Slashdot Mirror

Are you signed up for the revolt? That is the only way you are going to get someone in charge who is not an authoritarian, wanting the FBI to get their way. Not a single candidate in either the Democratic or Republican party has mentioned the Constitutional protection which should exist. They have all said that the FBI should be able to do what they want, when they want, to whom they want.

In fact they have all said Safety is more important than Freedom and Government intrusion. (a couple have intentionally used double speak to try and hide it, but..)

Tyranny is frighteningly close.

You need to google it more... Here's the list of who's against and who's on the fence:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

You'll note there isn't a single Democrat who's all-in for the FBI. I'm not happy that no Presidential candidate has completely supported Apple's position (because it's the constitutional position), but if either Trump or Cruz is the candidate for Republicans (90% likelihood), then I'll venture that either Sanders or Clinton will lean to the liberty side of this argument.

One other thing to note is Sanders' opinion on spying programs: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

Sanders.

Bernie Sanders voted to increase H1-B visas.

Advocating Sanders to people who were (just now) replaced by outsourcing is a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

Senate vote on the immigration reform bill of 2013. (s.744) Lot of changes but its ultimate purpose was to raise the cap on H-1B and L-1 workers (It didn't pass the Republican controlled House)
This bill was heavily lobbied for by Zuckies FWD.us group; a lobby organization made up of tech companies including Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. Passed 68-32, but nays are all Republicans. Of course, afterwards Obama, in his usual dictatorial way, signed an executive order which prevented the deportation of 4 million visa workers by issuing a permits for them, effectively bypassing the will of the people.

Destroying the American tech workforce with visa'd worker is largely a Democratic support effort. Of course, Clinton support H-1B, as well as Cruz, Rubio, and the workers hero: Bernie Sanders.

Thank you!

That was the roll call I've been trying to find off-and-on for the last several months, it's the smoking gun.

Neither the Democrats *nor* the Republicans work to the benefit of the people.

>A Democratic member of congress and Democratic national senator from your state.

Hilarious. Ha Ha.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

Senate vote on the immigration reform bill of 2013. (s.744) Lot of changes but its ultimate purpose was to raise the cap on H-1B and L-1 workers (It didn't pass the Republican controlled House)
This bill was heavily lobbied for by Zuckies FWD.us group; a lobby organization made up of tech companies including Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. Passed 68-32, but nays are all Republicans. Of course, afterwards Obama, in his usual dictatorial way, signed an executive order which prevented the deportation of 4 million visa workers by issuing a permits for them, effectively bypassing the will of the people.

Destroying the American tech workforce with visa'd worker is largely a Democratic support effort. Of course, Clinton support H-1B, as well as Cruz, Rubio, and the workers hero: Bernie Sanders.

Of course, Obama has every right to make a recess appointment if those chuckleheads can't get their act together. Looks like the next recess long enough may be in April ( http://www.senate.gov/legislat... ). If they don't hold any hearings, they might not get a say at all as to the next Justice.

spot on. Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the US Constitution don't *grant* rights, they *guarantee* them against State interference. As opposed the Human Rights Act in England and Wales, which ONLY guarantees that the State won't infringe on rights *granted you by the State at its own sufferance* unless it *feels the need to* - and you have NO RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE REMEDY under the Human Rights Act! Don't believe me, go read it for yourself: compare the ECHR which the HRA is based on, next to the HRA - you'll see that under the Articles in hte HRA, #13 is absent. This is because the UK Government is under the criminally erroneous impression that Art. 6 covers it. IT DOESN'T, which is WHY IT'S IN THE ECHR IN THE FIRST PLACE!

Just FYI: there is a clause in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (linked here) which immunises State actors from ANY civil or criminal prosecution WHATSOEVER on the single proviso that they turn evidence in ANY OTHER PROCEEDING. Cliffnote: you can't sue the State!

http://www.echr.coe.int/Docume... (ECHR)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Human Rights Act (HRA))
http://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/a... (Magna Carta 1215, Modern English translation at the British Library)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... (Bill of Rights 1689 (the dates are different because this is the year the calendar changed))
http://www.senate.gov/civics/c... (The Constitution of the United States, including Amendments I-XXVII)

The Senate amended that bill to remove the ban.
Though I'm guessing this law and any more recent laws are what really mattered in the end.

As an aside, I really wish the government used something more like git (or at least actual patch files) and showed commits/diffs/tags github style.

