Slashdot Mirror

Here in scenic Idaho, we have a senator named Mike Crapo. His campaign signs always have a nice, tasteful line of stars over the a in his name. I'm guessing he's a bit sensitive about mispronunciations. Either Firefox or Slashdot won't show the character 257.

They also received $285,000 from the federal government in 2004 for their dental outreach program.

I think the people who think that any university is a purely private institution nowadays are a bit crazy.

But voting machines are a different beast. If they don't work (and this is only more of a problem without a paper trail) it's very difficult to prove it. So the real question is this -- do we want people taking risks with the electoral process?

No they're not!

A voting machine is a machine. An airplane is a machine. We know they work or don't work by testing them.

Your comparison is flawed, because you allow testing on the airplane. Anybody who gets on your example airplane after it crashes in the desert is an idiot, as is anybody who gets on before the plane makes a few hundred safe trips. Anybody who bought those diebold machines before knowing anything about them was an idiot, anybody who bought them when the problems were coming out is an idiot, and anybody who buys them in the future is an idiot.

The problem in this case, is nobody has tested this product adequately. A smart consumer wouldn't buy an airplane held together with duct tape and powered by rubber bands, and that's essentially what the diebold machines are with their numerous security flaws, and lack of paper trail.

In this case, the problem is that there is no smart consumer. There is only the government.

Yep, I'm from Utah, thankfully not born but still living here. The politicians here seem to be jackasses, and my reasoning is the morman religion which controls the government in this state. For more info on jackass Utah politicans, see: Orrin Hatch

She's also a registered lobbyist for the Computing Technology Industry Association. Her lobbying activities have included lobbing on (presumably against) "Technology Neutrality in Government and Procurement of IT Goods and Services" legislation, in an attempt to prevent the US Government from using more open source software.

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION
107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq.

I suppose you mean 1856: The Caning of Senator Charles Sumner

Hatch is a tool (There's a new google bomb in the making). Pure and simple. He has bought into the RIAA/MPAA party message hook, line, and sinker. He's my Senator, too, and I write him all the time. I think I'm stepping up my letter intensity to him. No matter how well I word my arguments against the laws he is for concerning digital rights management, he mostly sends me letters in the gist of "Thank you for sharing your feelings with me. Unfortunately, I don't care what my constituents think so I'm going to pass every bad law I can think of that will make my RIAA/MPAA friends happy." He just sent me another one concerning the new laws regulating digital radio. I have never replied to one of his replies before so we'll see where that gets me.

I write the guy so much he probably has a file on me...

Bennett, OTOH, is much nicer to deal with. He doesn't write you back much, or at least he only writes you back when he agrees with you. I guess I find that less frustrating to deal with than Hatch's office.

Hatch is a tool (There's a new google bomb in the making). Pure and simple. He has bought into the RIAA/MPAA party message hook, line, and sinker. He's my Senator, too, and I write him all the time. I think I'm stepping up my letter intensity to him. No matter how well I word my arguments against the laws he is for concerning digital rights management, he mostly sends me letters in the gist of "Thank you for sharing your feelings with me. Unfortunately, I don't care what my constituents think so I'm going to pass every bad law I can think of that will make my RIAA/MPAA friends happy." He just sent me another one concerning the new laws regulating digital radio. I have never replied to one of his replies before so we'll see where that gets me.

I write the guy so much he probably has a file on me...

Bennett, OTOH, is much nicer to deal with. He doesn't write you back much, or at least he only writes you back when he agrees with you. I guess I find that less frustrating to deal with than Hatch's office.

When politicians talk about funding for the Hubble, or for the ISS, or any other project, it's typically because the funding would directly profit their constituents. In the rare case, they believe in the science of the project, but if it doesn't garner them votes, there's no point in voicing their opinion. Basically, if something doesn't have military signifigance, there's little interest in the government for funding it. If something doesn't have commercial value, there's little interest in the commercial sector for funding it. It all comes down to dollars, and pure science typically comes last.

If you want Sony to behave better, you must starve the beast in order to bring it to heel. How do you starve the beast you ask?

