed to most of the primes and subs in the same field.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, the $600 toilet seat is still in production. Now, it's in software contracts and "homeland security" projects.
http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pres sroom/press_releases/2004/PR02690.halliburton06170 4.html

I'm not building my own Orwellian universe.
Our Congress and Senate have already done this for me fucknugget. Why don't you get your blind head out of your ass and pay attention to what's going on your country?

And look for Barack Obama too!

Both major parties voted for the DMCA:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2& vote=00137

Vote Counts:
YEAs: 99
NAYs: 0
Not Voting: 1

As mentioned by the parent, it's a two party problem. If people with party affiliations barked at their own party's problems instead playing into the two party track, maybe things wouldn't suck so hard. Look at it this way: You bark at the other party and say "I'm from the other side and you suck." and that won't be effective. But on the same side, someone might listen.

P.S.> I added that vote record to the Wikipedia page. Guess I really like anonymous!

I'd be disturbed about the governmental agencies getting their hands on this, given the general climate of misapprehension that video games are a major cause of actual, physical violence (thanks a bunch for jumping on the bandwagon, Hilary :( ). Without some assurances that the ratings system won't be held over a barrel for any number of spurious motivations, such as the unfortunately credible possibility of lobby groups complaining that fantasy games teach witchcraft and should therefore be kept out of the hands of children.

The ESRB has been running quite nicely for over a decade and, though not perfect, seems pretty on par with the MPAA in terms of hits and misses. Rating World of Warcraft Teen works great, and the more violent, disturbing Prey is properly rated Mature, though there are certainly younger folks who can deal with games like Prey (and certainly the old Ultima IX, which is also rated Mature).

I would surmise most of the issues people run up against are things like Parents or Granny buying Junior M-rated games (perhaps even because Junior asked for the game in question, as Juniors are wont to do), and totally missing the meaning of the rating.

That's not equivalent to the ratings on going to the movies, because people don't go to video games - they bring them home. However, when buying movies for someone, you have to pay attention to the rating on the movie; buying Body Double for your 9-year-old isn't a good thing, but the salesperson isn't going to stop you at the till to ask who you're buying it for. With games, salespeople are more likely to ask than with movies, especially if you're a senior who has just picked up an M or AO-rated game, but if you're 40 or under and don't look confused, they will properly assume that you've done a modicum of homework (and if you look nerdy, the chances of them asking trend towards zero :) You can always ask the people behind the counter, though - ESRB ratings are not hard to puzzle out.

It's the "not necessarily for me" part of video game purchasing that tends to lead to more oopsies. I don't see how any FTC oversight is going to help that issue in the slightest, unless it's to bend the needle to severe overprotection. Who amongst us can imagine what form that would take? No video games except Barbie and Veggie Tales in Wal-Mart? A tiny front section at EG with a beaded curtain dividing the FTC-approved-for-public-malls part from the vast majority of titles (perhaps an exaggeration, but if other legislation came down the pipe making sure minors had no access to even looking at a likely increased number of rated titles, how would EG and other retailers have to respond?)

...or would the effect be simply more insidious and behind-the-scenes? Vaunted games that were developed that the FTC simply prevented from being sold, or games being horribly watered down just to get to the wide audience that could have handled it in the first place?

Have these folks proposed a content rating system on books in the last little while?

Support the ESA in their fights against jokers like this.

Does it mention the 'Insurrection Act' what does the bill say in regard to the President suspending personal rights. Does Public Law 109-364 give the President power to .. take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities. Yes or No. How is this different that declaring martial law. Could you point us to a working link so as we can judge for ourselves.

"The referred article seems to have been posted originally on Saddam Hussein's supporter's website. It doesn't make it wrong of course but it doesn't lend to credibility or unbiased reporting :", RenderSeven

The US was a one time fan of Hussein back when he was a low level assassin working for the CIA. Here's a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with him.

