Slashdot Mirror

For all the Americans out there, we live in a democracy where "all decisions are made by representatives who act by [our] consent". However, it is incredibly difficult for an elected representative to follow his/her constituent's wishes if they are not informed of which bills they should vote for by their constituents.

A simple letter (here or here or here or here) is one of the easiest ways to inform your elected representative of your stance in regard to certain bills. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the current state of electronic voting in this country, I highly reccomend writing to your elected representatives to inform them of your concerns and certain bills which they should support.

Remember, for a democracy to work as intended there needs to be participation by all of its citizens though voting as well as keeping their elected representatives informed of the citizens wishes.

Also remember that when contacting your representatives a signed, mailed letter makes a much bigger impact than an e-mail.

Here's some more interesting quotes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons

Here's some more interesting quotes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons

A little something I'd like to point out.

Prices are, for the most part, set by supply and demand. I say "for the most part," because there is some manipulation. We need to remember, though, that crude oil supply isn't the only factor in the supply side of the equation.

In 2003, there was blackout which affected several refineries in the Western U.S., and a pipeline shutdown in Arizona. These refineries supplied most of the gasoline being used in the western States, and the pipeline supplied much of the gas from refineries to distribution points in Arizona. Gas prices in Arizona skyrocketed for a couple weeks, until the refineries could return to normal operations and the pipeline could be re-opened. While the price of crude didn't vary during that time period, the supply of gasoline (not crude) was greatly diminished, causing a spike in prices.

Back in the '90's, many oil companies actually reduced their refining capacity. Meanwhile, gasoline consumption has continued to rise. Now, all the major refineries are operating at 95% capacity or higher. When they slow down at the change in seasons (summer-time gasoline has a different formula from winter-time gasoline, in most areas, and they have to shut down parts of the refinery to change formulas), the price tends to spike for a little while. But, the fact remains, the choke point in the current supply-demand equation, WRT gasoline, isn't the price of crude; it's the refining capacity. The supply is hitting limits, and the demand is still growing. All of this is pushing the price upward, which is pushing the profit margins, for the oil companies, upward.

And yes, these were purposeful manipulations on the part of the oil companies.

Dubious..... yes.

Unprecedented.... no.

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31 112.pdf

In the future, do your homework before making such charges.

1. Any Senator, officer, or employee of the Senate who shall disclose the secret or confidential business or proceedings of the Senate, including the business and proceedings of the committees, subcommittees, and offices of the Senate, shall be liable

What part of Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't you like? Didn't you like the network footage that shows George W. Bush holding hands with Saudi Prince Bandar? No one denies that the clip is real, or that the Bush family calls him "Bandar Bush".

Didn't you like the part of the movie that shows network footage of Bush failing to react for 7 1/2 minutes after he had been told the nation was attacked? No one claims that didn't happen.

Do you think that the Congress actually did read the "Patriot" Act before passing it? Even when one Congressman in the film said they didn't?

Didn't you like the very limited coverage that discussed the connection between Bush and the very Saudi Arabians like Prince Bandar who Osama bin Laden, and Senator Biden of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations both say are causing difficulty in Saudi Arabia?

Do you deny that George W. Bush's father and a brother of Osama bin Laden both attended a meeting held by the Carlyle Group on the September 10, 2001, or that both were invested in arms manufacturers?

Maybe Fahrenheit 9/11 is not expressed in a way you would like, but most of the problems it discussed are real, without question.

Disliking Michael Moore is not an answer to the problems the U.S. faces.

Seeing as how the presidential inauguration is on January 20, 2005, if John Kerry were to be elected President, how could he possibly be held accountable for actions taken by Bush as he finished his term? Even if the elections were held on January 31, would you [reasonably*] blame Kerry for his first 2 weeks when everything would have already been set in motion with an enormous political inertia?

*I understand that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have proven themselves to be unreasonable about the current political situation in the US.

Okay, real stats!

The current system used to work until it was abused by the Democrats who are using parlimentary tricks to thwart the process as designed. By denial they in effect become the ones in control. How ridiculous?

This is a joke, right? Where were you when Senate Republicans blocked 22 of President Clinton's nominees from even coming up for a committe vote? Gimme a break.