1. Write your Congresspeople (House and Senate)
2. Campaign against any elected official who voted for the DMCA
3. Boycott any and all Sony products. This includes computers, movies, etc.
4. Class action law suit - hit them in the wallet AND make it a matter of public record for all time.
5. Urge others to follow you in the boycott

I have flatly refused to buy music for a rather extended period of time because I will not put a single dime in the RIAA's pockets. They routine rip-off the very musicans that they proclaim so loudly that they are protecting. Many musicians, even prominent ones, have been defrauded of vast sums of money by the music industry representatives (Little Richard and Elvis Presely to name two that come immediately to mind). Numerous articles have been publishes on this and Sony is currently being sued by a group of artists over this very thing. If they're ripping the artists off, how come they care if I download an MP3?

2 cents,

Queen B

If something isn't done about this soon, clearly network effects will result in pretty much every "CD" being DRM-encumbered, containing, as Sony did, software that actively damages the configuration of the systems the CD is meant to play upon. However, it would be entirely wrong to hold companies like Sony to account for this. They, after all, are merely trying to make money. It is entirely right that they should do so by taking advantage of ignorance to encourage people to do things that are entirely not in their best interest. If businesses were not able to do this, if businesses had incentives to make money when honest, then freedom itself would be at risk. Liberty would be in peril.

What kind of "choice" is it where you do not need to be a technology geek to decide whether or not to buy a "CD" of music? What kind of "freedom" does one have if every vendor of cellular service is telling the truth about their talk plan prices? How are we free if we do not, in practice even if we rarely do, have to hire a lawyer before taking a job or even installing software? Can we be described as supportive of liberty when a shop cannot put a price label on an item that actually reflects the retail price minus some "mail in rebate" the customer might not even qualify for, and if they do, might not get anyway?

Those who defend the intervention of government into these matters ignore market forces. Just as, say, if people like purple cars, the market will eventually end up producing purple cars, so it follows that what we're seeing here is market forces. People, through their unwillingness to spend every waking moment researching every aspect of the products they buy before they buy them, refusing to visit factories to determine environmental and employment issues, refusing to educate themselves about 14 bit 44.1KHz encoding, refusing to examine the contracts of the artists who produced the works, refusing to understand the lower level Win32 APIs and the registry, refusing to even design proxy-device drivers to understand these basic concepts, demonstrate that they want ignorance, and they consider being taken advantage of, being fooled, as actually a thing of value. We cannot have honesty in business when the market wants dishonesty.

But, no, there are those who want to smother consumers in regulation and red-tape. They want to prevent consumers from getting the products and services they deserve. And why? Because the more dishonest the market becomes, the more they scream and think something needs to be done.

This quagmire of people complaining about the market when the market is actually providing them with what they asked for will not disappear by itself. Resources need to be devoted, and unless people are prepared to actually act, not just talk about it on Slashdot, nothing will ever get done. Apathy is not an option.

You can help by getting off your rear and writing to your congressman or senator. Tell them that the market is important to you. Tell them that you appreciate the work being done by Sony, Steam, Kevin Jones Staples and Off

The number of these medals GWB has presented seems to be about consistent with Clinton: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/two_col umn_table/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom_Recipients .htm

The term is not red-state hick.

It's 'wacko'... At least according to the Republican operatives implicated in the Abramhoff scandal.

Page 119, of this document... http://indian.senate.gov/2005hrgs/110205hrg/110205 exhibits.pdf

Ok, so I'm dusted. I see that the most liberal of parties opposes what is effectively Free Speech and the party which brought us the Patriot Act is advocating the it.

Oh, you mean the Patriot Act which every voting Democrat senator supported, except one?

1. What tripe. Let's look at the Senate vote on the Patriot Act and what do we see? Every single Democratic Senator present except one (Feingold) voted for the Patriot Act. The vote was 98-1-1. Now who was it that brought us the Patriot Act again?

2. The reason that Democrats want to restrict political spending on the Internet is not because the Republicans have more soft money to spend on Internet ads than the Democrats. (McCain-Feingold places no restrictions on "hard money" contributions). As the vast Right-Wing conspiracy bastion Slate.com has reported, the Democrats raise more soft money than Republicans. The reason that Democrats want to quash paid political blogging is that the Republicans are undisputably much more effective at it than Democrats. Anyone care to look at the hit statistics for The Drudge Report, Powerline or Little Green Footballs vs. The Daily KOS or any other liberal blog?

