senate.gov · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

We can only hope... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-03-02 06:32 · Score: 0 · on Senate Bill To Prohibit Extra Charges For Internet

...that this might have some effect on Internet taxes that some evil corporations are trying to propose. Contact your representatives if you care about this issue. Who knows whether your voice will be heard, but can it really hurt to try? It only takes a few minutes.

I already did, and you should too.

Pay For Play by ExE122 · 2006-03-02 06:14 · Score: 5, Insightful · on Senate Bill To Prohibit Extra Charges For Internet

As soon as I read the headline I thought of the payola scandals of radio in the 50's. Its the same idea with this only instead of the radio, we're talking internet.

I really like Wyden's beliefs on fair competition in the internet. Back in 2004, he put a ban on unfair internet taxes. IMO This legislation looks like it will help out a lot of smaller companies compete with the big corporations who would gladly try to team up with ISPs monopolize e-commerce.

I wonder how this legislation would apply to AOL's proposed email tax (I gotta watch out what I say, my comments on that were met harshly).

I personally hope this makes it through congress. The internet is a free service, as is the radio, and I believe it should have some sense of neutrality. I'm very interested to hear how this bill will hold up. I'm sure if we keep a close eye on it, we'll be finding out a lot about where some of our senators are getting their "funding" from.

allowed? by YesIAmAScript · 2006-02-28 04:38 · Score: 1 · on Interview with California Air Resources Board CIO

Use of oxygenates was mandated by the Feds after some serious junk science from a single Winter trial of them in Seattla. It was not CARB's fault we used them.

Ethanol sucks too, likely adding to pollution:

http://feinstein.senate.gov/05releases/r-epa-oxyge nate030905.htm
(Please ignore that this link is from one of our idiot spendthrift Senators, I'm sure she just slapped her name at the bottom and had nothing to do with it.)

Because of this, CARB worked for years for the ability to return to making fuel with no oxygenates at all, and finally won it from the Feds a couple weeks ago. The cut over date isn't set, but it's great news.

I dunno that MTBE was particularly expensive, nor is it the reason for the cost of fuels in California, since there are a dozen or something metropolitan areas in the country that are mandated to use oxygenates and MTBE was the one in popular use at the time.

Our fuel is more expensive mainly because they can get away wth it. Fuel is noticeably more expensive in Northern California (esp. 5 years ago) versus Southern California. And the fuel is the same.

Re:Automatic Aggressive Behavior... by __aaclcg7560 · 2006-02-24 15:56 · Score: 1 · on 'Games as Porn' Bill Passes Utah House

I was thinking of this incident when I wrote my comment. There's always the Roman Senators who killed Caeser. Politics is always more interesting when blood is flying.

Stop whining - indeed. by Just+Some+Guy · 2006-02-24 02:47 · Score: 5, Insightful · on Florida Voting Machine Logs Reveal Anomalies

Let me give you a piece of advice. Regardless of whether you believe that's true, never never mention those reasons in a discussion with strangers. It will only have two effects: getting the people who agree with you more pointlessly agitated, and making the people who disagree with you think you're a nutjob. It will not win anyone over. Whether you are right or wrong is immaterial.

Something many people here and in other predominantly-left forums seem to be missing is that many Americans truly, honestly believed that Bush was the better candidate. I doubt that your average Republican voted for Bush any more automatically than the typical Democrat voted for Kerry, and yet everyone seems to think that only Republicans were partisan voters. Well, guess what: there are sheep on both sides of the fence. Singling out one group of them will only alienate the bloc of voters you should be trying to persuade.

I voted for Bush for various reasons, but I would probably stand alongside you if a recall vote were held today. The time for partisan sniping is over. We need to work together if we want to make a difference.

As a side note to fellow Republicans, his closing advice is just as valid for us. Contact the RNC and make your opinion known. Write to your representatives and senate and let them know that you disagree with executive branch policies. This is your party: step up and take charge of it.

Re:PR Stunt ... by sp3d2orbit · 2006-02-18 05:01 · Score: 1 · on Google's Response to the DoJ Motion

"I am amazed that people do not see Google's action for what it is -- a huge and hugely inexpensive public relations stunt."

I'm amazed at how short-sited people can be. Within the realms of the law, Google has two options: 1. Hand over the data, 2. File a formal opposition to the motion. Yahoo and MSN were more than happy to jetison our data to whoever wanted it. Google has, at least, taken this step to raise awarness. They may not get anywhere, but at least they tried, which is more than can be said for the Google-alternates.