I wrote (mostly email, some snail) to pretty much every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee re: INDUCE a couple months ago. The only reply I've received has been from Sen. Feinstein. I live in NY, so Hillary and Schumer ignoring me is f'd up. Feinstein sent me back a form letter thanking me for my thoughts on "music file-sharing." Even though her letter did not address any of my points or even acknowledge whether I was pro or con on file-sharing, she "will keep [my] thoughts in mind should [INDUCE] come up in the Committee."

She believes "the protection of IP rights is vital to a flourishing economy, esp. in CA." And that "we must work to prevent the creation of digital copies of copyrighted works that can be illegally distributed throughout the world." Um Dianne, INDUCE doesn't do that. It's a cash payout to your big donors.

If I have any further comments or questions, I should "feel free" to contact her DC office at (202) 224-3841.

INDUCE, still wallowing in the Judiciary Committee, is now called "Inducing Infringements of Copyrights Act of 2004" and is still called S 2560. So if you call, refer to it by number or the new name.

Make one or two points max per call. You can call again.

Emphasize that you are against S 2560.

If you're from the Senator's home state, mention it and say that you vote. It should theoretically make a difference.

I wrote (mostly email, some snail) to pretty much every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee re: INDUCE a couple months ago. The only reply I've received has been from Sen. Feinstein. I live in NY, so Hillary and Schumer ignoring me is f'd up. Feinstein sent me back a form letter thanking me for my thoughts on "music file-sharing." Even though her letter did not address any of my points or even acknowledge whether I was pro or con on file-sharing, she "will keep [my] thoughts in mind should [INDUCE] come up in the Committee."

She believes "the protection of IP rights is vital to a flourishing economy, esp. in CA." And that "we must work to prevent the creation of digital copies of copyrighted works that can be illegally distributed throughout the world." Um Dianne, INDUCE doesn't do that. It's a cash payout to your big donors.

If I have any further comments or questions, I should "feel free" to contact her DC office at (202) 224-3841.

INDUCE, still wallowing in the Judiciary Committee, is now called "Inducing Infringements of Copyrights Act of 2004" and is still called S 2560. So if you call, refer to it by number or the new name.

Make one or two points max per call. You can call again.

Emphasize that you are against S 2560.

If you're from the Senator's home state, mention it and say that you vote. It should theoretically make a difference.

House Roll Call for HAVA

Senate Roll Call for HAVA

This was a bipartisan job. Kerry and Edwards both voted for it, and Bush signed it.

The Republicans have lost their sense of history. They've used the filibuster against even higher court appointments before. It was the right thing to do then. It is the right thing to do now. The filibuster remains the last desperate refuge of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

A more paranoid theory is that they intend to take such measures to insure they need never be the minority again. However, I feel (especially given the President) that it is more appropriate to attribute their behavior to stupidity rather than malice.

(Summary: 5/225 Rep nay in House, 3+1/51 Rep nay+no-vote in Senate, 0/1 Rep veto in Exec)

The Republicans having reintroduced this bill several times in different forms only to have it vetoed repeatedly by Clinton certainly undermines your position that Republicans could do a hell of a lot more on the kids-being-murdered (your words, not mine!) front.

But you're right about one thing. We should check what they do, not what they say.

1) Since Filibuster and Cloture are Senate Rules, on what basis are they being deemed unconstitutional?

2) Since when does the Congress rule of Consitutionality? I thought the point of Marbury vs. Madison was to affirm the power of Judicial review of the Courts.

FYI, the Senate Rules Committee is headed by Trent Lott. The committee's web site is at http://rules.senate.gov/.

My fellow Florida citizens have managed to embaress me about a lot of things, but electing a theocratic loon to the Senate like Santorum takes the cake.

Why do you say voting for a minority party candidate is throwing away your vote?

Past history. No independent candidate has ever been elected President. Independents are outnumbered in the Senate 99 to 1. Independents in the House are outnumbered 433 to 1. What makes you believe it's not throwing it away?

Once you accept that your vote will have no effect on the outcome of the election,

Then why bother?

According to the Senate, the S-89 bill (search for "S 89" or "HR 163") was introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D). Information regarding his voting record can be found at the archive section of theAmerican Civil Liberties Union:

The Bill HR-163 was introduced by:
Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D)
Congressman Jim McDermott (D)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D)
Congressman John Lewis (D)
Congressman Pete Stark (D)
Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D)

As Mr. Adam Stutz so clearly points out,this legislation would not take effect until Spring 2005. Just what, exactly, does the Democratic party have in store for us?