Argh, you blind fool. Head over to google and type in "dmca vote record". Then look at the first link, which shows everyone who voted for the DMCA. For those too lazy to even do that bit of research, I'll summarize:

Yea's - 99
Nay's - 0
Abstains - 1

That's 45 Democrats voting to pass the DMCA, 54 Republicans voting for, and one Republican not voting (presuming I counted correctly - I may have been off by one). It required a 50% majority to pass. With the unanimously Yea vote by the Democrats, it would have taken only *5* Republicans to pass the bill. Given the Democrats' unanimous support of the DMCA, it would have passed a Democrat-controlled Senate as well.

What about the Telecommunications act of 1996? Oh, look, there were a whopping 4 Democrats and one Republican voting Nay - with most of the Democrats voting Yea. Again.

So keep the crap about it being the Republicans fault (or the Democrats) to yourself - that garbage set of bills is the fault of the collective scumbags present in Washington regardless of party. Just like nearly every other right-reducing act passed in the last 50 years. Maybe if people would actually pay attention to who they're voting for and realize that they're *all* working against "us" (not just the evil "other" party), we could get some of this stupidity fixed. There's another election November 8 - that's next Tuesday. Hooray for another 10% or lower turnout, mostly of uninformed voters.

Argh, you blind fool. Head over to google and type in "dmca vote record". Then look at the first link, which shows everyone who voted for the DMCA. For those too lazy to even do that bit of research, I'll summarize:

Yea's - 99
Nay's - 0
Abstains - 1

That's 45 Democrats voting to pass the DMCA, 54 Republicans voting for, and one Republican not voting (presuming I counted correctly - I may have been off by one). It required a 50% majority to pass. With the unanimously Yea vote by the Democrats, it would have taken only *5* Republicans to pass the bill. Given the Democrats' unanimous support of the DMCA, it would have passed a Democrat-controlled Senate as well.

What about the Telecommunications act of 1996? Oh, look, there were a whopping 4 Democrats and one Republican voting Nay - with most of the Democrats voting Yea. Again.

So keep the crap about it being the Republicans fault (or the Democrats) to yourself - that garbage set of bills is the fault of the collective scumbags present in Washington regardless of party. Just like nearly every other right-reducing act passed in the last 50 years. Maybe if people would actually pay attention to who they're voting for and realize that they're *all* working against "us" (not just the evil "other" party), we could get some of this stupidity fixed. There's another election November 8 - that's next Tuesday. Hooray for another 10% or lower turnout, mostly of uninformed voters.

Anyone with a sense for history knows that the Republican movers learned a tough lesson when Nixon was run out of the White House. Since that time it has been the policy of the GOP to proffer mental gimps as their presidential candidates. In GW's' case, they have found their dream date. With Mr. Bush, all denials seem plausible...

What is a troubling trend in the GOP though, is that now even the their behind the scenes lawbreakers have begun to use variants of the Reagan defense. Scooter Libby's shysters have been throwing up test ballons with this defense painted on them:
It's not perjury. it's a faulty memory.

Enough flames for now. Yucca Mountain was shoved down Nevada's throat in 2002, and that round did begin with a Bush Broken campaign promise:

Scientists and public health officials have expressed many serious concerns about the choice of Yucca Mountain as the nuclear waste disposal site for the nation. More than two hundred significant technical and scientific issues with the Yucca Mountain site remain, including how quickly the waste containers will leak deadly radioactive waste into the aquifer beneath Yucca, and the likelihood of earthquake activity around the mountain. Even more uncertainties surround the safety of transporting nuclear waste by rail or highway.

Despite all these unanswered questions and unresolved problems, the Bush administration pushed forward a recommendation to Congress that the Yucca Mountain site be chosen to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. In so doing, he broke the 2000 campaign promise he made to the people of Nevada to base all decisions surrounding Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste on "sound science."

Sierra Club, Deadly Nuclear Waste Coming to a Rail Line Near You? The Bush Administration's Broken Promise

Nevada's Republican Governor vetoed the presidential finding, sending the decision into the Federal legislatures. It was amazing how fast the western "state rights" politicians sccurried off of that ship. As examples: on the right, Murkowski's (R-Alaska) April 9th, 2002 statement, and on the left, Bingaman's (D-New Mexico) statement

Gov. Guinn Vetos Yucca Mountain

Fight moves to Congress, where lawmakers have 90 legislative days to override Nevada's governor

Declaring that "the battle is not over," Gov. Kenny Guinn departed Monday for Washington, D.C., to follow through on his historic veto of the president's decision to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Keith Rogers and Steve Tetreault, "Yucca Mountain: Guinn vetoes Bush", Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 9, 2002

The House overrode the Governor on May 6, 2002 in the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. The Senate's override came on July 9, 2002, in their Approval of Yucca Mountain Repository

Just in case you have an uncontrollable urge to squawk, billydidit, billydidit:

The Senate failed Tuesday to override President Bill Clinton's veto of the nuclear waste storage bill on a 64 to 35 vote -- two votes short of the two-thirds needed.