"Reads to me more of a response to Katrina. Remember Katrina? Thats where we blamed the FEDERAL government for not sending in the state national guard when they had no authority to do it", RenderSeven

There is no mention of Katrina in the cited article

was The Bill Doesnt Say This At All (Score:5, Black Ops)

The referred article seems to have been posted originally on Saddam Hussein's supporter's website. It doesn't make it wrong of course but it doesn't lend to credibility or unbiased reporting :

http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e

> The author, Frank Morales ("morals", get it?) is a priest activist with a history of CIA conspiracy theories. He also hates the police and just about anything in uniform. If you want to hate your government, he makes great reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Morales

More interesting is Leahy's and Bond's joint statement on it (of course it must be half lies because Bond is a republican and all) and its here:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html

Reads to me more of a response to Katrina. Remember Katrina? Thats where we blamed the FEDERAL government for not sending in the state national guard when they had no authority to do it. And this bill directly addresses that. Damned if you do, damned if you dont, I guess. The bill also gives the National Guard more authority and recognition in the Pentagon.

Now, let the hate mail continue. Here, let me get you all going again: "BUSH SUCKS! He killed puppies!!"

Schumer today laid out the following scenario in which someone on the terrorist watch list can get through airline security undetected:

1. Joe Terror (whose name is on the terrorist watch list) buys a ticket online in the name of Joe Thompson using a stolen credit card. Joe Thompson is not listed on the terrorist watch list.

2. Joe Terror then prints his "Joe Thompson" boarding pass at home, and then electronically alters it (either by scanning or altering the original image, depending on the airline system and the technology he uses at home) to create a second almost identical boarding pass under the name Joe Terror, his name.

3. Joe Terror then goes to the airport and goes through security with his real ID and the FAKE boarding pass. The name and face match his real drivers license. The airport employee matches the name and face to the real ID.

4. The TSA guard at the magnetometer checks to make sure that the boarding pass looks legitimate as Joe Terror goes through. He/she does not scan it into the system, so there is still no hint that the name on the fake boarding pass is not the same as the name on the reservation.

5. Joe Terror then goes through the gate into his plane using the real Joe Thompson boarding pass for the gate's computer scanner. He is not asked for ID again to match the name on the scanner, so the fact that he does not have an ID with that name does not matter. [Since Joe Thompson doesn't actually exist it does not coincide with a name on the terrorist watch list] Joe Terror boards the plane, no questions asked.

Based on the above press release by a US Senator, shouldn't Schumer be charged with similar crimes?

What law did he break? And why hasn't Senator Charles Schumer been arrested for making a public press release about the exact same thing in February 2005?

According to this Northrop Grumman security expert, "Bruce Schneier, a security expert who has done significant work for the US government, wrote about the exact same flaw in 2003".

So please, why would you be compelled to vote "guilty" on the jury?

He didn't have to go to the lengths he did.

The TSA were notified of the vulnerability more than a year ago by Senator Schumer: http://www.senate.gov/~schumer/SchumerWebsite/pres sroom/press_releases/2005/PR4123.aviationsecurity0 21305.html ...so this wasn't some unknown flaw.

Has anyone actually read this new bill? Both the Govtrack.us and towardsfreedom.com links above seem to be broken, but I found (thanks Google, Wikipedia) Senator Leahy's comments and what I think is the bill in question (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 Report to Accompany H.R. 5122 ). I can't find the part that the good (as in good witch, bad witch) Senator mentions that amends the Insurrection Act. Does anyone else have a clue that could help us judge for ourselves exactly what's changed in the law from a first-hand source?

We haven't had single terrorist attack since 9/11. Not a single one.

I recently came across "How to Steal an Election" at http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/evoting.ar s which lays out in rather devastating detail how flawed the current system of electronic voting is. I am concerned that our election process has effectively been privatized by a small number of companies, some of which are overtly partisan in their politics, and none held accountable for the numerous and easily-exploitable security flaws in their equipment. One of the equipment companies in particular has taken to smear campaigns and litigation against its critics in an attempt to silence them.