It's really hard to grok what changes with their current methodology. First you look at a change (ex. "beginning on page 590, strike line 11 and all that follows through page 595, line 7, and insert the following") and so you have to find a pdf with page numbers.
Then you hunt down what some bill is editing and it's editing the text of what's effectively another patch file on some version of U.S. code and figuring out what the file law would be for just that change is near impossible.

Maybe some day we'll get to have gitlaw

Just buy a damn smartphone and a holder for it. Give us Bluetooth connectivity for music and hands free. Oh and fuck Onstar. That's all you need. That way we can replace the phone every two years which is a hell of a lot easier than spending an extra $5K for a built-in system that is not easily up-gradable and leaves us vulnerable.

I did miss read that and stand corrected.

In my defense I would like to point out that Franken has not been friend to freedoms in the past.

Don't worry. I'm sure my senators won't vote for it.
Well shit they both voted for CISA in the senate last time. I guess Senator Klobuchar and Senator Franken do hate our freedoms. All that is really left is to find out if my freedom hating shit stain of a Representative (that would be you Kline you ignorant bastard) voted for it in the house.

Precisely, when you have supporters and opponents of this law on both sides and crossing party lines. While most GOP candidates seem to be for it, Ron Paul is not alone, and is supported at least by Ted Cruz here. What I want to know is that of the Dems, who opposes the wiretaps? Clinton? Obama? Bernie? O'Malley?

At the very least, Bernie

"He has introduced S. 1168, the “Restore Our Privacy Act,” to amend the PATRIOT Act to curtail overly broad surveillance by the government."

Both houses of Congress and much more often their committees can move into closed sessions which do not have their minutes published publicly.

http://www.rules.senate.gov/pu...

2)(A) Except with respect to meetings closed in accordance with this rule, each committee and subcommittee shall make publicly available through the internet a video recording, audio recording, or transcript of any meeting not later than 21 business days after the meeting occurs.

If you look at the Congressional Record, you see where it says they they went into Closed Session at such time, and no information about what happened in that session.

If you're one of his constituents you should probably contact him and tell him to stop fucking up: http://www.burr.senate.gov/ Unfortunately, NC is not one of the 18 states that allow recall of a senator, so you'll have to threaten him with losing his job next election cycle.

(Oh and let's not forget, nearly everybody, republican and democrat, supported the use of force in Iraq at the time, many of whom had full access to the same intelligence as the president.)

Bernie Sanders opposed the use of force in Iraq at the time.

"The question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether we like Saddam Hussein or not. The question is whether he represents an imminent threat to the American people and whether a unilateral invasion of Iraq will do more harm than good." -- Bernie Sanders (video and transcript)

He also lists five reasons why he was opposed to the use of force, each of which seem nearly clairvoyant in hindsight.

Bernie 2016.

I think Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey have already got the memo, seeing as they were the ones that originally sent it.

Request unable to be completed.

The submitted https request was not able to be completed at this time.
Please retry your request using http. This may require disabling some browser based plug-ins.

http://www.senate.gov/

Of course...

--
BMO

Senate.Gov. The United States Senate

Request unable to be completed.

The submitted https request was not able to be completed at this time.
Please retry your request using http. This may require disabling some browser based plug-ins.

http://www.senate.gov/

Obligatory list of how each critter voted.

What do you mean? looks pretty gun control friendly to me. He wants to ban "Assault weapons", which is a made up term in itself (Cosmetic features that do not make the gun more or less deadly). Funny how particular safety features also turn the gun into an "Assault weapon" (Barrel shrouds).

Though he did vote to allow guns in national parks, to shield firearms manufacturers from liability for shootings and against a five-day waiting period for gun purchases.

Though the second one seems pretty common sense to me since we don't hold any company accountable for the misuse of their products.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

"Bills stated purpose: To regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices."

He voted yes

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

"Bills stated purpose: To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes."

He voted yes

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
(Two days ago)

What do you mean? looks pretty gun control friendly to me. He wants to ban "Assault weapons", which is a made up term in itself (Cosmetic features that do not make the gun more or less deadly). Funny how particular safety features also turn the gun into an "Assault weapon" (Barrel shrouds).

Though he did vote to allow guns in national parks, to shield firearms manufacturers from liability for shootings and against a five-day waiting period for gun purchases.

Though the second one seems pretty common sense to me since we don't hold any company accountable for the misuse of their products.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

"Bills stated purpose: To regulate large capacity ammunition feeding devices."