The legislation provided for storing high-level spent fuel from commercial nuclear p

Anyone with a sense for history knows that the Republican movers learned a tough lesson when Nixon was run out of the White House. Since that time it has been the policy of the GOP to proffer mental gimps as their presidential candidates. In GW's' case, they have found their dream date. With Mr. Bush, all denials seem plausible...

What is a troubling trend in the GOP though, is that now even the their behind the scenes lawbreakers have begun to use variants of the Reagan defense. Scooter Libby's shysters have been throwing up test ballons with this defense painted on them:
It's not perjury. it's a faulty memory.

Enough flames for now. Yucca Mountain was shoved down Nevada's throat in 2002, and that round did begin with a Bush Broken campaign promise:

Scientists and public health officials have expressed many serious concerns about the choice of Yucca Mountain as the nuclear waste disposal site for the nation. More than two hundred significant technical and scientific issues with the Yucca Mountain site remain, including how quickly the waste containers will leak deadly radioactive waste into the aquifer beneath Yucca, and the likelihood of earthquake activity around the mountain. Even more uncertainties surround the safety of transporting nuclear waste by rail or highway.

Despite all these unanswered questions and unresolved problems, the Bush administration pushed forward a recommendation to Congress that the Yucca Mountain site be chosen to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste. In so doing, he broke the 2000 campaign promise he made to the people of Nevada to base all decisions surrounding Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste on "sound science."

Sierra Club, Deadly Nuclear Waste Coming to a Rail Line Near You? The Bush Administration's Broken Promise

Nevada's Republican Governor vetoed the presidential finding, sending the decision into the Federal legislatures. It was amazing how fast the western "state rights" politicians sccurried off of that ship. As examples: on the right, Murkowski's (R-Alaska) April 9th, 2002 statement, and on the left, Bingaman's (D-New Mexico) statement

Gov. Guinn Vetos Yucca Mountain

Fight moves to Congress, where lawmakers have 90 legislative days to override Nevada's governor

Declaring that "the battle is not over," Gov. Kenny Guinn departed Monday for Washington, D.C., to follow through on his historic veto of the president's decision to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Keith Rogers and Steve Tetreault, "Yucca Mountain: Guinn vetoes Bush", Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 9, 2002

The House overrode the Governor on May 6, 2002 in the Yucca Mountain Repository Site Approval Act. The Senate's override came on July 9, 2002, in their Approval of Yucca Mountain Repository

Just in case you have an uncontrollable urge to squawk, billydidit, billydidit:

The Senate failed Tuesday to override President Bill Clinton's veto of the nuclear waste storage bill on a 64 to 35 vote -- two votes short of the two-thirds needed.

The legislation provided for storing high-level spent fuel from commercial nuclear p

One of the actions of the US that is declared "anti-science" is the refusal to ratify Kyoto. I find that very strange since one of the lead scientists doesn't agree with kyoto. Lindzen's senate testimony is an extremely disturbing look into how politics shape science. Couple that with the bad data found in the Mann report and it's enough to make anyone doubt good science is being done.

At the end of the day, the US isn't anti-science it's a system that has been built around science in much of the developed world that doesn't promote enough skeptisism or honesty. Peer review in some circles just means you belong to the right clique, with the right point of view. Put that together with funding that often comes from political circles filled with "true believers" and you have a recipie for disaster.

Lindzen's quote "There is a certain charm when politicians are so certain of the science when the scientists are not" seems rather apt.

cluge

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the junior senator from the same state as Hastert. He doesn't seem to feel the need to write at a 6th grade level. This post, "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party," was written for the crowd over at Daily Kos, and cross-posted on his own blog. The folks over at Daily Kos seemed to be up to the "challenge" of reading it; Obama's post generated over 800 comments.

I'm not saying that this is because the Kossacks are a "sophisticated" audience, like the New York Times or WSJ audience that you mention. It's just that they didn't seem to have any problem with it. Also, I'm not sure which style is ultimately better at getting one's message across to the people; Hastert's simple, direct style, or Obama's more sophisticated one. President Bush seems to have been very successful with a simple, direct style. Maybe, as you say, that is ultimately the best way to communicate with the "or'nary American".

