Slashdot Mirror

Folks, there's still hope. The Senate Intelligence Committee merely proposed their recommendations. These recommendations still have to be approved by Congress and the Senate.

Email your respective representatives NOW!!!

Who are my Senators?
Who is my Congressman?

FYI

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members.htm

If one of these people is from your state, please contact them and let them know your concerns.

As such an "in touch" person who sees what's really going on - you do realize that most of the powers the Patriot Act gave to the FBI to fight terrorists, it's had to fight the drug war since 1982? And to fight Medicare fraud since 1997? And have been used by federal agencies from OSHA to the SEC in the verification of their regulations? That, in fact, the only thing that's kept the FBI from using these powers against you for the past twenty years is that they're either basically honest or just don't give a damn about you?

The war on drugs did far more to trample the rights of the citizens of the US than the war on terrorism ever has (or will). People whining about this stuff now have been asleep at the switch for a very long time. You want to crusade for freedom - don't start trying to block minor enhancements to FBI power like this. Start by trying to roll back all the laws and court decisions over the past twenty years that have rolled back your 4th and 5th amendment rights, that have elimninated any expectation of privacy in financial transactions, that have made it very difficult to do anything significant in cash. Undo law enforcement's ridiculous powers to sieze your property without trial and sell it for their profit. End racial profile stops that result in drug searches.

It's not some Bush or Republican plot. They're just trying to do to terrorists what we've been doing to drug users and dealers for a really long time. The elimination of our rights has come from both parties, as they've both controlled Congress and the White House over the time this has occurred. If you're mad at Bush personally about the Patriot Act, you're blinding yourself to the fact that it passed the Senate 98-1. No party or president has a monopoly on favoring expedience over principle. While Brave Democratic Senators stand up against these largely meaningless provisions of the Patriot Act, no person in any party is making any move to restore the rights we've already had stolen from us.

This Patriot Act crap is mouse nuts compared to what Congress and the courts have done to our rights in order to stop demon weed over the past two decades. I'll be impressed with your clarity of vision when you start being mad about the stuff that's important.

It doesn't take much. Just tell them that you know about the committee's vote and how the unchecked power it gives is antithetical to the Constitution.

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

Bill Clinton ?
Hillary Clinton ?
Al Gore ?

Whoever it was, they were right, though perhaps they thought a larger quantity of the weapons would be found.

There are many people in the U.S. who say they are pro-Republican when they are actually just pro-anger or are "religious" in an extremist obsessive-thinking manner. Anyone who is logical enough to be a computer programmer is likely to notice their lack of logic.

There are many good Republicans. But the Re-money-cans are 100% corrupt. They are helping George W. Bush sell the U.S. government to whomever has the money: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

Background information: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories. The U.S. government declared war on Arabs long before there was Arab terrorism against the U.S.: New York Governor Pataki's statements are equivalent to a declaration of war.

The U.S. government is bankrupt. The value of the U.S. dollar is dropping fast because the Bush administration is rapidly borrowing money. Who is doing the borrowing? These people: U.S. Federal Deficit by Political Party. If you are a U.S. citizen, you owe $26,289.01, even if you are only 1 year old.

As Republican John McCain has said many times, campaign finance has corrupted the U.S. government.

I disagree with Senator McCain about Bolton, but at least McCain does not lie about the facts: "We all know that Mr. Bolton is perhaps not the world's most beloved manager, nor one to keep his temper entirely under wraps." McCain is a true Republican.

An open letter on this memorial day. A time to remember our countrymen and the sacrifices they made for our freedom. Consider the price of freedom, and how fleeting it is. What must be taken with mighty armies can be given away with the stroke of the pen...

I've read that congress is considering revisions to the Patriot Act, and that President Bush is pushing for more powers to intrude in secret into lives of Americans. Please don't let our nation go down this road. I am asking people to discuss this issue and contact your congress person and senator to let them know how you feel. Freedom is not free, it must fought for and held close dearly, in the statehouse and on the battlefield.