He voted yes

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

"Bills stated purpose: To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes."

He voted yes

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...
(Two days ago)

slashdot is overwhelmingly conservative.

If anything Slashdot is Libertarian. Pro Liberal social policies, pro conservative fiscal policies, with a fair amount of independent thought.

But I could understand liberals thinking /. is conservative, and conservatives seeing it more liberal.

But case in point, there are both liberals and conservatives that both support or reject it. Bernie Sanders isn't really conservative, but opposes TPP vehemently. As does Trump. Strange bed fellows indeed.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

Whoops - cut-and-paste typo.

The actual link is here.

The tabulated data is correct, it's just the link points to the house roll-call instead of the Senate.

Good catch - thanks for the heads up.

We could spend less than 1% of our GDP on defense and still have a larger military than most countries out there.

Thanks for making my point.

Second, what infrastructure? Be specific.

Is "public" a specific enough modifier for you?

I was a truck driver for years, and if you're going to mention highways and bridges - don't bother. You're wrong.

I don't find your personal anecdotal experience very compelling. I find multiple reports from credible sources far more convincing.

We are responsible for quite a few things, military-wise...[blah blah blah]

I asked for accomplishments, not responsibilities. Care to try again?

Did you even read that link?

No. Why would I? All I did was accurately observe that you didn't add anything to the discussion.

I defined "threat" by the only measure it should be defined: based on the actual reality of the situation [...] Is that the reality? Yes.

Uh huh. Another prick on the internet who claims to know the true reality of the situation.

We face a much larger threat from people who can't use their brain properly.

I assume that would that include people who claim that North Korea "shot a missle over Japan", right?

“As someone who voted against the Patriot Act and opposed its reauthorization, I have long been concerned about out-of-control intelligence agencies.

“At a time when the American people are outraged by government attacks on our constitutional rights, the president’s proposal is a step forward. We must, however, go further. Ending the bulk collection of phone records of virtually all Americans – 99.999 percent of whom have nothing to do with terrorism – is important. The president should end that program now, not 90 days from now. We also must also make sure that the government isn’t harvesting records on our emails and other Internet activity except in instances where there are specific reasons to suspect wrongdoing.

“Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies must be given the tools they need to protect us, but that can be done in a way that does not sacrifice our constitutional rights. If we allow the government to see all of what we read, what we watch and what we hear, then we cannot be called a free society.”

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

Basically, Obama and the advisers he picked decided that the only way to pass a health care bill was to give the Republicans and the corporations everything they wanted.

Riiiight. Which is why every single Republican Senator and Congressman voted against it.

If you read that Washington Post article I linked above, you will see that the complaint of the progressives is that Obama gave the Republicans everything they said they wanted, but they still opposed it. The progressives thought that Obama was making a stupid, unnecessary compromise that wouldn't even work, and they turned out to be right. Even when Obama gave away the store, the Republicans still opposed him in every way they could.

What really happened was the exact opposite of what you say. Obama and his advisors crafted a heath care bill which was so liberal, not only did it lose all the Republicans, it was in danger of losing a good chunk of the moderate-center Democrats as well. All the compromises you claim were made to appease Republicans, were in fact put in to appease moderate Democrats. Most of them didn't like it either, but were under enormous pressure by the far-left wing of the Democrat party to get this passed while they still had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (10 months from 2009-2010).

I don't know where you get your idea of "far-left wing." I went to City College of New York at a time when I could sit at one lunchroom table with the Communists, another table with the Trotskyites, and another table with the Socialist Workers Party. Those were the people who were supporting Fidel Castro, fighting against the Vietnam war, and sitting in with Martin Luther King (and getting arrested in the process). So maybe you could call them far-left.

The left wing of the Democratic Party in Congress is probably represented by the Progressive Caucus, which includes Bernie Sanders and John Conyers. I don't know why you call them "far" left, unless it just makes you feel good to throw out inflammatory adjectives.

The Progressive Caucus supports a single-payer, Canadian-style system, where the government replaces the insurance companies, and negotiates with drug companies. That's not Obamacare. The Progressive Caucus members weren't even allowed into Obama's White House Health Care Summit in 2009, until they complained. Obama first promised them a single payer option, and then took it back when Karen Ignani, head of the insurance industry lobbying organization, threatened to pull another "Harry and Louise." Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, was always hostile to the Democratic left and in one famous incident called them "fucking retarded." (Which you can look up on Google.)