I guess if people really don't want to read at more than a 6th grade level, Obama's got 'em covered with his podcast. If what you say is true, maybe political podcasts will become more and more common, since even a poor reader can just listen instead. Talk radio would be the example here...

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is the junior senator from the same state as Hastert. He doesn't seem to feel the need to write at a 6th grade level. This post, "Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party," was written for the crowd over at Daily Kos, and cross-posted on his own blog. The folks over at Daily Kos seemed to be up to the "challenge" of reading it; Obama's post generated over 800 comments.

I'm not saying that this is because the Kossacks are a "sophisticated" audience, like the New York Times or WSJ audience that you mention. It's just that they didn't seem to have any problem with it. Also, I'm not sure which style is ultimately better at getting one's message across to the people; Hastert's simple, direct style, or Obama's more sophisticated one. President Bush seems to have been very successful with a simple, direct style. Maybe, as you say, that is ultimately the best way to communicate with the "or'nary American".

I guess if people really don't want to read at more than a 6th grade level, Obama's got 'em covered with his podcast. If what you say is true, maybe political podcasts will become more and more common, since even a poor reader can just listen instead. Talk radio would be the example here...

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has a blog that allows comments. I found that out while reading this Washington Post article posted on Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) site. According to the article, Tancredo is the only federal lawmaker with his own blog that accepts comments.

Even though a lot of lawmakers don't have their own blogs with comments, many will post at other blogs and receive comments there. Obama posted a diary about the Roberts nomination over at Daily Kos, and got over 800 responses. His followup diary got over 400 more.

hastert's colleague in the senate, barack obama, has been doing an excellent podcast for several months now.

The H-1B visa laws are produced by Congressmembers. Everyone in the House is up for election in just 1 year: find your Reprepresentative and snail mail them a polite letter telling them they don't represent you when they pass and support laws like the visa program. Find your Senator and do the same, though only the one up for election next year, if any, is going to pay any real attention. These people work for us, when we make them - but not until then.

Charles Schumer, the senior senator from NY, has been big on this in the last month (and has been big on affordable drug policies for years...) First he said it was inexusable that Roche was putting their profits ahead of widespread safety, and last week said that Roche was being unreasonable in refusing to take steps to make the drug more widely available (not stepping up production, not meeting with other potential producers). Schumer threatened Congressional action to ignore the patent if there was no action from Roche in 30 days. Now it sounds like Roche relented, at least a little in the US market, and has agreed to step up production and at least talk with other potential producers about licensing.

Wow! We've got a live one here!

From the United States Senate Records, we can find exactly who voted for or against Resolution 114 to invade Iraq:

Joe Lieberman - Yea
Dianne Feinstein - Yea
Tom Daschle - Yea
John Kerry - Yea
Bob Graham - Yea
Tom Harkin - Yea
Arlen Specter - Yea
Barbara Boxer - Nay
Robert Byrd - Nay
Hillary Clinton - Yea
John Edwards - Yea
Bob Graham - Nay
Jim Jeffords - Nay
Ted Kennedy - Nay
Carl Levin - Nay
Patty Murray - Nay
John Rockefeller - Yea

Fact is, none of these people were idiotic enough to invade Iraq over this.

I count 10 'Yeas' and only 7 'Nays' from that list. It takes a two thirds majority to go to war, and the Senate gave it with a 77 to 23 in favor. I hope those words of yours are tasty?

Then again, it would never do to let a little thing like the facts cloud a good argument, now would it?

Yep, the very same Coleman that Galloway tore a third anus into to go along with his matching set of the one he defecates with, and the one he thinks with.

Coleman is worthless.

The only reason he is a senator is because of Wellstone's tragic plane crash. He was a strawman candidate in a no chance race.

If you can handle the sissification, read a couple of congressional daily reports:

• Coleman plays straight man to Hatch
• Barbara Boxers Coleman's ears in

If Coleman had any morals, he be investigating the Americans implicated in tthe Oil for Food scandal, but he is too much of a party hack to investigate family and cronies of the President.

Here's an example of Coleman's compassionate conservatism:

"United States Senator Norm Coleman said today that the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina offers an historic opportunity to revitalize the Gulf Coast, while providing for economic incentives that will ensure massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure."