In America a battle is raging that is threatening our freedom in the name of terrorism. It used to be "drugs", then it was "the children", and now its "terrorists". The government doesn't care who the bogeyman is, it simply wants more power, and it will use any excuse possible to get it.

When the events of 9/11 occurred, everyone-- the politicians, the President, the newscasters, and the people everywhere-- said "We must go on with our lives, if we change who we are as a result of the trajedy then the terrorists have won..." I hate to say it then, because that's exactly what we did. We allowed our government to put in all these draconian measures that would have scared the pants off us if we had seen it in a hollywood movie on September 10th. We have fundamentally altered our country in response to what the terrorists did, and our freedom and liberty is at stake.

We are no longer as free as we were. We are no longer as kind to each other as before. We run around the world acting like the bully, and we've even lost the respect for ourselves-- our own moral compass and lamp of righteousness. We used to be the shining beacon of freedom and liberty for all the world to see. Now we're reviled and hated in many parts of the world and shunned by our friends and allies.

We've changed a lot since 9/11. Government agents can search your home and seize your property without anybody ever knowing what happened. They have even made talking about it a "national security" crime. These are things are supposed to happen in Cuba. These are things that happen in China. These are things that are supposed to happen only in the farthest, darkest, most oppressive corners of the world-- not in America, "the land of the free".

It has been said that people who give up their liberty for safety have neither. It would seem that since 9/11, Americans have looked away while lawmakers stripped away fundamental freedoms that are guaranteed to us under our constitution. Since the birth of this nation we have championed against tyranny, oppression, and the subjugation of humanity all around the world. What an irony that we must now remind ourselves of these very principles and warn our politicians to step lightly to avoid leading us into the abyss.

Step away from that edge! Guide us back into the light and liberty. America was great before, and shall be great again. All that is required is the wisdom and the courage to stand up and speak against what we all know is wrong. America has a mighty weapon, and its not our tanks, its not our ships, its not our weapons of mass destruction-- America's mightiest weaspon is ourselves. Our love for humanity, our reaching out to stop the oppressors of the world, our zest for life and our yearning to be free.

The terrorists who aim to defeat us can never win because they simply can't understand our spirit. But the politicians who govern us can defeat us. They are charged with protecting our spirit and keeping the beacon of liberty lit for all the generations that come. It is not the terrorists I fear. We have mighty armies and very smart people that will eventually defeat them, of this I am ce

From the article:
"...stop of a suspect at LAX by U.S. Customs Officers. Strapped to the suspect's body was more than $230,000 in cash. The suspect told the Customs Officers that she was enroute to Lebanon for "vacation." Information was developed that the suspect owned a chain of cigarette shops. Service of search warrants led to the seizure of more than 1,000 cartons of counterfeit cigarettes, an additional $70,000 in cash as well as wire transfers to banks throughout the world."

"...in 2004, detectives served a multi-location IPR related search warrant. During the course of the investigation, detectives located a photo album. Within the photo album were dozens of pictures of attendees at a fund raising event for the Holy Land Foundation. When questioned about the album, the suspect said that the Holy Land Foundation was not a terrorist funding operation. When I informed the suspect that the United States government had shut down the charity because of its alleged support of Hamas, the suspect replied that the United States government was stupid and would do anything the Jews told them."

That looks like a pretty good start to me.
Note that this is no different than illegal operations in Boston sending money to the IRA. Or Basque sympathizers in Madrid sending money to ETA.

It's probably not the actual 'terrorists' standing on the street corner selling bootleg DVD's or smokes to fund their operations. But you can bet that some of that money finds it's way to Hamas, via useful fools.

Let's read the Sheriff testimony shall we ? Here the link to the PDF

I'll take some quotes that I find interesting, you're advise to read all the testimony for better comprehension

Victims of these organized criminal groups include the tobacco industry, luxury goods manufacturers, clothing companies, and the music and motion picture industries.