You can't blame this one on the Republicans. Its legacy will rest entirely upon the Democrats because it was 100% Democrat-drafted, passed, and signed.

Obamacare was modeled on a Heritage Foundation plan. I can blame it on the conservatives, Democrat and Republican:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...
The irony of Republican disapproval of Obamacare
The Democrat's version of health insurance would have been cheaper, simpler and more popular. But we enacted the Republican version. So why are they so upset? Because it an achievement for the Obama administration.
By Robert Reich October 28, 2013

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the...
The Heritage Foundation disowns its baby

Basically, Obama and the advisers he picked decided that the only way to pass a health care bill was to give the Republicans and the corporations everything they wanted.

Riiiight. Which is why every single Republican Senator and Congressman voted against it.

What really happened was the exact opposite of what you say. Obama and his advisors crafted a heath care bill which was so liberal, not only did it lose all the Republicans, it was in danger of losing a good chunk of the moderate-center Democrats as well. All the compromises you claim were made to appease Republicans, were in fact put in to appease moderate Democrats. Most of them didn't like it either, but were under enormous pressure by the far-left wing of the Democrat party to get this passed while they still had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (10 months from 2009-2010).

You can't blame this one on the Republicans. Its legacy will rest entirely upon the Democrats because it was 100% Democrat-drafted, passed, and signed.

Right. And then people like you begin to cry when the government raises taxes to pay for stuff like this.

I just wrote the IRS a check for $4,500. In a strange way, I was glad to pay it. I compared what I was paying to the government with what I was getting from the government, and it was a great deal.

I'd rather pay more in taxes to have the government provide the services I need.

I sent my niece $4,000 to help her pay for college. When Bernie Sanders went to Brooklyn College, it was free (in return for our taxes).

I pay over $400 a month for health insurance. In Canada it would be free (in return for our taxes).

In a well-run country http://www.sanders.senate.gov/... , taxes, in exchange for government services, are the best deal you can get.

In the U.S., unfortunately, the Republicans and centerist Democrats come into office, and say, "Hey, here's all this money in the government treasury. Let's loot it and pass it out to our corporate campaign contributors." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07... http://www.propublica.org/arti...

Then they say, "Government can't do anything. Let's cut taxes."

If it's unanimous, then nobody on this page gets to pretend they have common sense or had American interests at heart. Look for your state (oh, your poor bastards in Maine) and make sure you do your duty to prevent the re-election of these truly worthless people:

Arkansas - Tom Cotton

California - Diane Feinstein

Florida - Marco Rubio

Hawaii - Mazie Hirono

Idaho - James Risch

Indiana - Dan Coates

Maine - Angus King

Maine - Susan Collins

Maryland - Barbara Mikulski

Missouri - Roy Blunt

New Mexico - Martin Heinrich

North Carolina - Richard Burr

Oklahoma - James Lankford

Oregon - Ron Wyden

Virginia - Mark Warner

Don't be afraid of crossing "party" lines to do this. Just think of the scumbag that you're voting against as an in-duh-vidual that needs to be purged. Yes, you're probably putting in another scumbag, but it won't really be worse. (But also keep an eye out for any non-D+non-R candidates, and don't worry about "winning" or "throwing your vote away." If even 2% of America shows up and votes for America, that'll be an improvement over previous elections. It'll be noticed, and 2 years later we an try for 3%. And so on. Your grandkids might get to live in America, but only if you give a fuck in the present.)

Sadly, you don't need to use the USSR as an example. Google up about Senator Grassley sending a letter to the DOJ and Veterans Administration about why the VA has been adding thousands of veterans to the NICS database if the veteran has somebody managing their financial affairs for them. Despite no federal law stating anything even close to saying that having somebody manage your finances makes you mentally defective under ATF standards, the current administration has implemented this rule. http://www.grassley.senate.gov...

would have rivaled the old East German Stasi in scope and reach

First, I think Germans under the Stasi would have traded us all their national security/law enforcement & intelligence folks for all ours today in a heartbeat, and if you think otherwise you are stark raving mad. Intelligence isn't evil, getting arrested for dissent is, regardless how you're found out.

Sure, recent congressional actions (Thank you, Sen. Paul!) have put an end to at least one program...

What the hell are you talking about, his goal was to amend the Freedom Act. The Senate passed the unmodified House version days later. This is right out of Senator Paul's mouth days ago. http://www.paul.senate.gov/new...