Coleman Press Release September 5, 2005

You say natural disaster, Coleman says "historic opportunity"; and he released this one week to the day after Katrina had hit New Orleans.

The same type of historic opportunity that made him a senator...

Of course in keeping with contemporary conservatism's rampant hypocrisy, their vaunted fiscal responsibility shines brightly by their funding this "massive investment in intellectual, physical and technological infrastructure" with the work product of the future. Norm shares another common trait with contemporary conservatives.

Coleman the chickenhawk

Coleman was born on August 17, 1949. That made him Grade A prime monkey-boy fodder for the Vietnam War, but Norm never served in the military. Judging from his appearance back then, he was on the antiwar side of the equation when it was his turn to march off to war.

"A lottery drawing - the first since 1942 - was held on December 1, 1969, at Selective Service National Headquarters in Washington, D.C. This event determined the order of call for induction during calendar year 1970, that is, for registrants born between January 1, 1944, and December 31, 1950.

[...]

The highest lottery number called for this group was 195; all men assigned that lottery number or any lower number, and who were classified 1-A or 1-A-O (available for military service), were called to report for possible induction."

Coleman's number would have been 154

Source: The Selective Service System website

Here's a very informative statement by Kennard about the FCC status in 1998... It helps us see where we are now came to be.
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/0610ken.pdf

Kennard maintained that the purpose of the FCC was to promote competition and UNiversal Access (both to telephone and internet).

So what happened to the FCC? Why does the FCC still want to regulate radio transmissions, when as TFA points out, there is no appreciable limit to transmission based on frequency?

Well, Kennard resigned in 2001. Succeeding him were Michael Powell and Kevin Martin. Most of us know what Powell gave us, but here's a link to Martin's public statements since his appointment:
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/martin/statements 2005.html

Not too much mention about competition there. Nor about USF, other than instigating inquiries. So what exactly is the FCC mission under Martin?

The 105th U.S. Senate, from 1997 to 1999, was composed of 45 Democrats and 55 Republicans.

That is not a "vastly Republican" Senate.

The list of those not voting is as follows:

Bryan (D-NV)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Grams (R-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Reid (D-NV)

Thankfully, so is my Senator:
Senator Cantwell's letter to President Bush asking for more transparency in the oil market, and an explanation for why oil company profits are so high right now.

If I may be so bold as to respond, I would have to say that the general unease and uncertain outcome as to who was going to be leading a coalition in the Bundestag (or if it was going to be a presumably more ineffective outcome of a grand coalition) is more than enough reason as to why an Internet coalition can be a bad thing: if people don't agree, then noone's leading. Not to mention the partisan politicking and potentially disastrous compromising potentially necessary in such a coalition.

I would hope that you'd agree that the last thing we need is a compromise between a coalition and WIPO to the effect of "We will let you send out autonomous search engines to search for copyrighted material and bring anyone who has them to court automatically wherever you are, in exchange for giving us money to our budgets."

I will concede on your point about majorities, however. On the other hand, Republican and Democratic majorities in the U.S. Congress are not often much better than the majorities you claim are in the Bundestag. Even today, with what is called the most Republican Congress in some time, in the House, they only have a 53% majority and in the Senate, they have only a 55% majority. Even in 1977, the most biased Congress since the beginning of World War II (Feel free to take a look at the party divisions in the House and Senate if you don't believe me), the Democrats only had a 67% majority in the House and a 61% majority in the Senate.

No kidding. I was a Missouri resident at the time, and when a St. Louis judge illegally declared that polls in his predominantly Democratic district were allowed to stay open two hours later than elsewhere in the state, it was a strong reminder that my vote was only as important as that judge felt it was.

Surely that's what you were referring to, right? Because nobody's naive enough to believe that either party has a monopoly on dirty tricks, right?

Let Congress feel the /. effect - email your senator or congressman/woman, especially if they're on the Senate Commerce Committee or the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee.

The "There are 20 law makers currently supporting the bill" link in the summary is incorrect. The twenty Senators listed on that site are the ones in the Commerce Commitee who will be voting on the Senate version of the DTV bill, and may or may not support the broadcast flag.

This article, however, was about a new push to get the Brodcast flag added to the DTV bill in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce , in particular in the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee . The way that legislation works now-a-days is that there is rarely an opportunity to get a bill ammended when it goes before congress. All the formulation and ammending of bills happens in committee, and then the house and senate usually just give it an up or down vote without any modifications (but after a great deal of grand-standing). So these are the people who have the most influence on the final wording of the House version of the DTV bill. If you have representatives from your state in this committee you should definiately write them. Even if you don't it won't hurt to pick someone from the subcommittee and write them anyway.