I understand that voting should and must be accessible to the disabled, but this can be done without compromising the security and integrity of our elections. Slot machines in Nevada are subjected to extremely rigorous design standards for security, while voting machines have no such standards at all. This situation cannot go on -- I urge you to secure our elections with appropriate legislation.

[signature stuff removed]

Why not use adult stem cells? There also the cord blood research to add in, as well. So far, all the research I've been reading suggest these to be the best direction to take and such research is funded at the federal level. And as a bonus, has no real ethics baggage associated with it!

e360Insight's web site urges us to contact our Senators and Representatives, which is just what I did:

Dear Senator|Representative <XYZ>:

e360Insight, an American company, has recently sued Spamhaus, a British company, claiming that Spamhous's service, which lists the e-mail addresses and domain names of known spammers, has violated e360Insight's rights.

Spamhaus provides an invaluable service. Those of us responsible for administering e-mail services know and love the company. Though most users aren't aware of it, almost anyone who uses e-mail receives less unwanted e-mail because of Spamhaus.

e360Insight, as best I can tell from their website, is a major SENDER of unsolicited and/or unwanted SPAM messages. Their argument is incorrect because only individual e-mail administrators have the ability to block e-mail. Spamhaus has no such ability. We CHOOSE to use or ignore Spamhaus recommendations. If such recommendations compromised the e-mail service we provided, we would quickly stop using them due to user complaints.

A federal court has already ordered Spamhaus to pay $11.7 million (an unenforceable measure, since Spamhaus isn't in the US). e360Insight has also asked that Spamhaus's domain be shut down (which was was rejected by U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras). Please encourage Judget Kocoras and any other federal judges involved to dismiss e360Insight's frivolously lawsuit and protect the rights of American's to use Spamhaus, a valuable service that makes e-mail a usable form of communication.

http://www.house.gov/

http://www.senate.gov/

"Perhaps they should also have a badge for not IM'ing your congressman."

Not yet, but it seems there is one for exchanging sexually explicit emails with your congresscritter!

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_su bjects/Pages_vrd.htm

Parent rules. I've said it before: the most disturbing thing about Ted "Series of Tubes to Nowhere" Stevens is not that he spouted a bunch of dumb nonsense, but that he spouted it after having sat through hours of hearings during which Vincent Cerf, Larry Lessig, and others explained the tech in pretty good detail.

Video here: http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cf m?id=1705

We do not need to educate our reps. They know pretty-much exactly what they're doing. We need to toss them out and get new ones.

especially when one considers that the right of redress held by U.S. citizens is not extended to E.U. citizens.

Oh well, in that case there's no problem, since the Republicans are taking that right away from US Citizens. Now all the DoD has to do is declare you an enemy combatant and there is no proof, no trial, no appeals, and no redress.

In 1981, the *Democrats* controlled the US House by a margin of 242 to 192 (1 ind)

http://experts.about.com/e/u/u/U.S._House_election ,_1980.htm

All appropriations bills originate in the House. Bills in the House get scheduled by the Rules Committee. The majority party in the House controls the operation of all commitees by appointing the chairman of each commitee, and having a majority of members on every committee (except the Ethics committee which must be even).

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/howo urlawsaremade.pdf

The specific legislation referred to in this thread was called the "Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981", which was HR 3982 (It was introduced by a Republican)

The Bill passed in the House 232-193 (which means at least 40 Dems voted for it)

The Bill was agreed to by the Senate by voice vote.... when the bill came back from the conference committee, the Senate had a roll call vote, and agreed to the bill 80-14.

In the 1980 election, the Democrats lost a net of 12 Senators and lost control of the Senate. Ronald Reagan had defeated Jimmy Carter by winning 44 states.

Democrats in DC perhaps were stunned by Americans voting "Truth to Power" and were too scared of their own shadows to take on Ronald Reagan's legislative agenda - but they still had control of the House and could have stopped it.