"Tonight begins the process of ending bulk collection. The bill will ultimately pass but we always look for silver linings. I think the bill may be replacing one form of bulk collection with another, but the government after this bill passes will no longer collect your phone records. My concern is that the phone companies still may do the same thing.

Currently, my understanding is the N.S.A. Is at the phone company sucking up the phone records and sending them to Utah. My concern is under the new program, that the records will still be sucked up into N.S.A. Computers but the computers will be at the phone company, not in Utah. "

So there is some big concern about the NSA having your datas, but nobody gives a shit about the phone/email/whatever company not having any restrictions on use or distribution of "your" data in the first place. What is wrong here.

Yeah, phone meta data collection is bad and unconstitutional

Citation?

http://www.paul.senate.gov/new...
"We went to the court, the Second Court of Appeals, the highest court in the land just below the Supreme Court, said that what they are doing is illegal, but we don't yet have a ruling on whether it's Constitutional. One of my fears about the bill that we're going to pass, the sort of in-between step that some think it may be better, is that it will moot the case. "

Privacy laws related to electronic communications and data storage need to be updated

Update... besides HIPAA there's... what?

At least you're on the right track because the constitutional angle is just crap.

My biggest problem with all this is when people throw around words like freedom, liberty, constitution because they are too mentally lazy to admit we don't really have much in the way of privacy protection laws and the Constitution doesn't actually go there. So each and every time I hear "fourth amendment" instead of "privacy" I tune out a little more from this spying debate.

You are the one spreading lies. There have been numerous investigations into Benghazi and it has been concluded that "The CIA talking points were flawed but still "painted a mostly accurate picture of the IC's analysis of the Benghazi attacks at that time, in an unclassified form and without compromising the nascent [FBI] investigation of the attacks."" and "that the interagency coordination process on the talking points followed normal, but rushed coordination procedures and that there were no efforts by the White House or any other Executive Branch entities to 'cover-up' facts or make alterations for political purposes." Seriously, let's put this BS to bed.

Well it gives us 2 day to contact our Senators and have them not listen to us. If you want to know who supported it you can find it here. I guess my 2 senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar really don't want people to keep their freedoms and want various agencies to take clearly unconstitutional actions like issuing general warrants. Maybe they need some public shaming so it will be clear that they want to take your freedoms away.

As per Article II, Section IV, a president is not "arrested", he is impeached. As per Article I, Section 3, it is the responsibility of the House to impeach a president.

But even when the president is impeached, that is only a legal accusation of a crime, not the trial itself. After impeachment is successfully completed in the house, it is the Senate's responsibility to hold a trial. Then, and only then, can a president be "arrested", only one individual in the entire United States has the authority to do that: the Senate Sergeant in Arms.

You can accuse him all you want of having committed a crime. But until the House actually impeaches a POTUS, he cannot be arrested for any crime.

As to your veto power, you have a president in office who literally vetos anything the republicans put through the congress.

of what president are you speaking? some school board president or something? because if you're talking about president obama, he has issued only FOUR vetoes to date as POTUS. Being as he is over 3/4 of the way through his 8 years, and yet has issued 1/3 of the total number of vetoes of his predecessor, it is highly unlikely he will leave with an outstanding number of vetoed bills. in fact the first president bush issued over 10 times this many vetoes in a four-year term.

granted, obama is facing the least productive and least popular congress ever observed, so there haven't been many chances for him to sign or veto anything. but if the republicans have only managed to get four bills to his desk in 6 years, that is abysmal.

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

He voted yes to this bill, before becoming president. This is what allowed the "warrantless" wiretapping (there are warrants involved, but that is never good enough for your type). You don't remember all the talk in Slashdot around the time that this bill had telecom immunity in it for the wiretapping given to the government?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008#Netroots_opposition_to_the_bill)

Yes, Obama voted for this bill as a senator. He then went on to change the language on his website to remove his opposition to the telecom immunity provision in the law.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

Just for the record, 66 people (59 Democrat, 3 Republican, 4 Other) voted no in the House and only Feingold voted no in the Senate.

yup... But there used to be a time when it was worse
https://www.senate.gov/artandh...

WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Sens. Rand Paul (R- KY) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today announced that they will be introducing the Invest in Transportation Act of 2015. This bipartisan legislation would extend the Highway Trust Fund, which supports millions of jobs. The bill would also boost economic growth and create jobs by providing an incentive for companies to bring back some of the estimated $2 trillion in foreign earnings that are being held overseas.