The representatives listed by Mad Rain, above, is the correct list of supporting representatives - 20 of the 57 members of the House Commerce Committee. If they are in you district, they are the people you should writing letters of disgust, and let them know you will be voting against them in the next election.

In addition if your Senator is on the Senate Commerce Committee and you haven't written them yet on the broadcast flag, then you should, as they will be dealing with this issue as well.

Lastly if your senators and representatives are not on any of these committees you should write them anyway in case the bill makes it out of committee. Since we dont know an exact number for this bill yet, it helps if you know in what capacity they will be working with the bill, to help them identify what bill you are talking about. Keywords - Digital Television Bill, Broadcast Flag, Commerce Committee.

The article title is misleading. Google has had lobbyists on tap in Washington for quite awhile. Google is is also a member of trade groups (e.g. - NetCoalition) which do a substantial amount of lobbying on behalf of the search/tech/ad/etc industries. They're opening an actual government relations office now - a big step up from hiring a few lobbyists who split their time with other clients.

Senate lobbying disclosures here.
House lobbying disclosures here.

Sorry buddy, but you need to get your facts straight. 98 out of the the 100 Senators voted in favor of the Patriot Act in 2001. Right Wing Warmongers, eh? Like, Kerry, Leiberman, Edwards, Hillard Clinton, Kennedy, and Feinstein, eh? Source

To be honest, the term "homeland security" just makes the country feel less like my own home. It has a vague nuerolinguistic programming sound to it. It sounds antiforeign and hyperguarded. For starters, no American uses the term "homeland."

The term Homeland Security sounds like another politically correct nonsensical term being forced out of the Government that provides no obvious answer as to what it does. That's not something you can blame on just Republicans, bub.

If the government turns AGAINST us? Really, what have you been smoking? This isn't 1984. Bush sucks as a President, we get it. He's not Hitler. Hell, he isn't SMART enough to be another Hitler.

As for civil liberties, this isn't in your lifetime, but read up about the Alien and Sedation Act sometime.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced an anti-phishing bill that proposed stiff penalties including up to 5 years in prison and fines as steep as $250,000. I wonder what happened to that ?

Not only that, but -- as this is a number of states entering into an agreement -- wouldn't this require the consent of Congress?

My representative isn't so kind to justify my messages with an automated response, but I got the following from Senators Kerry and Kennedy last week:

---

September 27,
2005

[My home address edited out]

Dear Mr. Baboval:

        Thank you for contacting me. I
appreciate that you took the time to write
and am glad to hear your concerns. Your
message has been forwarded to the
appropriate staff in my Senate office. I
take into account the correspondence my
office receives. However, due to the amount
of email we receive we are unable to respond
individually to each message.
        Again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
United States Senator

----

Thank you for your message. Hearing from people like you is important because it allows me to better understand the constituents that I serve in the United States Senate.
As you can imagine, my office receives a great number of messages every day regarding a variety of issues - this is particularly true of e-mails. It makes me proud to know that my constituents take an active role in our government by corresponding with me, and I look forward to responding to your concerns in greater detail. In the meantime, I just wanted to let you know that your e-mail has been received, and to ask for your patience until I send you a more detailed response.
Again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to visit my website http://kennedy.senate.gov/ to follow my work in the Senate and to learn more about the services my office can provide to you.
Warmest regards

Ted Kennedy

----

That's why I typically both e-mail, and then send a hard copy through the USPS. I never use the canned text from some form letter (though I may use bits and pieces of it).

The excess the Republicans' proposed cuts is almost unbelievable. You can read the full proposal here. Here are just some of the most egregious cuts:
$225 billion cut from Medicaid, the last-resort health insurance program for the very poor.
$200 billion cut from Medicare, the health care safety net for the elderly and the disabled.
$25 billion cut from the Centers for Disease Control
$6.7 billion cut from school lunches for poor children
$7.5 cut from programs to fight global AIDS
$5.5 billion to eliminate all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
$3.6 billion cut to eliminate the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities
$8.5 billion cut to eliminate all subsidized loans to graduate students.
$2.5 bullion cut from Amtrak
$2.5 billion to eliminate the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
$417 million cut to eliminate the Minority Business Development Agency
$4.8 billion cut to eliminate all funding for the Safe and Drug-Free schools program And the list goes on and on.