If Google were to follow the precedent set by Yahoo and MSN then there is absolutely no barrier to doing it again. While a bunch of random URLs may not do the government any good, you can bet that they are using this as a trial run. Next time it won't be random URLs. Next time it will be searches, or searches correlated with urls, or people correlated to searches. Monitoring the search engines is an easy way to monitor the internet as a whole.

Its short-sighted to lambast Google's actions because they're the only major search engine that is trying to defend our rights. Google's business interests and our privacy go hand in hand. One has to remember that Google has to operate within the boundaries of the law. They're doing all they can to raise awareness about those laws, but it is OUR responsibility to get those laws changed. We need to make it politically expensive for our government to act this way; instead you're trying to make it politically expensive for Google to make a stand. Quit your whining, close slashdot, put down the anime, and write a letter to your leaders.

House of Representatives:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

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

Re:Legally speaking... by imikem · 2006-02-16 02:01 · Score: 0 · on RIAA: Ripping CDs to iPod not 'Fair Use'

The $MY_GROTESQUELY_OBESE_ANAL_RAPING_RIAA_CLOWNS_DESC RIPTOR complained about that too back in the day. I once had hundreds of cassette tapes recorded from premium LPs (usually half-speed masters). If they had their way, I might still be in the klink despite having spent a very sizable fraction of my then very limited income on this stuff.

As it is now, I have some of the tapes left, but can't easily make new copies because current stereo gear doesn't even include support for phonographs. Even if it did (and yes I know I can buy a preamp widget if I really want to), I don't have the hundreds of hours of my own time available (can you say family?) that it would take to bring all these out of storage and transfer to MP3. It's not like you can burn an LP at 52x...

Bottom line, is that ANYONE does indeed care about this, don't just whine on Slashdot.

At least copy and paste your teeth-gnashing missives into messages to each and every one of your applicable Congress-critters. Do it now. Or the GOARAC will be the ones doing the talking, of the green-foldy sort that finances the next junket to Barbuda with the strippers.

For example, mine in the above-average state of MN:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm?State=MN
http://markkennedy.house.gov/

Net Neutrality by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-12 08:57 · Score: 0 · on Why The Net Should Stay Neutral

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

This is the US Senate Committee hearing on Net Neutrality. In short ISPs/Telecommunication Companies are not happy that the end applications/companies are making all the money and have the biggest growth.

Franck Martin

Contact Your Rep by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-12 07:37 · Score: 0 · on Why The Net Should Stay Neutral

Everyone who lives in the US and has an interest in keeping the net neutral should contact their local representatives. It is a well known fact that the telcos are going to eventually try and get legislation passed to allow them to use their proposed system under law. Who knows how much it might help by contacting your rep, but it can't hurt. If enough people politely contact their rep with examples of ways they enjoy the Internet as it is, and how the proposed changes will affect this, I think it might make a difference when these laws make their ways through the Senate.

Re:Price Fixing? by notveryblue · 2006-02-02 13:59 · Score: 1 · on Pay-to Play and the Tiered Internet

The senate commerce committee is holding a hearing on February 7, 10am. You can 1) watch it live using whatever bandwidth you can get 2) write to your favorite senator and express your feelings. http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cf m?id=1705

Do something 703-312-6600 by galexand · 2006-02-02 05:01 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Last NTP Patent Tentatively Thrown Out

Call your senators and ask them to please gut the patent system.

But more directly, you can contact NTP. NTP is a legal fiction of a business invented by an author of legal fiction by the name of Donald Stout. He is a partner at Antonelli Terry Stout & Kraus, LLP. Their phone number is 703-312-6600.

A thousand polite calls will be more effective than a thousand rude ones. Though honestly a few dozen rude ones wouldn't start WWIII.

Once you call, ask for Don Stout and then say "Please stop abusing the patent system."

Keep in mind that it is illegal to use an interstate communications device to harrass someone anonymously. So give your name on request! Then it's legal!

Your interpretation by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-30 14:43 · Score: 2, Informative · on Wikipedia vs Congressional Staffers [Update]

From the link you gave:

Sumner accused Andrew Butler of taking "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight -- I mean," added Sumner, "the harlot, Slavery."

How is this a personal attack? Sounds to me like he's attacking Butler's stance on slavery.

Sumner did personally attack another Senator, Stephen Douglas, but it was "Representative Preston Brooks, Butler's South Carolina kinsman" who caned Sumner.

It's clear that these men's respective stances on slavery were very much involved.