Indeed all those industry have something in common : a big difference between final sale price and production cost...meaning they have high profits for each unit they sell. Not surprisingly criminals can still produce something and sell the counterfeit good at a price
that is lower then the original good price..that's possible only if the real production cost is significantly lower then expected sale
price. Of course criminals can also use second quality raw materials for their production, but that's true of industries as well (that's why legitimate industries could use minimal open-2-review standards..but that's another problem)...most of the times consumers don't notice any significant difference, either because the difference is not significant to them or because it's factually minimal

Information in open sources indicates that across the globe anything that has a decent profit margin is being counterfeited.
And not surprisingly so..but I'd replace decent with "high"...decency is a rather vaporous measure.

During interviews, these suspects have admitted that IPR crime is attractive because of the high profit and minimal jail sentences. In the parlance of one suspect, "It's better than the dope business, no ones going to prison for DVDs."

So one would think "let's rise the bar, punish the crime and the crime will stop" ..I guess 20 years of War on Drugs have amply shown
that this is not the case..drugs are still sold....while some argue that the total amount of drugs sold must have declined (because
of the seizures) they usually forget seizures make the business only marginally more expensive...and drugs are still sold.

There are mounting indicators of the involvement of terrorist groups and their supporters.

Criminal countefeit rings are those who benefit the most and they certainly don't want political/religious activists and extremists (therefore likely terrorists) among their ranks, because they're big noisy troublemakers attracting an hell of a lot of police AND government attention. One could argue that terrorism distract police from other duties, but assuming terrorist are profiting from the same rings of "ordinary" criminals ..you would have seen criminal policing of terrorist activities.

There must be the understanding that this crime affects all citizens through fraud, the diversion of tax revenue, and the empowerment of the criminal element.

I completely agree : let me remember Enron Corporation and other extremely dangerous criminal corporation who operate inside legitimate
markets..I wonder how many are hidden behind a curtain of weak or bought laws, complacent officials et al.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has, like most local agencies, suffered cutbacks in personnel over the past several years due to severe budget curtailments.

It did ? Amazing I would have tought boatloads of money were disbursed to police/firefighters after 9/11...mmhh one wonders were all the
money really went. Maybe at Homeland Security ? Maybe in Iraq ? .....Oh well, so as long as I'm not affected who cares about neighbours *waves little national flag*

not sure whether it's firefox or the html, but here's the actual link to the archived video of the testimony

http://hsgac.senate.gov/audio_video/052505video.ra m

Write your congressperson.

Write them a letter. With an envelope. And a stamp. It carries a tremendous amount of weight (it really does). Don't use a form letter. Don't type it. Don't call them. Write a legible, clean and concise letter expressing your viewpoint. Tell them that you do not agree with the upcoming changes to copyright laws. While you're at it, tell them you don't appreciate parts of the PATRIOT act becoming legitimate law either. Tell them that the erosion of your rights in the name of fighting "terrorists" isn't something that you're willing to tolerate anymore.

Instead of whining and bitching to people who--by and large--agree with you, write to someone who can make a difference.

When you're finished with that, write your senator as well.

Someone really needs to put up a web site shaming everyone who's used 9/11 to advance their own interests or to demonize the opposition as terrorists.

From The Demagogue Files...

"Interpol believes there is a significant link between counterfeiting and terrorism in locations where there are entrenched terrorist groups."
--Jack Valenti, MPAA Chief (Source: senate.gov)

"There are also indicators that some associates of terrorist groups may be involved in IPR [Intellectual Property Right] crime"
--Lieutenant John Stedman [View PDF], Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles (source: senate.gov)

"Anti-spammers are terrorists at heart and attack websites and email accounts of companies wishing to bring their products and services to the general public via email, an enviromentally sound, REMARKABLE medium!"
--StealthLaunch/PopLaunch, mass-marketing firm
(source: the Register)

The National Education Association is "a terrorist organization"
--Rod Paige, Education Secretary
(source: usatoday.com)