You didn't specify what you wanted me to give you references to.

On September 2, the 26-nation International Energy Agency agreed to make availabe to the U.S. 2 million barrels of oil per day, half petroleum and half gasoline. In other words, when the gasoline shipments start arriving from Europe in the next week or so, along with 1 million barrels per day from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve the U.S. will be swimming in oil. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) estimates that $7 billion per month are stolen by the major oil companies. Also, the Department of Energy is aware of the fact that Saudi Arabia has significant refining capacity and could send a supertanker a day to the U.S. with 500,000 to 750,000 barrels of gasoline. The price of oil is being set by two institutions: the London-based International Petroleum Exchange (IPE) and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). These two institutions is controled by the same oil cartel.

Most of what I originally wrote I think you can find in The New York Times. I know... it's hard to trust them too.

Regarding the paradigm shift in the U.S. politics I mentioned, just check out what some of the senators in Washington are saying. Harry Reid for instance.

I have VA coverage for life unless the VA goes tits up first.

Don't count your chickens...

Odd that when the government foots the bill, the most efficient systems like the VA get cut, while bloat gets more bloated.

Time to contact your representatives!

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

And your senators!

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

This is just ridiculous!!

Have you tried CNN.COM or The Palm Beach Post or Newsmax or The Washington Post or how about USA Today.

In case you think any of those are too Bush friendly try out the New York Times.

Outside of media sources there is also the Wiki entry.

As for the panhandle disenfranchisement try:

Newsmax again.

Or the US Senate investigation.

As for the disenfranchisement of voters through poorly created criminal lists try:

Common Dreams (reprinting a Palm Beach Post article)

John Lott (you can read the whole thing but his conclusion sections should do)

Essentially the criminal lists did little to affect the vote, and most calls of African American disenfranchisement (the Democrats backbone support) were actually due to a disproportionally high vote rejection rate in 'Black districts', not the lists. But as several reviews have shown, these were do to voter error in marking their ballots, not any particular attempt to actively disenfranchise them. And before you try to make a case that they used different style ballots in 'Black Districts' (which was the case in some areas) remember, those districts, being predominately Democrat, were run by Democratic election boards who designed those ballots.

There was a good site that summarizes all the various debates, but I can't seem to find it right now. If I do I'll reply with a link. As for the Supremes roll in all this, it's pretty much a a moot point but if you want to dig further at least 7 justices saw some problem with the way the Florida Supreme Court had ordered the count to go forward, and at least 3 saw the December 12th deadline as an important part of their decision. They vast majority had issues with the lower courts rulings but each of the SCJs had a different idea as to what the solution should be.

Wikipedia's article on the Ninth Circuit claims that the Ninth Circuit covers 20 percent of the population of the United States. And in this press release about a plan to reorganize the Ninth Circuit:

It is the largest of all U.S. Circuit Courts and larger than the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuits combined. The Circuit also contains the fastest growing states in the nation. By 2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the Ninth Circuit's population will be more than 63 million -- an increase which will inevitably create an even more daunting caseload.

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActi on=Hearings.Testimony&Hearing_ID=1445&Witness_ID=4 139 http://www.postindependent.com/article/20050407/VA LLEYNEWS/104070011&SearchID=73218713158746

JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, concluding that consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis require that Roe's essential holding be retained.

As for Roberts, neither of the two most popular quotes of his are relevant. Quote #1 of "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled" was made when he was solicitor general and charged to represent the views of President Reagan. Apparently contradictory quote #2 "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," was made when he was being confirmed for a lower court -- what else could he have said? No, the most important quote is "I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize [Roe] as judicial activism. ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions." That indicates he sees nothing glaringly wrong with Roe v. Wade and thus will not vote to overturn.

The scary part about Roberts, though, is his close ties to Bush and support for his policies such as Guantanamo Bay. With the Chief Justice gone, my fear is that Bush may make Roberts Chief Justice rather than the earlier favorites of Thomas or Scalia.

Thomas, at least, voted for medical marijuana (along with Rehnquist) as a vote for states rights and constitutionality. Thomas would be the strict Constitutionalist ideological heir of Rehnquist for the Chief Justice seat, but we're likely to end up with a neocon like Roberts instead.

We have never had ALL of our branches of government run by a political party with control centered in the hands of so very few.