Re:Congress blocked :P by monkeydo · 2006-01-30 10:26 · Score: 3, Funny · on Wikipedia vs Congressional Staffers [Update]

Google for "santorum" some time, and hit "I'm feeling lucky". Some people consider that a political statement, and some consider it a troll.

Someone thinks this is a political statement? Shocking!

Your facts... aren't. by rco3 · 2006-01-30 10:24 · Score: 4, Informative · on Wikipedia vs Congressional Staffers [Update]

No one died. Senator Charles Sumner was caned into unconsciousness on the floor of the Senate Chamber, but recovered and continued to serve thereafter. Additionally, it's worth noting that the senator in question was attacked, not for speaking against slavery, but for his personal (very personal, and fairly ugly) verbal attacks against the other two Senators.

I'm sure that you would love to be able to point to this as being an example of how rabid Southern senators were about keeping slavery, but really it's an example of the fact that some people can only be insulted so much before they react irrationally. Seriously - I don't think it matters whether you're a senator or not, I think that if you call enough people "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal . . . not a proper model for an American senator" that sooner or later one of them (or one of their friends) is going to beat the shit out of you. Does that excuse the attack? Of course not. But it wasn't about slavery, it was about pride - and no one died.

Airport security should be checking cargo, not IDs by MacDork · 2006-01-27 11:39 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Airport ID Checks Constitutional

If the government is using ID as a substitute for searches or X-ray or whatever is actually needed, they're kidding themselves.

This is old news, but (bomb + altimeter + airmail) == gaping hole in airport security. We know about it, just like we knew about lax screening at airports before 9/11. Nothing is being done. Nothing will be done until commercial airliners start to explode.

Actually he's not reading it by Faed · 2006-01-26 10:15 · Score: 1 · on Politicians Catch on to Blogging

As the Senator's webmaster, I can tell you he doesn't read his podcasts. He does have communications staff and researchers as all Senators do, but he gets the point of podcasts and prides himself not reading from a prepared statement.

The usual process is he decides what to talk about that week, writes down a few bullet points and then I hit record. Occasionally he'll have supporting docs as well if there are statistics or quotes he wants to use, but in general it's an extemporaneous podcast.

Take yesterday's podcast for example, he didn't have any staff in his meeting with the President, so it doesn't make sense that someone else would write what the meeting was about just for him to read it.

For the podcasts he recorded from the Middle East, I set up a Skype Voicemail account that he called and I pulled it off with Audio Hijack Pro.

Plug: Subscribe to the podcast with iTunes or with your favorite podcast client(rss feed).

Re:Acknowledge the other side by CrazyDuke · 2006-01-25 10:01 · Score: 1 · on Both Parties Ignore the Facts

I have noticed a rabid leftist movement spring up in the past few years in responce to the rightist one. Both bother me terribly.

However, I would like to point something out. Wasn't Justice Ginsberg nominated by Republican Senator Orin Hatch after blocking Clinton's nominees? ...not that I have any love for Clinton or anything. Isn't that why she breezed through? Because, it was a horse trade between Clinton and the Congressional Republican Majority?

Maybe I'm just not remembering correctly.

Re:Surprise? by Keebler71 · 2006-01-25 05:18 · Score: 1 · on Both Parties Ignore the Facts

The politicization of the approval of judicial appointments is a new phenomena. The Democrats' arguments against Alito center on two points:

First, that he is too conservative / out of the mainstream
Second, that he was nominated to replace O'connor, who the Democrats claim to be a moderate, and as such would "tip the balance of the court".

The vote in committee was right down party lines and I think everyone assumes that the full Senate vote will be very similar.

Let's compare this with Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation vote. She was confirmed 96 to 3 (1 not present). That is right, almost every Republican voted for her. This despite her being every bit as liberal as Alito is conservative. Moreover, she was a replacement for Byron White who was significantly more conservative that Ginsburg (he dissented in Miranda vs. Arizona, Roe vs. Wade, and supported an anti-sodomy law although he was more moderate on other issues such as civil rights and the death penalty). So much for the notion that replacements need to be similar idealogically to those they succeed.

Why not do something about it? by Jaazaniah · 2006-01-21 22:38 · Score: 4, Insightful · on Election Officials And Crackers Challenge Diebold

Seriously, if someone has the knowledge of the system you just proposed, why not take the long shot and propose to work for the gov't and put that together? Not only would you be able to demonstrate how insecure Diebold's system is with a tiny PDA that can read/write their memory sticks, but you'd also be able to demonstrate that you can't do that to yours. At least not on the fly with a PDA.