Now who looks stupid?

The post I was replying to was criticizing the UK by comparison with the US in its respect for civil liberties. That's what made me choke on my pretzel. As for "evil actions of a leader...". You (presuming you're American) voted him in and re-elected him. Even if you didn't vote Republican, your representatives confirmed his actions.

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
Vote Counts: YEAs 98
NAYs 1
Not Voting 1

But it is stipulated that it can only be repealed if Public Safety requires it.

And that is where the debate should be focused - are we in a situation where public safety requires it. I agree we are not at that point.

I don't see any current situation where habeas corpus would be detrimental to the public safety. In fact, it's hard to imagine any scenario outside of fiction where habeas corpus would be dangerous to the people.

Habeas corpus has been suspended several times in our history, most famously by Lincoln (1861), but also by Grant (in 1871, actually he had several proclomations suspending the writ, but only one is enough to prove the point).

You might suggest the suspensions were unjustified in these cases, but that would only serve to show that we can survive such abuses. The best we can do at this point is to vote out ALL the bastards who voted FOR it.

Senators who voted for this bill:
Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Allen (R-VA), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burns (R-MT), Burr (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), DeWine (R-OH), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Frist (R-TN), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Gregg (R-NH), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johnson (D-SD), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Lieberman (D-CT), Lott (R-MS), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Menendez (D-NJ), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Pryor (D-AR), Roberts (R-KS), Rockefeller (D-WV), Salazar (D-CO), Santorum (R-PA), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Specter (R-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Talent (R-MO), Thomas (R-WY), Thune (R-SD), Vitter (R-LA), Voinovich (R-OH), Warner (R-VA)

Representatives who voted for it:
Aderholt, Akin, Alexander, Andrews, Bachus, Baker, Barrett (SC), Barrow, Barton (TX), Bass, Bean, Beauprez, Biggert, Bilbray, Bilirakis, Bishop (GA), Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehlert, Boehner, Bonilla, Bonner, Bono, Boozman, Boren, Boswell, Boustany, Boyd, Bradley (NH), Brady (TX), Brown (OH), Brown (SC), Brown-Waite, Ginny, Burton (IN), Buyer, Calvert, Camp (MI), Campbell (CA), Cannon, Cantor, Capito, Carter, Chabot, Chandler, Chocola, Coble, Cole (OK), Conaway, Cramer, Crenshaw, Cubin, Cuellar, Culberson, Davis (AL), Davis (KY), Davis (TN), Davis, Jo Ann, Davis, Tom, Deal (GA), Dent, Diaz-Balart, L., Diaz-Balart, M., Doolittle, Drake, Dreier, Duncan, Edwards, Ehlers, Emerson, English (PA), Etheridge, Everett, Feeney, Ferguson, Fitzpatrick (PA), Flake, Forbes, Ford, Fortenberry, Fossella, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Frelinghuysen, Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gerlach, Gibbons, Gillmor, Gingrey, Gohmert, Goode, Goodlatte, Gordon, Granger, Graves, Green (WI), Gutknecht, Hall, Harris, Hart, Hastings (WA), Hayes, Hayworth, Hefley, Hensarling, Herger, Herseth, Higgins, Hobson, Hoekstra, Holden, Hostettler, Hulshof, Hunter, Hyde, Inglis (SC), Issa, Istook, Jenkins, Jindal, Johnson (CT), Johnson (IL), Johnson, Sam, Keller, Kelly, Kennedy (MN), King (IA), King (NY), Kingston, Kirk, Kline, Knollenberg, Kolbe, Kuhl (NY), LaHood, Latham, Lewis (CA), Lewis (KY), Linder, LoBiondo, Lucas, Lungren, Daniel E., Mack, Manzullo, Marchant, Marshall, Matheson, McCaul (TX), McCotter, McCrery, McHenry, McHugh, McIntyre, McKeon, McMorris Rodgers, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller (MI), Miller, Gary, Moore (KS), Murphy, Musgrave, Myrick, Neugebauer, Northup, Norwood, Nunes, Nussle, Osborne, Otter, Oxley, Pearce, Pence, Peterson (MN), Peterson (PA), Petri, Pickering, Pitts, Platts, Poe, Pombo, Pomeroy, Porter, Price (GA