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
Rev. Pat Robertson, Religious Leader (source: commondreams.org)

[Discussing liberal Federal judges]
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings"
[Followup question asks if liberal judges really are the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War...]
"Yes, I really believe that,"
Rev. Pat Robertson, Religious Leader (source: nydailynews.com)

[When asked about abortion in the US]
"I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life. And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions. The fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own," she added."
Karen Hughes, Bush Campaign advisor (source: cnn.com)

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States"
--Dick Cheney, Vice President of the US (source: about.com)

"America's under attack and so are we."
--Kenneth Lay, CEO, Enron (source: Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room)

Anyone got

Someone really needs to put up a web site shaming everyone who's used 9/11 to advance their own interests or to demonize the opposition as terrorists.

From The Demagogue Files...

"Interpol believes there is a significant link between counterfeiting and terrorism in locations where there are entrenched terrorist groups."
--Jack Valenti, MPAA Chief (Source: senate.gov)

"There are also indicators that some associates of terrorist groups may be involved in IPR [Intellectual Property Right] crime"
--Lieutenant John Stedman [View PDF], Sheriff's Department, County of Los Angeles (source: senate.gov)

"Anti-spammers are terrorists at heart and attack websites and email accounts of companies wishing to bring their products and services to the general public via email, an enviromentally sound, REMARKABLE medium!"
--StealthLaunch/PopLaunch, mass-marketing firm
(source: the Register)

The National Education Association is "a terrorist organization"
--Rod Paige, Education Secretary
(source: usatoday.com)

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
Rev. Pat Robertson, Religious Leader (source: commondreams.org)

[Discussing liberal Federal judges]
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings"
[Followup question asks if liberal judges really are the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War...]
"Yes, I really believe that,"
Rev. Pat Robertson, Religious Leader (source: nydailynews.com)

[When asked about abortion in the US]
"I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life. And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions. The fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own," she added."
Karen Hughes, Bush Campaign advisor (source: cnn.com)

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States"
--Dick Cheney, Vice President of the US (source: about.com)

"America's under attack and so are we."
--Kenneth Lay, CEO, Enron (source: Enron: The Smartest Guys In the Room)

Anyone got

Um -- Dan Quayle? Someone probably handed him a nicely embossed leather binder with some space plans in it he was happy to endorse. Understanding them was another matter. When it comes to vice presidential space visionaries, I much prefer the grand grafter, Spiro Agnew (PDF), who on the day Apollo 11 blasted off for the moon in 1969 called on the U.S. to make its next destination Mars (ETA=1980, long before Dan Quayle ever thought about whether "potatoe" was the correct spelling).

"Since the Republicans are asking me to fund a war I'm firmly opposed to..."

Perhaps you'd better go check the Congressional record:

An act making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR012 68:@@@R

Not that it's necessary since it passed 100-0, but here's the actual record of votes:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1& vote=00117#position

Likewise the original Congressional authorization for war was similarly bi-partisan:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ001 14:@@@R
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2& vote=00237#position

Text of the law:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Blaming the war on the Republicans is convenient, but unfortuately ungrounded in fact.

"Since the Republicans are asking me to fund a war I'm firmly opposed to..."

Perhaps you'd better go check the Congressional record:

An act making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR012 68:@@@R

Not that it's necessary since it passed 100-0, but here's the actual record of votes:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1& vote=00117#position

Likewise the original Congressional authorization for war was similarly bi-partisan:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ001 14:@@@R
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2& vote=00237#position

Text of the law:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

Blaming the war on the Republicans is convenient, but unfortuately ungrounded in fact.

Would we ever expect an organization who profits from piracy to proclaim that the rate of piracy might be decreasing?

They have. They say 33% for 2004, but the president of the BSA testified before Congress that the rate was 42% in 2003. That's impressive.

Also, technically, the BSA doesn't "profit" (in a financial sense) from piracy. It's a non-profit organization.

orin hatch, very conseravtive senator fronting for an industry which in no way helps his state, which is overwhelmingly liberal. yeah, money talks, but why hatch? sure he's on the judiciary committee, but doesn't this really fit into trade and commerce, or maybe communications. he's on neither committee. isn't there some irony here.