Steps to stopping the stupidity:
1) Put down (favorite game) when you're off work.
2) Write plan, put something together.
3) Get in touch with someone with the power to make the (smart) decision.
4) Show off.

Lovely. by Jaazaniah · 2006-01-21 22:26 · Score: 5, Informative · on New RIAA/MPAA "Customary Historic Use" Plan

When technology first came along and swept music into our lives, it did so en mass. Further broadening the broadcasts will cost someone, that's for sure, but locking codecs into laws, linking ridiculous software patents to laws that won't expire without being smited by a judge with common sense? Here's a funny story. When Phillips and Sony finalized Red Book in 1979, it was done based off another technology source, Laserdiscs. If someone tried that today, they would be swamped by roughly 30 letters of patent infringment warnings, and if this law passes a startup that builds it's own machine (and for arguement's sake avoids stepping on toes) based on HD broadcasts would get slapped with a violation of this new ridiculous bill. (by way of bypassing the Customary Historic Use hardware regulations) Not only is this a blatant slap in the face for creativity in business, but it is also a "Pay to use our patented broadcast flag technology in your hardware or get sued for not doing so anyways!"

And just so I don't fire people up without giving them an outlet, here's some useful links. We need to hound the government EN MASS to get this proposal squashed.

Contact List
U.S. Chamber of Commerce - This law is anti-competitive for the above reasons (and likely more). Let them know.

State-sorted contact list of state senators - Can you write effectively, and do you want to make a difference? Go here and DO it. There's no reason to sit idle if you, as a citizen here, have an objection. Get others to do it too. Send them the link. Mass email it, mail in an old fashioned petition. Senators don't read Slashdot, and don't consult geeks unless it involves upgrading computers. Go here.

Is anyone here an Oregon voter? by MaelstromX · 2006-01-21 21:44 · Score: 5, Informative · on New RIAA/MPAA "Customary Historic Use" Plan

Please contact your lamebrained Senator to let him know what you think of the bill he's introducing.

I Commend Google by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-19 08:26 · Score: 0 · on Google Won't Pay Bell South

This is good to hear that a huge company such as Google is fighting the telcos. Unfortunately, we still need some more big players to stand up to the telcos as well. At that point, the only thing the telcos will have on their side is the law. This is why you need to contact your local representative about this issue. I already have, and received responses from 2 out of 3. Of course they were somewhat generic responses, but still you can only hope that the message gets across. Be sure to write a polite, clear, and concise message to ensure that you get your views heard by your representative.

Why "Flamebait"? by IAAP · 2006-01-11 00:48 · Score: 4, Informative · on US Homeland Security to Support Open Source

We've all have heard about the wasteful spending by states and municipalites regarding the spending of money thrust upon them by Homeland Security. It's a matter that concerns both sides - a little. Homeland Security has become yet another avenue for pork barrel spending, and as a result, states are getting money that may not help the fight on terrorism. Senate

At least the department of homaland security isn't wasteing all of thier money.

I agree. This will promote OSS and help reduce the costs of our Government. So what's the problem with what the parent said?

Re:Locking up our culture by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-10 01:16 · Score: 0 · on A Look at Google DRM

I really wouldn't care how much DRM companies slap onto digital media if the government hadn't taken away my right to remove it. There all a bunch of coporate whores who should be voted out of office, ASAP.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2& vote=00137

Self Slashdoting Host (SSH) by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 15:18 · Score: 2, Funny · on More Cookie Investigations

From http://mccain.senate.gov/

Sorry, the http://mccain.senate.gov/ web page you have requested is experiencing technical difficulties. The Webmaster has been alerted.

You will be automatically redirected to the http://mccain.senate.gov/ Home page after 10 seconds.

I love sites that slashdot themselves. It takes the work away from actually havign to pound the refresh button :-)

Self Slashdoting Host (SSH) by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 15:18 · Score: 2, Funny · on More Cookie Investigations

From http://mccain.senate.gov/

Sorry, the http://mccain.senate.gov/ web page you have requested is experiencing technical difficulties. The Webmaster has been alerted.

You will be automatically redirected to the http://mccain.senate.gov/ Home page after 10 seconds.

I love sites that slashdot themselves. It takes the work away from actually havign to pound the refresh button :-)

Self Slashdoting Host (SSH) by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-06 15:18 · Score: 2, Funny · on More Cookie Investigations

From http://mccain.senate.gov/

Sorry, the http://mccain.senate.gov/ web page you have requested is experiencing technical difficulties. The Webmaster has been alerted.