If I'm reading this right, it was passed almost unanimously in both the house and the senate (these things aren't terribly clear). It appears to have been sponsored by Dan Lungren (R-CA). Does anyone know how to stop this kind of crap? I don't know of a single person who would endorse this crap, but it appears that pretty much everybody voted for it (no doubt due to it's name).

In a month, on TUE November 7, 2006, Americans can vote whether to fire their Representative in the House, and probably half their Senators, too.

Here's how your Representative voted for Theocracy Protection (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Representative voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).

Here's how your Senators voted for torture (unless they're a Democrat, in which case they probably voted against it).
Here's how your Senators killed any control over US torture (again mostly excepting Democrats).
The Senate is waiting to approve Theocracy Protection until after the November election.

Go to the polls and fire these people who are speaking in your name for torture and theocracy, an America run on the model of the Spanish Inquisition. Keep our country ruled by the people, instead of a class of professional torture priests.

Senate just struck down the Habeas Corpus amendment to the proposed bill. Mostly at the urging of John McCain, who knows the reality of torture all too well. compared to all these rich boys who have never even gotten as much as a spanking for anything they've done, he knows the pain of it. I expect that this bill will not pass without being heavily chopped down to the point where the president will veto it as it stands, the habeas corpus bit being removed is enough for it to be vetoed.

hrmm, is it odd that my captcha is "wiretaps" ?

Also, this debunks the slashdot crowd's theory that the republicans are passing all these unconstitutional laws:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2& vote=00255#position

Look at all them D's by the names of people who voted Yea on the issue. (yea as in, for stripping the habeas corpus right, nay as in against stripping that right)

I'm not pro-republican or pro-democrat, so dont think I'm pushing the republicans over the democrats here, both are equally fucked and the best solution this november would be to dump both with the exception of the few who still actually do their job.

Go to http://www.senate.gov./

Use the "Find your Senator" box at the upper right. Sorry, Javascript required. If you already know who your Senators are you can skip this step.

Dial the phone numbers given.

Politely (the staff member is not to blame) and concisely (s/he is busy) explain your values about trials and torture.

While there have been reports of attempts by individuals to circumvent the ban, e.g. by smuggling CFCs from undeveloped to developed nations, the overall level of compliance has been high. In consequence, the Montreal Protocol has often been called the most successful international environmental agreement to date.

Unfortunately, the hydrochlorofluorocarbons, or HCFCs, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are now thought to contribute to anthropogenic global warming. On a molecule-for-molecule bases, these compounds are up to 10,000 times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide, and their increased use significantly increases the danger that human activity will change the climate [2]. The Montreal Protocol currently calls for a complete phase-out of HCFCs by 2030, but does not place any restriction on HFCs.

Well the fact is we don't really have "global" cooperation those "undeveloped" countries include quite rich countries that use a lot of air conditioning (ie.Kuwait, Quatar etc) and my friend who is from India says they still use freon. It's second hand so I can't verify the that. But I was in kuwait and I had a hard time getting the proper gas for our HVAC systems. While freon was plentiful. But part of my point is the cure could be worse than the disease.

The reason is that while we can say that it's warmer with certainty, the effects of that warming is unknown. And anyone that says they know exactly what a 1-3 degree increase in global temperature will do is talking out their arse. Global climate is extremely complex, you have so many variables and nobody has a good model to explain everything. We had been in a comparatively cool period of earths climate history. It has been described as a 'mini ice age' so nobody knows what the effect of us suddenly changing would be. We only know that yes we contribute to the climate, with billions of people on this planet changing the environment in numerous ways deforestation, polution etc. It is inevitable that we would have a negative impact. But until we set a side politics and money and do serious discussion and study we will never ever know. Al Gore running around promoting a movie that is built on extremely weak science is not helping. It only polarizes the argument. Both factions become entrenched which causes reactions such as this one Hyperbole will not get us anywhere.