Yeah. From senate.gov:

I still believe, as I said when the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act was passed in October of 2002, that the Act contains many provisions that are needed to help protect our nation against terrorism. But I was the only Senator to vote against the bill because, like a growing number of Americans, I believe that the bill went too far in allowing the government to obtain personal information about law-abiding Americans.

I welcome the administration's desire to clarify misunderstandings about the PATRIOT Act. But I also believe that the administration has a duty to speak frankly and honestly with the American people about the law's potential to lead to violations of the rights of law-abiding citizens. I am disappointed that Attorney General Ashcroft, in his national tour to defend the Act, is only addressing hand-picked audiences in settings that are closed to the public. I am even more disappointed by the administration's reluctance to discuss serious concerns about some of the Act's more troubling provisions.

As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have a responsibility to exercise oversight over the
Department of Justice. I have serious concerns about the powers granted to the federal government by the PATRIOT Act, and I will continue to seek straight and honest answers from the administration about these powers.

Sounds admirable and all, but strangely enough, here's what he has to say about national security... from the same site...

The events of September 11, 2001, galvanized our country and our allies in a global fight against terrorism and those who would shelter, support, and finance the terrorist network that carried out these heinous acts.

Our first national security priority must be the fight against the terrorist networks that attacked our country on September 11. I am concerned that some of the Administration's actions have led the United States to shift critical military, intelligence, and other resources away from combating al Qaeda and related networks. I believe that our security interests would be better served by devoting these resources to tracking down and destroying the terrorist networks that attacked and continue to threaten this country.

I will continue to work to ensure that Congress provides the resources necessary to win the fight against terrorism and protect our national security.

Dude, pick a side.

Yeah. From senate.gov:

I still believe, as I said when the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act was passed in October of 2002, that the Act contains many provisions that are needed to help protect our nation against terrorism. But I was the only Senator to vote against the bill because, like a growing number of Americans, I believe that the bill went too far in allowing the government to obtain personal information about law-abiding Americans.

I welcome the administration's desire to clarify misunderstandings about the PATRIOT Act. But I also believe that the administration has a duty to speak frankly and honestly with the American people about the law's potential to lead to violations of the rights of law-abiding citizens. I am disappointed that Attorney General Ashcroft, in his national tour to defend the Act, is only addressing hand-picked audiences in settings that are closed to the public. I am even more disappointed by the administration's reluctance to discuss serious concerns about some of the Act's more troubling provisions.

As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have a responsibility to exercise oversight over the
Department of Justice. I have serious concerns about the powers granted to the federal government by the PATRIOT Act, and I will continue to seek straight and honest answers from the administration about these powers.

Sounds admirable and all, but strangely enough, here's what he has to say about national security... from the same site...

The events of September 11, 2001, galvanized our country and our allies in a global fight against terrorism and those who would shelter, support, and finance the terrorist network that carried out these heinous acts.

Our first national security priority must be the fight against the terrorist networks that attacked our country on September 11. I am concerned that some of the Administration's actions have led the United States to shift critical military, intelligence, and other resources away from combating al Qaeda and related networks. I believe that our security interests would be better served by devoting these resources to tracking down and destroying the terrorist networks that attacked and continue to threaten this country.

I will continue to work to ensure that Congress provides the resources necessary to win the fight against terrorism and protect our national security.

Dude, pick a side.

With a few more Republicans in Congress since the one that created and passed the Act, who owe their offices to the Republican machine that funded and organized their campaigns, why should they change any of the Act that they all like so much?

Yep, those Republicans are definitely to blame for this one. Those Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent it from being passed.

Isn't it possible that the Democrats generally oppose the Patriot Act today, and the Republicans generally support it today, because they're playing the political game and trying to drum up support from the far-extreme parts of their parties, rather than examining the law to see whether the provision really is a good or a bad idea?