How likely is a draft?

Doubtful at best. The first rotation of personnel in Iraq was supposed to be 6 months. It was extend by 6 months to be a total of 12. They are in the process of arriving home as the Army and National Guard Reserves go in. They are scheduled for a rotation of 12 months. My friend who is a Captain anticipates that it will be extended to 18 months. The maximum time you can be activated is 24 months. I don't remember how much time they are required to give you off, but with the anticipated 18 months the active Army will have off they will be fresh and ready to go back should the situation warrant it. This is one of the things the system was set up for.

The original Iraq war back in 1991 caused fear and concern about the draft. This was just before President Clinton came into office. Funny how fear of the draft comes lately whenever a Republican president is in office and there is an election on the horizon. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Investigate the history of Adam Stutz and you will be investigating the motives for the story.

It was mentioned in the article that they couldn't post the URL for some unknown reason. Perhaps they are stupid.

In searching the Project Censored website there was no information available on the article. Perhaps it is only on their print version or something.

It sounds like typical left wing propaganda to me. Oh, and the positions on the draft board are long term positions that are due to be refilled, not being filled up from having been empty or anything like that. They are coveted positions because the persons there rarely have to do anything at all.

Text of the article is below:

US Preparing for Military Draft in Spring 2005 by Adam Stutz
Wednesday January 28, 2004 at 09:50 AM

The current agenda of the US federal government is to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism." Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election!

Reinstatement of the draft

Dear Friends and Family,

I urge you to read the article below on the current agenda of the federal government to reinstate the draft in order to staff up for a protracted war on "terrorism."

Pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills S 89 and HR 163) would time the program so the draft could begin at early as Spring 2005 -- conveniently just after the 2004 presidential election! But the administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed NOW, so our action is needed immediately. D

Why do I always hear this back yard argument? If you took an average size suburban house and made it water tight, all of the nuclear waste made by all of mans reactors since the beginning of the nuclear age wouldn't even fill the basement.

A threatened seat for a senator is even more worrying than a loss of income (they can find new vested interests). Let the two sponsors of the INDUCE Act know how you feel:

Orrin Hatch

Patrick Leahy

A threatened seat for a senator is even more worrying than a loss of income (they can find new vested interests). Let the two sponsors of the INDUCE Act know how you feel:

Orrin Hatch

Patrick Leahy

There has to be some kind of a catch.