The legislation would strengthen the U.S. economy and create jobs by allowing companies to voluntarily return their foreign earnings to the United States at a tax rate of 6.5 percent. The rate is only for repatriations that exceed each company’s average repatriations in recent years, and funds must have been earned in 2015 or earlier. Companies would have up to five years to complete the transfer.

The measure would ensure that a portion of the repatriated funds will be used for increased hiring, wages and pensions; research and development, environmental improvements; public-private partnerships; capital improvements; and acquisitions. Under the bill, no funds could be spent on increases in executive compensation, or on increases in shareholder dividends or stock buybacks for three years after the program ends. Also, any company that inverts within 10 years of participating in this program would have to repay the tax incentive with interest.

All tax revenues from the repatriation program would be transferred into the Highway Trust Fund, helping to address the urgent federal funding crisis facing America’s highways, bridges, and transit systems.

... to allow some people to yell so loudly ... I can pretty much guarantee that this was never what was intended. And yet it will persist as long as we equate money with speech.

In the 1700s, printing presses were owned by people who had money to own such things. It has always been the case that people who have money have more ability to express their speech than someone who doesn't. The founders weren't ignorant boobs, they were people who had printing presses or access to them.

This "equate money with speech" is a fiction. The truth is, money is a prerequisite for ANYONE to have effective speech, especially today, but still true in the 1700s. By cutting someone's access to money, you cut his access to effective speech, thereby limiting his right to free speech. I'll point to the use of "free speech zones" at political conventions as an example of the technical existence of free speech but the practical effect of limiting it severely, which is what saying "you can say whatever you want but you can't spend money to buy TV or radio advertising to say it..." is equivalent to.

The case you are probably alluding to was just one example of PEOPLE who banded together to pool their money to buy airtime to exercise their right to free speech. Yes, they incorporated, but that's a red herring. At the base, they were people, and people are the ones who have the rights.

And to some degree there's a valid concern that if the government can block or limit expenditures on speech, then at some point the government/powers-that-be could be the only ones able to drown out everyone else.

A lot earlier than that, if you block expenditures by people who pool their money, you will GUARANTEE that the only people who can speak effectively are those who are rich all by themselves. The government already has free (as in beer) speech -- it's called "franking", or "spending taxpayer dollars on advertising", or "town hall meetings".

I'm not sure what the best solution is, or if there is an easy solution other than the institution of and enforcement of norms of behavior.

Those are called "laws", and we have a Constitution that limits what laws the government is supposed to be able to enact. One of the bits of our Constitution talks about speech and the limits on laws regarding such. Telling ten people that they cannot put their money together so they can buy a radio ad that none of them can afford individually, while allowing one person who can afford such an ad to buy time, is a fundamentally flawed and ethically bankrupt attempt at silencing people you don't agree with. Nobody complains about Citizens United when it allows unions to buy airtime, they only complain about the "corporation" that wanted to buy airtime for an anti-Hilary movie.

Well this issue is already lumped in with immigration. There was an article back about a week and a half ago about how an amendment to the current immigration bill was going to have a higher cap on H-1B visas of like 195k. So maybe it will get striped or killed, I don't know but one of my senators is one of the ones who has been pushing the higher cap for a while now.

This is when moms started joining the workforce. Educated in the 60s and beyond.

But there were already many women participating in the workforce, particularly as teachers, nurses, and clerical workers. Women formed the backbone of the war machine for World War II--and were basically kicked out of those jobs when the fighting ended, whether or not they wanted to be. The concept of women working wasn't foreign back then; it was the concept of women doing jobs they weren't supposed to do that was the big sticking point.

A woman invented half of the computer junk we use today at Xerox parc. Some of the greatest programmers of the past 40 years have been women.

Yes, absolutely yes! Until the 60's, this was completely true, because programming was viewed as women's work! Then something happened, and women dropped like flies from the ranks of computer programming. Did they suddenly stop being good programmers, or was something else going on?

I work for a giant company. Huge. You may have heard of us. Its women all up and down. Management and Tech.

I'm going to guess that you're with a Fortune 500 company, then. Consider this Senate testimony that goes into considerable detail as to the persistent gender challenges faced by women in large corporations in America, particularly in professional and higher-level positions. It includes data pulled from the Fortune 500, and goes into painstaking detail as to the disparities--both in numbers of women and their compensation--that continue to exist in large corporations.