You will be automatically redirected to the http://mccain.senate.gov/ Home page after 10 seconds.

I love sites that slashdot themselves. It takes the work away from actually havign to pound the refresh button :-)

Pot calling the kettle black? What kettle? by PAjamian · 2006-01-06 12:57 · Score: 1 · on More Cookie Investigations

Ok, First off I'll visit John McCain's website and let's see what cookies I get...
dum de dum dum...
looking for cookies from mccain.senate.gov ... hrmmm, none, not even a session cookie.
...looking for cookies from senate.gov domain (just in case they're being stored as wildcard cookies) ... nope none.

okay, now let's hop on over to the referenced article slamming John McCain's website for setting a cookie on CNET ...
Hrmmm....
Cookies for news.com.com...
Ok there's (counts) 1 .. 2 .. 3 .. 4 .. 5 .. 6 .. 7 ... 7 cookies for news.com.com. Let's have a look at them...

ok, two of them are session cookies, "team" and "isFlash7". Not sure what team is for, but isflash7 appears to be an indicator that i have flash 7 on my system (I wonder if I explicitly set that to 0 if CNET would stop serving me flash ads? Anyways, no need since I use Adblock).

There are three cookies that are numbers followed by _uu. They appear to be set for a duration of one year and appear to track which articles I've viewed on CNET. These are the *gasp, shock horror* "tracking cookies" (queue "dun dun duhhhhh" dark sounding music).

The other two cookies appear to be set for one month and are "whatshot" and "contextPane". They appear to be some sort of preference settings, but I don't ever recall telling them I want to see a graphical "what's hot" button or a large "Content Pane" right in the middle of the article I'm trying to read. I wonder if tweakign with these cookies might get rid of those?

To me this article stinks of the pot calling the kettle black, only there is no kettle. Either McCain's webmasters fixed the site to stop sending this cookie as soon as the article broke, or Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache (the writers of the CNET article) visited a page on his site that I didn't, or they're outright lieing. At any rate, they really should've checked thier own site before going on this rampage against McCain.

This is the one state... by dimension6 · 2006-01-04 12:52 · Score: 3, Informative · on Wisconsin Requires Open Source, Verifiable Voting

...whose senator actually voted against the Patriot Act.

Re:'Yes, the very same federal government...' by Kamel+Jockey · 2006-01-04 10:29 · Score: 1 · on Sorting Through the Analog to Digital TV Mess

Perhaps that is because you only see the suggestions as complaining. "Don't start a war with someone that isn't a threat based on lies" isn't a complaint. It is a factual statement of where the Democrats would have saved money that Jr. didn't.

Wrong. Back in 2002, the Democrats were just as gung-ho about going to war in Iraq as the Republicans. You can even go back to 1998 and hear Bill Clinton explain how great of a threat Saddam Hussein was and why he needed to be removed. Other major Democratic leaders like Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy and even John Kerry also explained why Saddam had to be removed from power. Now most people in the USA understand that support was just pre-election poo-pooing so that the swing voters would not think the Democrats were a bunch of peacenik wimps (with their losses in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections, that did not work), but these statements are on the record, and the Democrats will not get away with a post-war rewrite of history.

Why do you need to see some concrete plan to notice that the Democrats are the only surplus generator in recent histroy

Clintons' surpluses only started after the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. The U.S. was still coming out of a recession from 1993 to 1995, and Bill Clinton also signed into law a very hefty tax hike, both of which accounted for the shrinking deficit, but during the time the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House (1993-1995) there was no focus on controlling spending at all. Repealing that tax hike is what helped to bring us out of the 2000-2002 recession.

When the debt is gone, taxes will be 25% less than they are now, and the budget will be balanced. If you want a 25% cut in taxes, you have to take the small tax increase now.

Heh. The problem with that idea is that any extra revenue realized from tax hikes (prior to their killing the economy) is going to be wasted on more useless BS like TV subsidies. The government needs less money, not more, but there needs to be a legal cap on how much money the government can spend before it can borrow more money.

Re:Who does the law protect? by bigpat · 2005-12-30 17:37 · Score: 1 · on Google Talk Targeted In Patent Lawsuit

I too am waiting to see Google take this one all the way to the Supreme Court.