On Topic, programmers are getting beat to death like the auto workers and steel workers in the 80's. By dimantling the middle class one industry sector at a time, the rest of the middle class ignores it. Unfo. for the elitists there's a snapback effect once a critical mass is reached. Perhaps they think by extending the process over 50 years the effect will not occur? I theorized while studying Western Cic. in HS that about 18% of the people have to get really pissed and then they start protests and then the snapback snowballs. When you see people actively attacking the elitist governemnt, then you are seeing that people are pissed.
National Debt (well, basically embezzlement by the politicians and their cronies) is just one reason. Take a look at the last page of this link and see pure embezzlement from our government: embezzlement?. Who's stupid enough to vote for an incumbant? Bush and Kerry are both incumbants. They should both tear their clothes, gnash their teeth, and ask the American people to pray for a better government. They don't.
I was looking at the debt before and got some numbers from various US gov. web sites. Amazingly the dis-information campaign has not shut these down. Funny thing is that it has increased ever since like 1962 but Democrats claim Clinton had a Balanced Budget. This FALSE accounting is nonsense. Ask a kid in school if spending more than you take in is a Balanced Budget. That said, the administration prior to this one did do alot better. The USA cannot afford another Republican government if you believe that relates to the debt trendline. We will be bankrupted and forced into servitude to a world government/bank. "Don't cry for me Argentina...." :-)
First look at the situation for UK and Canada. UK
Canada
These can be graphed in Excel... I did not find a good site with the chart on the web.
,Budget Surplus or Deficit (-) as % GDP,Cyclical Surplus or Deficit (-) as % GDP,Other Adjustments as % GDP,Surplus or Deficit (-) as % GDP,Revenues as % GDP,Outlays as % GDP,Debt (100B),Debt as % of GDP,Debt as % of Tax Income (x100),GDP (100T),Debt,Tax Income (100B),Tax Income (B),Tax Income as % of GDP (x100) 1962,-1.2,-0.4,0.1,-0.7,17.3,18,,,,,,0.5,46.5, 1963,-0.8,-0.3,-0.1,-0.6,17.5,18.1,,,,,,0.5,49.1, 1964,-0.9,0.3,0.2,-1,17,18,,,,,,0.5,46, 1965,-0.2,0.8,0.2,-0.8,16.2,17,,,,,,0.5,51.1, 1966,-0.5,1.9,0.4,-2.1,15.9,18,,,,,,0.6,58.6, 1967,-1.1,1.7,*,-2.8,16.9,19.7,,,,,,0.6,64.4, 1968,-3,1.4,0.6,-3.7,16.5,20.3,4,,4.7%,, $358.00 ,0.8,76.4, 1969,0.4,1.6,*,-1.2,17.7,18.9,4,,4.0%,, $368.00 ,0.9,91.7, 1970,-0.3,0.6,0.2,-0.6,17.8,18.4,4,,4.4%,, $389.00 ,0.9,88.9, 1971,-2.1,-0.3,0.9,-0.9,17.1,18.1,4,,4.9%,, $424.00 ,0.9,85.8, 1972,-2,*,0.3,-1.7,16.9,18.6,4,,4.2%,, $429.00 ,1.0,102.8, 1973,-1.2,1.2,0.6,-1.7,16.7,18.4,5,,4.3%,, $469.00 ,1.1,109.6, 1974,-0.4,0.7,1.3,0.1,17.7,17.6,5,0.3%,3.9%,1.5, $492.00 ,1.3,126.5,8.4% 1975,-3.3,-1.4,2,0.1,18.5,18.4,6,0.4%,4.8%,1.6, $576.00 ,1.2,120.7,7.5% 1976,-4.1,-1.4,0.8,-2,17.3,19.3,7,0.4%,4.6%,1.8, $653.00 ,1.4,141.2,7.8% 1977,-2.7,-0.6,1,-1.1,17.8,18.9,7,0.4%,4.4%,2, $718.00 ,1.6,162.2,8.1% 1978,-2.7,0.1,1.3,-1.5,17.5,19.1,8,0.3%,4.2%,2.3, $789.00 ,1.9,188.9,8.2% 1979,-1.6,0.5,1.4,-0.7,17.9,18.6,8,0.3%,3.8%,2.6, $845.00 ,2.2,224.6,8.6% 1980,-2.7,-0.7,1.6,-0.4,18.8,19.2,9,0.3%,3.7%,2.8, $930.00 ,2.5,250,8.9% 1981,-2.5,-0.9,1.2,-0.4,19.5,19.9,10,0.3%,3.5%,3.1 ," $1,028.00 ",2.9,290.6,9.4% 1982,-3.7,-2,0.7,-1.1,19.2,20.3,12,0.4%,4.1%,3.3," $1,197.00 "

This is bad because the copyright weasel will undoubtably be teaching our children that eternal copyrights held by corporate "individuals" and heirs of dead creative geniuses are a good thing. When, in fact, I would rather my children learn that a much more intelligent and socially responsible copyright term was originally put into law, before media conglomerates started buying corrupt politicians.

I would also rather have my children learn that it is much better to make sure that the artists are directly compensated, by supporting local and independant musicians, rather than lining the pockects of corrupt business monopolies.

This is bad because the copyright weasel will undoubtably be teaching our children that eternal copyrights held by corporate "individuals" and heirs of dead creative geniuses are a good thing. When, in fact, I would rather my children learn that a much more intelligent and socially responsible copyright term was originally put into law, before media conglomerates started buying corrupt politicians.

I would also rather have my children learn that it is much better to make sure that the artists are directly compensated, by supporting local and independant musicians, rather than lining the pockects of corrupt business monopolies.

Why I'm voting for Kerry

Which Kerry are you thinking of, exactly?

...his administration didn't get us into an insane war in the middle east...

H.J. Res 114: To authorize the use of force in Iraq.
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
ref

...his administration didn't write the PATRIOT act...