Yes it's EDUCATION for women. Everything else follows. You want women in tech, incentivize them to LEARN TECH so they may achieve MERIT.

That's absolutely part of the solution, but it's only part of the solution. Those of us already in the tech sector need to be asking ourselves exactly why, for an industry that repeatedly insists that it is rooted on merit, we look so very different from the society in which we exist.

Further, there exists a clear and significant disparity between women and men pursuing CS degrees--a gap that didn't exist until the 90's. Something happened, and "well, that's just how things played out" doesn't cut it for me.

To focus on one industry is just bizarre handwaving.

Oh, this is a problem across many industries, but that doesn't mean we're somehow absolved of trying to get our own house in order. Further, we have some unique challenges of our own in this regard--the large drop in CS college enrollment, for example.

And the understanding that if gender doesn't want to get involved in a subject it doesn't mean we should establish a quota.

Oh, I recommended a quota? I must be getting old. I have no memory of doing any such thing.

Let's work on getting women in the middle east educated first.

Yes, we wouldn't want to overtax ourselves with doing more than one thing at the same time.

OK? Can we just cut the nonsense?

That would be wonderful.

"These warmings may not sound like much until you realize that the warming since the last ice age — a warming that completely reconfigured the planet — was 9F-14F (5-8C). The upper limits of projected warming over the 21st century would therefore herald a literal remaking of the Earth’s environment and our place within it." - Andrew E. Dessler

As a fellow Minnesotan this isn't new. She was pushing for the 300k cap before with the auto increase almost exactly 2 years ago. I haven't been very pleased with her even before that as she seemed to make national issues out of things that need not be or be out to lunch when sponsoring a bill that had very obvious unintended consequences that she was even informed of.

Then add in that at a personal level she has been the worst elected official that I have written to in responding to issues. While she does give responses to letters, unlike Franken who has never responded, they are patronizing as hell if you disagree with something or will thank you for supporting her decision when you were clearly against it. The worst was on the Syria chemical weapons issue when that was going on where her letter was about how wonderful it was that she didn't have to decide because thankfully Russia stepped in.

I have written Klobuchar a number of times on this H1-B issue and it seems to fall on deaf ears. The only thing I can figures is that the large medical companies here are telling her they need something in return for their support since both her and Franken voted for the ACA which put a tax on medical device makers' revenue, 2.3% per device,.

I don't know if Kurt Bills would have been any better especially on this issue but at least I knew him and was able to have a discussion with him. Part of that may have been because I was a former student and a part of that was probably because he was my representative to the state house.

For what it's worth, the legislation is called the "Immigration Innovation Act of 2015 (I-Squared Act of 2015)". Here's another article along with the senate press release and the bill itself.

For what it's worth, the legislation is called the "Immigration Innovation Act of 2015 (I-Squared Act of 2015)". Here's another article along with the senate press release and the bill itself.

Of course, let's not forget what Cruz's role in the shutdown was: here's the voting roll where he voted against ending the funding process while the Democrats voted for shutdown.

http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

The White House told the truth

Oh, really??

Yes, really. Or, more precisely: the White House statements were based on the information reported by US intelligence at the time.

Here's the report http://www.intelligence.senate... The relevant part, from the summary, is here: In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The Intelligence Community took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers.

Oh, right, of course: CANNOT be the fault of the White House. It's "somebody else's fault". We can blame this one on Bush, too, right?

So, we can say they told "the truth", because, of course, the truth is fungible. It doesn't matter if it was completely wrong, or inaccurate, or that they kept promoting the false narrative even after the intelligence reports were corrected, only that we deflect blame before the elections!

The White House told the truth

Oh, really??

Yes, really. Or, more precisely: the White House statements were based on the information reported by US intelligence at the time.

Here's the report http://www.intelligence.senate...
The relevant part, from the summary, is here:
In intelligence reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion. The Intelligence Community took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers.

The CIA and FBI both have a very rich history of being 100% wrong on many things.

Here you have the CIA providing feedback on a book which reviews them very poorly (citing dishonesty).
https://www.cia.gov/library/ce...

Here you have the US Senate reviewing the CIA very poorly (citing dishonesty)
http://www.intelligence.senate...

Ironic that a "secretive and dishonest" organization counteracts a critical view of them as being "dishonest" when the US senate provides multiple examples of the CIA being dishonest.