Viewing this link indicates that debate regarding this part of the bill was brought up before the Senate, but it was voted that the debate be stopped.
Text from site:
To express the sense of the Senate that Congress should not delay enactment of critical appropriations necessary to ensure the well-being of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces fighting in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, by attempting to conduct a debate about immigration reform while the supplemental appropriations bill is pending on the floor of the United States Senate.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1& vote=00117

I used the right link to contact my senator, and already got a response:

Thank you for contacting me to share your perspective on the
REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418). I appreciate hearing from you
about this important issue.

As you know, on January 26, 2005, Congressman Jim
Sensenbrenner introduced the REAL ID Act. The REAL ID Act
passed the U.S. House of Representatives on February 10, 2005.
Many, though not all, of the provisions included in the bill were
considered during the House debate of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458), sometimes referred to as
the 9/11 bill, in December 2004. While companion legislation has
not been introduced in the Senate, please be assured that I will
keep your views in mind should I have the opportunity to consider
this or similar legislation.

As the REAL ID Act is a complex piece of legislation, it may
interest you to learn more about three of its key provisions. First,
REAL ID would preempt state and local laws regarding the
issuance of driver's licenses and personal identification cards.
Instead, the bill establishes minimum issuance standards for
federal recognition of state driver's licenses or personal
identification cards.

Prior to issuing the identification card, the state and issuing agency
(for example, the local Department of Motor Vehicles) must verify
the validity of an individual's: photo identification document, or
non-photo document that includes both the individual's full legal
name and date of birth; date of birth; name and most current local
address; and Social Security number or ineligibility for a Social
Security number.

In short, the REAL ID Act repeals the ability for states to approve
issuing driver's licenses or personal identification cards to any
individual without legal documentation of his or her stay in the
United States.

Proponents of this provision maintain that establishing a uniform
driver's license and personal identification card system throughout
the United States will increase homeland security. Issuing
agencies would be required to confirm all identification
information, making it more difficult for people to use fraudulently
attain a state issued identification card. In addition, making it
effectively illegal for an undocumented immigrant to receive an
identification card makes it difficult for this category to obtain
employment, travel by air, enter many federal buildings, as well as
many other privileges reserved for individuals living legally in the
U.S.

However, opponents of this provision view driver's licenses as
serving a public safety interest. Studies, such as a January 2003
report conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA)
Foundation for Traffic Safety, have consistently found that
unlicensed drivers are more likely to cause serious traffic accidents
that lead to injury, death, and property damage. Studies have also
shown that unlicensed drivers are more likely than licensed drivers
to be uninsured. Driver's licenses are also a prerequisite for
purchasing car insurance. States that have chosen to issue driver's
licenses to undocumented immigrants have found that the number
of uninsured drivers drops.

Furthermore, driver's licenses provide law enforcement with
information about who lives in a given community. The Interstate
Driver's License Compact is the most comprehensive database of
individuals in the United States, containing all of the information
included on a person's driver's license and their driving history. It
is important to note that an individual's criminal record has no
relation to that individual's driver's license, regardless of
citizenship status. Currently 46 states and the District of Columbia
take part in the Compact, meaning that, if necessary, law
enforcement officers can access the names, pictures, and

• First, any site with a Matrix fetish loses all credibility.
• Second, clearly the site is designed to spread FUD. The fake image of the "Real ID" card indicates that the card will contain information such as Religion and Occupation. It will not. Read the bill. FUD.
• The site says cops will die. Right. Because when cops are working under-cover they will be carrying their real ID cards. Just like today, when under-cover cops are required to carry their badge and drivers license. Oh, wait, no they aren't. FUD.
• "every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to Big Data for a nickel" Right. Because every time I got to the convenience store I have to present my license. Oh, wait, no I don't. FUD.

Read the bill yourself. Don't trust this unreal.com guy.

After you decide if you want to support the bill or not, contact your senator through www.senate.gov.