"But in reality Kerry is not so far from Bush in his views on the Patriot Act. The Massachusetts senator claims he not only stands by his vote for the legislation, but that he authored most of the law's money-laundering provisions and thinks some aspects of the act actually need strengthening (like improving intelligence information sharing)."
ref

You may see a lot at stake, but there is NO benefit to voting for Kerry over Bush. There is no substantial difference in their policies. If you want something different, vote third party.

1. the term 'intentionally infringes' means intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability.
2. Whoever intentionally induces any violation indentified in (...) shall be liable as an infringer.
3. Nothing in this subsection shall enlarge or diminish the doctrines of vicarious and contributory liability for copyright infringement or require any court to unjustly withhold or impose any secondary liability for copyright infringement

Pretty sure they mean Orrin Hatch. http://hatch.senate.gov/

They also know more than certain senators.

I'm a Libertarian, and I'm voting for Bush. Yes, I agree that Libertarianism is about freedom, both economically and personally. For instance, I want lower (or no) taxes, as little regulation on business as possible, and I think you should be able to go to the corner drug store and buy crack, and then hit up the brothel next door. Does either candidate propose much to increase economic or social freedom? I don't really think so.

First, let me just go through your list here. You talk about the War on Drugs. I'm against it. However, I haven't seen Bush escalate the WoD, nor have I heard Kerry say anything about changing the nation's drug policy. However, pick up a copy of National Review, the nation's leading conservative magazine. William F. Buckley pens an article about how we should end the drug war at least once a year, and I know I've seen it on two covers in the past decade. Republican governors around the country are pushing for decriminalization.

Anti-gay rhetoric. I don't think Bush et al. have done much of anything against gays, so much as they haven't done anything for them. Kerry says he is not for gay marriage...heck, a lot of gays aren't for gay marriage. Bush might be watching Queer Eye every week, but he's not exactly setting up internment camps for any man whose watch, shoes, and belt all match.

John Ashcroft. What's he done, exactly, that's so horrible? If you're talking about the patriot act, check out the roll call. Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. He doesn't exactly score points there...

Freedom of Religion. Ummm...I didn't realize Christianity was now our official state religion. I guess I better get my ass to church... Seriously, yes, Bush is a Christian, and he espouses Christian ideals...but what has he done to stifle anybody elses' religion?

Fiscal policy. Yes, Bush spends way too much money. As for this being the largest budget ever...it's always going to be the largest budget ever. Have you ever seen the federal budget go down? Review the history of the budget of the United States. Since 1950, the government has spent more money every single year than it did the year before. Every president since Eisenhower has saddled us with the "biggest budget ever."

Iraq. You seem to be opposed to occupation, not so much the war itself. Well, the occupation is slowly ending. Power has been transfered to the Iraqi government, and as their soldiers and police forces come online, ours are leaving. I'd say invading a nation the size of California, toppling their dictatorship, and installing a democratically elected government and then beginning to withdraw after right about a year with...what, 1,000 U.S. casualities?...is excellent performance. If you support the war, I don't see how you think Kerry could have done it much better. To those who would respond, I'm not arguing in favor of the war, so please don't tell me why the war was wrong. I'm simply saying that the execution of the war was about as well as one could possibly expect.

As a Libertarian, I'm not sure what the draw to Kerry would be. Generally, a Libertarian wants small government...low or no taxes, low spending, few or no social programs. Bush has cut taxes, and would probably do so again. He spends too much money (steel tariffs, prescription drug benefit, education bill), but Kerry pledges to spend much, much more, and promises a tax increase. He is also likely to enact more business regulations. From the view of economic liberties, Bush is mediocre (cut taxes, increase spending), but Kerry is terrible (raise taxes, greatly increase spending).

Now onto social issues. What exactly has Bush done to restrict personal freedoms? He certainly hasn't done anything to increase our personal freedom. Still...the war on drugs is plugging along, abortions

You know, before you use that line again, I suggest you read the Prewar Intelligence Assesment or at least the conclusions. That way, if you have intellectual honesty, you'll not waste bandwidth with it ever again.

Now mods, mod both of us into oblivion.

You know, before you use that line again, I suggest you read the Prewar Intelligence Assesment or at least the conclusions. That way, if you have intellectual honesty, you'll not waste bandwidth with it ever again.

Now mods, mod both of us into oblivion.

I saw an interview with Senator Byrd, and I couldn't believe that he said the Senate was "bullied" into passing it.