I think we need to think a bit bigger than just setting some sort of limited precedent here. Companies like this live on the threat of a lawsuit being remotely credible. So, as long as the patent office continues to issue patents regardless of merit, then the problem will not go away. Sure sometimes big companies act with impunity to other people's intelectual property and it is right that they are sued, but seemingly more often these days it really is the little guy that is just trying to pull a scam on the big company for a few bucks. With a patent office like we have now (and have had for the past couple decades) we will continue to have a breeding ground for parasites that add nothing to our base of knowledge, but rather simply serve to restrain true innovation and thus the economy under a threat of nearly baseless lawsuits.

If the judgement of the patent clerks cannot be trusted then put a hard cap on the number of patents that are issued each year. Perhaps even have the patent office rate the patents that they issue for originality and scope to make it clearer to the courts when companies over reach the original scope of the patent. And the patent office should be continuously reviewing patents that have been issued in view to revoke them. And there should be an easy and innexpensive way to challenge a patent without suing in the Federal courts. Regardless, we are the ones that need to put pressure on Congress and the President to reform the patent office because issuing so many bad patents does nothing but hurt the economy as a whole.

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

Re:Another example by c_forq · 2005-12-25 15:27 · Score: 2, Informative · on Tennessee to Tax Software as Property?

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

Central sales-tax registry by thing12 · 2005-12-22 07:35 · Score: 1 · on U.S. Ecommerce To Be Broadly Taxed?

Maybe the poster should have actually read the PDF of the bill. It calls for a registery of member states -- and that all local jurisdictions have a common tax base identical to the member state. Everything is supposed to be set up to be "one stop shopping" for merchants who need to do it. And those are companies with more than $5M in gross sales -- that is those who can afford a little overhead in implementing the system. It's supposed to make things easier, not harder.

Re:Geek revolt by Viper+Daimao · 2005-12-21 05:13 · Score: 3, Informative · on Will the FCC Regulate the Net?

There's already opposition. It's bill number is S.2113, write to your Senators for support.

Re:Is the Salvation Army Bashing Gays? by Secrity · 2005-12-19 07:19 · Score: 1 · on Season's Givings?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=113222911236 7 http://atheism.about.com/b/a/220978.htm http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jul2001/fait-j23 .shtml http://mediastudy.com/articles/av3-28-02.html http://ethics.lacity.org/EFS2003/index.cfm?fuseact ion=lobreports.clientbyfirm&year=2001 Search for Salvation Army, check later years too. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_thr ee_sections_with_teasers/clientlist_page_D_E.htm Search for Salvation Army

Far more important: NYT saves Bush's re-election by Nice2Cats · 2005-12-16 21:01 · Score: 1 · on Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions

I don't see it here, but the far more important news in the big picture was that the "New York Times" basically admitted to helping Bush win the election. The story they finally published now about the NSA illegally spying on U.S. citizens by order of the president was held under wraps for one year (!) because the administration asked them to. Security my ass -- the NYT was asked not to ruin Bush's chances of re-election, and they went along like the good little poodles they are.

Tell me again about the liberal media. Please.

Anyway. If you are a U.S. citizen, now is the time to call, write, fax, or email your senator and tell him or her to kill the Patriot Act here and now. The link with the information is here . This has gone far enough -- it is time to get our rights back.

How did my Senator vote? by peacefinder · 2005-12-16 14:25 · Score: 1 · on Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions

You can see how your state's Senators voted here.

ROLL CALL by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-16 13:58 · Score: 0 · on Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions

See how your Senators voted:

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote =00358

Re:This is NOT over!! by avelyn · 2005-12-16 13:54 · Score: 1 · on Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions

If your senator voted well, write and thank him or her! If your senator did not, write and let him or her know. http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm Let them know that we're paying attention.

Re:Kind of off topic.. but kind of not by stinerman · 2005-12-16 11:35 · Score: 1 · on Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions

Click

Finally something truly patriotic. by SenatorTreason · 2005-12-16 11:14 · Score: 4, Insightful · on Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions

Allowing the Patriot Act to lapse is one of the few truly patriotic things this Congress has done.

How did *your* Senator vote?

Re:*sigh* done with filibuster threats by Amiga+Trombone · 2005-12-16 11:11 · Score: 2, Informative · on Senate Fails To Reauthorize Patriot Act Provisions

It's frusterating for me to watch this sort of shit. Paranoids are making life less safe for us all, and why? Fear of the government seeing which mp3s and videos you've downloaded from kazaa? Please. This is -- was -- used to target terrorists.

Horseshit. The main use of the "Sneak and Peak" provision was for drug investigations.

Whatever you think of the drug laws, peddling dope is not a terrorist activity.