If you feel strongly, you could just contact your senator yourself. http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm/

I'm sure that a letter/email/fax from an actual constituent would carry a lot more weight than a bulk fax from some guy with a website.

You could always just contact your senator directly..... http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm

Once upon a time a filibuster delayed a vote indefinitely and could therefore prevent the Senate from consenting to a nomination, but in 1917 the Senate adopted the cloture rule, which allowed the Senate to bring a filibuster to an end and force a vote by a vote 2/3 of the Senate. So the effect of a filibuster since then has been to refuse consent only when fewer than 2/3 of the Senators are prepared to bring the matter to a vote. The effect is, thus, in effect, to require at least a 2/3 majority. By the way, the Senate historian has a nice web page on the history of the filibuster.

I'm not sure about the current procedure, but I'm not aware that the rules governing filibusters have actually changed. (Judging by an episode of The West Wing I recall seeing during the past few months, they haven't, but I wouldn't want to base an argument on that.) It may be that the Senate has become wimpy and just folds at the threat of a filibuster, but as far as I know, if those favoring a vote stand their ground, the speaker still has to go through the pain of delivering a real filibuster. If the procedure has changed, I can see that it seems unfair not to make the users of the filibuster pay by having to go through the lack of sleep and raw throat and so forth, but from my perspective of it being a roundabout way of imposing a requirement of a supermajority, which I consider to be desirable in the case of judicial nominations anyhow, I don't see any need to make the "culprits" atone for their "sin".

I call upon all the Democratic senators and representatives who read Slashdot to stop this as soon as possible! There. I've done my part.

I agree with what you said, right up until the bit about having "done my part." I sincerely doubt that many Senators or their staff members read Slashdot, or make policy based on our comments.

Instead, how about contacting your elected represenatives directly, and telling them what you just told us? Here, I'll help you out:

• Contact info for US Senators
• Contact info for US House of Represenatives

Be polite and make a reasoned, rational argument to the people chosen to represent you -- then your opinion will be worth more than a (+5, Insightful).

No. What we need to get "back" to is the idea of personal responsibility.

What we're getting to, slowly but surely, is the idea that all work is boring and unnecessesary.

In Bush & Co.'s "Ownership Society", you own your trash. If you throw it in a park, you get your ass kicked. You don't get somebody whose job was replaced by a machine to pick it up for you.

And the great thing is, the libertine liberals can't do a damn thing about it, because their candidate will lose badly against whomever follows Bush.

The first step in corporate ownership of the US Senate is this:

http://www.senate.gov/favicon.ico

I thought it was just a simple configuration error, but I've sent email to their webmaster and it hasn't been fixed. Perhaps if other people were to politely let them know that, while Sun Microsystems may or may not be a fine company, their logo appearing on the web site of the US Senate is probably not appropriate.

National Weather Services Duties Act of 2005

Well maybe not for all congressmen, but most are paranoid about paper mail. Remember the anthrax scares of a few years ago? Staffers are still afraid. When mail arrives at their office they don't open it, they send it to an irradiation plant, then open it. The process intentionally takes weeks. (Some poisons are better destroyed by time than irradiation)

A post card is better because there is no easy way to hide poison on it (without killing everyone in the post office anyway). Still best is an email or fax, which cannot be tampered with by the sender.

Bill Frist's web site has a side bar "PLEASE NOTE: security restrictions now cause considerable delay in processing postal mail sent to the offices of Senator Frist. Accordingly, please consider e-mail, fax"

The bill number is S786. It has been refered to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. You can search by the bill number at http://senate.gov/

Here's the link to write to the senator: Santorum For Weatherman Headquarters

Should anyone be interested in expressing your opinions about this bill, visit http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAc tion=ContactInformation.ContactForm to send him an email.