Come on man, it's your job to read these bills/acts. If you didn't like something in it, then don't vote for it. Don't cry afterwards about it. You didn't do your job, and you've been in the Senate for how many decades? 11 Presidents worth?

Sad. I think we should throw out all these idiots in government and start over!

When do we get to vote on how the military handles housekeeping?

How about every two or six years? Remember, the Congress approves how the military spends its money, and they define the laws by which the military must operate.

Bring this issue up to your representative's office, and let them know that we don't approve the lax I.T. policies. Or how about write to someone on the Armed Services Oversight Committee, inform them that things like this are taking place, that national security is at risk. If they can shut down Los Alamos over floppy disks, then something needs to change here.

How about voting in Democrats with guts? The Libertarian candidate is articulate and well-informed, but people aren't going to take a computer programmer seriously.

Go to the actual Congressional record to see a true list of who voted for what. For instance, the 108th Congress last year. For the month of November (just picked at random), there were some 27 votes in the Senate. Kerry shows "Not Voting" status in 25 of them. Of course, a lot of these may non-issues, but only voting twice out of 27 is not exactly a stellar record.

Vote Smart shows the results of the things he actually voted on, not all of the votes before the Senate.

Go to the actual Congressional record to see a true list of who voted for what. For instance, the 108th Congress last year. For the month of November (just picked at random), there were some 27 votes in the Senate. Kerry shows "Not Voting" status in 25 of them. Of course, a lot of these may non-issues, but only voting twice out of 27 is not exactly a stellar record.

Vote Smart shows the results of the things he actually voted on, not all of the votes before the Senate.

One way to accelerate the solution to a problem is just to redefine it. Here's one such bright idea, hatched by the DOE: "If we reclassify some of the waste to a lower-level category, we don't need to clean it up. We can just cover it with grout and leave it." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington State) has a lengthy discussion of this here. Sen. Cantwell's efforts to short circuit this nonsense may have paid off, as this subsequent statement seems to indicate.

One way to accelerate the solution to a problem is just to redefine it. Here's one such bright idea, hatched by the DOE: "If we reclassify some of the waste to a lower-level category, we don't need to clean it up. We can just cover it with grout and leave it." Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington State) has a lengthy discussion of this here. Sen. Cantwell's efforts to short circuit this nonsense may have paid off, as this subsequent statement seems to indicate.

Does anybody still have sympathy for the RIAA any more? They've been acting like a bunch of selfish 4-year-olds for years. "They're only protecting their legal rights." Record companies excel at doing exactly what is required of them and nothing more. They've honed this skill over decades of writing usurious recording contracts. And when that's not enough they get new laws written to suit their needs. What they do is wrong.

If you live in Utah, please VOTE AGAINST Senator Orrin Hatch, the entertainment industry's number one toadie and one of the most technologically clueless legislators in the country. He's the guy who a couple years back said record companies should be allowed to attack the computers of people whom they suspected of copyright infringement.

If you live in Kansas, please VOTE FOR for Senator Sam Brownback, who introduced the bill last year that stopped the RIAA from getting rubber-stamped subpoenas for identities of internet users they decided had infringed them.

If you live anywhere else and you are interested in the copyright issue, don't just read Slashdot, look up your senator's voting record and vote accordingly.

Here's mine. I sent it to my sens Clinton (a co-sponsor!!) and Schumer and to most of the rest of the Sen. Jud. Committee. http://judiciary.senate.gov/

July 23, 2004
Dear Senator Schumer,

Please make every effort to prevent S. 2560, the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004, from becoming a law.

This legislation is ill-conceived and would ultimately do a disservice to our nation's people, industry, and culture.

1. S. 2560 will stifle innovation. The wording of this bill is vague and would discourage inventors and companies from introducing new products. We have seen a technological revolution and for it to continue, the flow of information must be unfettered, free from the arbitrary restrictions of a few well-connected companies.

2. S. 2560 will weaken the U.S tech industry against foreign rivals. U.S. companies must be able to develop new technologies to compete in the global marketplace. Companies in Japan, Taiwan, the EU, China, and India will not be so restricted.