What is truly amazing is to watch how the atmosphere reacts to events such as when Saddam set all of Kuwaits oil wells on fire and in 2002 we had some very intense solar storms. I did some NO volume emmission rate contour plots during the April storm periods. The NO VER increased dramatically and then leveled and went back to normal levels. It was very interesting to watch the Earth handle a sudden massive change in energy bombarding the atmosphere.

I work for Nasa's Earth Observatory System

Line item vetoes are generally limited to striking appropriations items in appropriations bills. In other words, the executive can't increase spending or change policy with a line item veto. Since the executive branch makes the initial budget proposal, that means the threat of a line item veto causes a higher tendency for spending to be cut from the proposed budget rather than added. Most people think that is a good thing. And in practice, line item vetoes have proven to be very difficult to abuse effectively (43 state governors have that authority).

Congress, whose power is supposedly being taken away by the line item veto, overwhelmingly supported line item veto legislation in 1995, passing the house by unanimous consent and the senate with a 69-29 vote. Mind you, that's a republican congress during a democrat president's administration.

Ideally, Congress people would be prohibited from attaching amendments to bills that are not directly related to the main subject matter of that bill, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

That prohibition is called requiring amendments to be germane to the bill. It is already a restriction on all house bills on the floor. In the senate, it is a restriction on appropriations bills, bills after cloture has been invoked (agreeing to finish debate to get ready for a final vote), and a lot of bills where the senators agree to make it a rule for that bill.

When you hear about "riders" on a bill, that almost always happens while the bill is in committee. By the time it gets to the floor, non-germane amendments don't get very far, even though they are sometimes used to force some debate on an issue, and there is plenty of time to correct egregious riders that were added in committee. By the time the bill gets to the president's desk, irrelevant attachments to bills are actually pretty rare.

On February 19th of this year, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minute s/main1323169.shtml

It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.

"60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

On March 19th of this year "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minute s/main1415985.shtml

In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.

The "60 Minutes" segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf

Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speech ID=6

The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.

"60 Minutes" also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh 6.html

Why would "60 Minutes" ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/ entry1431768.shtml

This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled" The North Pole Was Here." The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be "easier to sail to than stand on" the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting aspects of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at children.

Educate yourself. Read the entire speech here... http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressrel eases/20031208a.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/ab s/nature02470.html

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_77

http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html#anchor_32

Now I'd like to see someone try to blame the system wide warming on our driving SUV's. I'm sure someone out there will. LOL!!!!

Here's a very informative speech delivered this past Monday on the US Senate floor by senator James Inhofe Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It's not your normal uninformed rant we've come to expect from our politicians. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759

Thank Goodness someone pointed this out. It was never a White House initiative, and many members of Congress had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to make it happen. For the interested, here is a link to Senator Obama's semi-regular podcast, where he outlines the bill and what he and Coburn set out to do with it.

Also, a link to the /. posting on Sen. Stevens' obstruction of the bill.

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000

"[MS] sure have changed their stripes in the past ten years, from a company which didn't believe in campaign contributions and lobbying in Washington DC."

Here's a peek at their stripes, so to speak. The figures include only the declared, above board transactions. Hookers, whisky, and personal blowjobs from Bill or Melinda not included:

Stanton Park Group Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $20,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $140,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $80,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $160,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2003 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2003 $60,000
Arnold & Porter Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2004 $40,000
Arnold & Porter Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2004
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1998 $280,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1998 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 1999 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 1999 $320,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2000 $300,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2000 $240,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2001 $220,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $180,000
Barbour Griffith & Rogers Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $180,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jan 1 - Jun 30, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2002 $40,000
Capitol Tax Partners Jul 1 - Dec 31, 2005 $40,000