You should definitely check out the official spin on this:

Santorum Proposes to Modernize National Weather Service to Better Serve Public

...write him a letter or give him a call:

Santorum, Rick- (R - PA) Class I
511 DIRKSEN
SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324
Web Form: santorum.senate.gov/contactform.cfm

Source

...write him a letter or give him a call:

Santorum, Rick- (R - PA) Class I
511 DIRKSEN
SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6324
Web Form: santorum.senate.gov/contactform.cfm

Source

should be doing is stop bitching to a bunch of 14 year olds on Slashdot, head over to here and find your Senators; write them, and complain. Explain to them why sponsoring this bill is bad and that doing so will cause them a loss of your vote--enough of these and they -will- listen.

List of senators on that committee.

here

In response to:

Barry Myers, AccuWeather's executive vice president, said the bill would improve public safety by making the weather service devote its efforts to hurricanes, tsunamis and other dangers, rather than duplicating products already available from the private sector.

Ed Johnson, the weather service's director of strategic planning and policy, said:

"If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time. You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."
And then this gem from Accuweather:

Myers argued that nearly all consumers get their weather information for free through commercial providers, including the news media, so there's little reason for the federal agency to duplicate their efforts.

"Do you really need that from the NOAA Web site?" he asked.

Um, gee, if everyone already doesn't get their weather information from the National Weather Service, then what the fuck are they so worried about? Incidentally, the stated mission of the National Weather Service is:

The National Weather Service (NWS) provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and the global community.

Clear, timely, comprehensive, accurate - and now open - weather forecasts are critical for many, many sectors of public and private society. The new, open formats of weather data also make its integration into myriad other services and tools trivial. It's only good for the public. I don't think Sen. Santorum realizes how critical the NWS's weather, climate, and marine data is to so many sectors of US society.

The National Weather Service is funded for this mission, among others, by the taxpayers of the United States.

I hope Rick Santorum realizes that in a world where this bill passes, there should also be a corresponding reduction of funding to the NWS, in addition to a wholesale change of its mission. In fact, what would its mission be?

The best part of all of this is that in order for the NWS to effectively be able to gather the necessary data to still predict and warn against life- and property-threatening dangers, it still has to do almost all of the continuing data collection it does now. Removing the public access to this does absolutely nothing for anyone.

Except for-profit weather forecasting providers like Accuweather, of course.

For now, at least, Johnson of the NWS notes his agency is expanding its online offerings to serve the public.

Remember, too, that a "bill" is just that. Time to remind your elected officials of what you think...

People need to realize that the government has the ability to use any patent for its own use or license a private organization's use.

Read the law.

"Federal law - 28 U.S.C. 1498 - allows the United States to purchase products like ciprofloxacin for official use from manufacturers other than the patent holder."

IANAL

"I am pleased that the House has passed this bill, which takes us forward in the fight to prevent the most egregious form of piracy--the illegal copying and unauthorized distribution of 'prereleased' works," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said after the vote.

personally thank Orrin Hatch. Thank you for blighting the world with the DMCA.

My understanding is that officers are usually tasked with creating acronyms for the projects they are responsible for. This would be in keeping with the fact that they have to do all the documentation and write ups on it.

• space and global strike
  
• intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance
  
• integrated missile defense
  
• combating weapons of mass destruction

So something as intellectually neutered as JFCCNW is actually the kind of acronym that a smart person would like to see in their dossier. Over time, as an officers dossier is reviewed, part of the whole "reading the entrails" to see if an officer is suitable comes down to how well they work within the bureaucracy, and to this end I've known officers who have been promoted for such things. It's a whacked planet.

We have convicted criminals in high political office too... as well as individuals who used political & family influence to avoid prosecution for crimes that anyone else would have done time for.

Contact the Senate energy committee & let 'em know!

http://energy.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm/

Well, if you're in the U.S., and you're concerned about these events (it's looking more and more like an anti-privacy group), might I suggest contacting the privacy office or going directly to the dept. of homeland security to let them know how you feel as a taxpayer about the appointment of individuals with a less than stellar record when it comes to privacy concerns?

Might be a good idea to contact your senators and representatives too.