3. S. 2560 will create a restriction on manufacturers that is absurd in comparison to other industries. Manufacturers would be culpable for the criminal acts of its customers. Are sports car makers held responsible for drivers who speed? Should a manufacturer of spray paint be punished if someone uses their product for vandalism or drug abuse? Products with legitimate, legal uses cannot be considered to be "inducing" a crime.

4. S. 2560 is a law that is made to be broken and is simply a preparation to a payoff to politically influential industries. The popularity of mp3 players and other open media demonstrates that there is a demand for these products that will be supplied by someone. This law would merely set the stage for a settlement between hardware producers and "copyright" holders similar to the unfair taxation levied on blank CDs. Law abiding consumers would be assumed to be criminals and fined. This arrangement is contrary to American values and should not be permitted to spread.

5. S 2560 is another example of corporate money influencing politics. The introduction of this bill is simple pandering to big money donors. It is this sort of manipulation that breeds widespread cynicism in our political process and is especially egregious in an election year.

In conclusion, S. 2560 is an unnecessary, short sighted and counterproductive bill rooted in corporate influence that should not be passed. I am very interested in your thoughts on this subject and would appreciate a reply.

Sincerely,
me

I've contacted the offices of my senators and that of Mr. Hatch. Contact yours now and say you did something! If everyone on Slashdot actually followed through and did this, the opinion of many would be known, and known well.

Yes, you can sit back and convince yourself that your opinion doesn't matter, or you can try to make a difference.

http://www.senate.gov/

Hmm. My Senator is on the road. I wonder if he has the time to be concerned about his citizens back home?

(here is his original statement http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200406/062304a.html which generated my letter. Below is his response to my letter above.)

Thank you for sharing with me your very thoughtful comments about the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004." It is good to hear from you.

For many years, I have been a supporter of new technologies and new ways of delivering digital content to consumers. This issue is particularly important to me, and to rural states like Vermont, because the digital age has the potential to bring more content - books, movies, music, and other forms of entertainment - at lower cost and in ways that are easier to use. However, when these technologies are misused, it prevents the deployment of still better ways of delivering content because copyright holders fear, rather than embrace, the new technology.

In order for exciting new technologies to flourish, the United States must protect intellectual property. The creative spirit of America has made our country the unquestioned leader in this part of the world economy, but our innovators will only continue to amaze us with new creations if the rights inherent in their works can be protected. In Vermont, we have seen how more traditional forms of piracy hurt our industries. For example, knock-offs of Burton Snowboards' products have been found around the world, robbing that company of revenues it deserves. I helped pass a law in 1996 to combat this form of piracy, and I am working on more legislation that will help Vermont's companies protect their goods.

The "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004" is aimed at stopping another form of piracy that costs innovators billions of dollars. Digital piracy is on the rise, and in the case of software piracy alone, infringers siphoned away nearly $29 billion from copyright holders in 2003. For this reason, I am proud to cosponsor the "Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act of 2004," along with Senators Daschle, Boxer, Clinton, Hatch, Graham of South Carolina, and Frist, because I think we need to do more to stem the tide of piracy - but we need to do it in a way that does not target technology. The bill is straightforward, clarifying a longstanding common law principle in the copyright law. It is a provision that has also been found for years in patent law. Specifically, the legislation treats those who induce copyright infringement as infringers themselves. Our experience with patent law shows us that such provisions work: over the years, the number of patents has steadily grown and patent-related industries continue to thrive.

I realize that there has been some confusion about this legislation, and that some have viewed its provisions as anti-technology. Although I disagree with this characterization, I want to assure you that I am working to address these concerns. Please know that I will keep your views in mind as I work to generate consensus on this bill, and to pass laws that are good for copyright holders, good for technology, and - most of all - good for consumers.

Thank you again for contacting me, and please keep in touch.

Patrick Leahy
United States Senator

http://leahy.senate.gov/

Amen to that!

Just one thing: Dont' write to your State Senators, Write to your State's U.S. Senators. In fact, write to other states Senators too. Why not call them up on the phone or send them an email, while you're at it?

So did I. Maybe more of us should, it all most as easy as reading /.

'Orrin Hatch is a corporate whore' for pushing copyright laws; Mitch McConnell, the senator from my state, believes in Free Speech [in the form of unrestricted campaign donations]. Visit Mitch for more.

Write him and tell him what you really think.

Database of US Senator's Email Addresses

And here are some tips on how to compose the email.

I already sent mine.