Slashdot Mirror

People who dismiss Iraqi - AlQaida connections pre-Iraq invasion are ignorant of the facts. While it is true that US forces in Iraq brought thousands of jihadi's there to fight them, Zirqawi and his wing of Unity and Jihad (later renamed to AlQaida in Iraq) were already there

Ignorant of what facts? Sources?

There are terrorists in every country of the world including the US. The key issue is not were terrorists present but what if any state support do they enjoy.

According to the CIA Zarqawi activly refused to join with Osama on a number of occassions until quite a number of years later. He had his own terror group and did not have the same views on the Northern alliance.

Sources speak louder than words so here they are:
  http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775

See pg 90
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

The bill passed 74 to 26 in 2005 including our current President (D). There certainly weren't 74 Republicans in the Senate in 05...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00213

I'm getting flipping sick and tired of blaming EVERYTHING on one side or the other... This isn't a football game.

If capitalism were a success, we'd all be working fewer hours and adults would be living significantly longer. We are not and they are not.

Downward path of working hours in US history (2 pages down)
[PDF warning]Upward path of life expectancy in US history (page 11)

inb4 more excuses

One senator is already writing them nasty notes.

"Apple has location services as something that can be turned off completely" It's closed source, so how do you know it's not continuing to collect data, even if that collection isn't made visible to the user? How do you know that the file in question is a result of the location services which can be turned off?

Apple's Guy Tribble, VP of Software Technology gave senate testimony on the very subject.

Just take a look at the list of 'riders' on the bill and it will become clear who they represent:

http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/OMB_Watch-HR1_Policy_Riders.pdf

It's pretty clear they're not interested in balancing the budget. The republicans are only interested in gutting those agencies responsible for enforcing pesky regulations like wetland preservation, emissions/dumping of hazardous material, the clean water act, etc., defunding institutions like NOAA and anyone else doing any sort of climate studies and generally gutting a wide range of social services provided to low income and middle class Americans, while simultaneously providing criminally large tax breaks for corporations:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1,
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=67562604-8280-4d56-8af4-a27f59d70de5

That isn't to say the democrats are much (if at all) better, but it should be absolutely clear exactly who the republicans represent.

Before we shell out the cash, let's write our elected reps in congress and the justice department and try to halt the merger.
http://senate.gov/
http://house.gov/
http://justice.gov/

Here, no excuse: Representative and Senator.

Copy and Paste if you really can't be bothered:

Senator / Congress(wo)man [name here],

Please do whatever you can to stop the AT&T buyout of T-Mobile USA, it is bad for consumers and will hurt consumer choice. I do not want the buyout to go through and neither do you other constituents. [Optional: This is an important issue for me and if you do not take action, I will be forced to vote for a representative/senator who will better represent my interests in the future.]

Sincerely,
[Your real name]

Some of us are quite clear on when and how this started. Please dispel your own delusions.

Actually, if you read the bill, this isn't the case. The provisions give you a one-year window for your own public disclosure still, but that disclosure will bar anyone else immediately. So in fact, publish-then-patent will be even more advantageous: you can disclose and then have a year during which nobody else can beat you to filing unless they themselves disclosed before you. In the current system, you still have the one-year window to put pressure on you to file, but there is no advantage to disclosing because competitors need merely be diligent about reduction to practice or filing to get around your disclosure.

So, from his wikipedia page, I find out that Senator Chris Dodd was in office from January 3, 1981 – January 3, 2011. That's just over 7 weeks ago, and his successor took over the same day.

If I go to the Office of Government Ethics website, I see that they only oversee the Executive Branch, and that in the Legislative Branch, the Senate is overseen by The Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

A that site, I notice a series of postings about proper behavior regarding gifts, training, and Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring.

Two documents in particular are of interest. First, we have a Feb 4 2008 Memo on Employment Negotiations and Arrangements [PDF]. Second, further down the page we have a Sept 25 2007 bulletin regarding New Ethics Rules regarding Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring [PDF].

In the Bulletin, it states that "If Senators want to engage in negotiations or make any arrangements for jobs involving lobbying, they must wait to do so until their successors have been elected. There are no exceptions to this rule... What about for other types of private employment that don’t involve lobbying? The same
rule applies unless the Senator files a signed statement with the Secretary of the Senate within three days of beginning such negotiations or arrangements. This statement, which is public, must include the name of the entities involved in these job discussions and the date they began."

Also, "For two years after leaving office, Senators cannot contact any Member, officer, or employee of the Congress on someone else’s behalf (except the United States) in order to influence their official activities."

In the memo, it reiterates the first item, stating that official notice must be given to the secretary of the senate. Of course, there is no nice web searchable index that I found for the Secretary of the Senate or the Office of Public Records. Those might require FOIA requests from anyone who would care to really dig.

So, from his wikipedia page, I find out that Senator Chris Dodd was in office from January 3, 1981 – January 3, 2011. That's just over 7 weeks ago, and his successor took over the same day.

If I go to the Office of Government Ethics website, I see that they only oversee the Executive Branch, and that in the Legislative Branch, the Senate is overseen by The Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

A that site, I notice a series of postings about proper behavior regarding gifts, training, and Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring.

Two documents in particular are of interest. First, we have a Feb 4 2008 Memo on Employment Negotiations and Arrangements [PDF]. Second, further down the page we have a Sept 25 2007 bulletin regarding New Ethics Rules regarding Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring [PDF].

In the Bulletin, it states that "If Senators want to engage in negotiations or make any arrangements for jobs involving lobbying, they must wait to do so until their successors have been elected. There are no exceptions to this rule... What about for other types of private employment that don’t involve lobbying? The same
rule applies unless the Senator files a signed statement with the Secretary of the Senate within three days of beginning such negotiations or arrangements. This statement, which is public, must include the name of the entities involved in these job discussions and the date they began."

Also, "For two years after leaving office, Senators cannot contact any Member, officer, or employee of the Congress on someone else’s behalf (except the United States) in order to influence their official activities."

In the memo, it reiterates the first item, stating that official notice must be given to the secretary of the senate. Of course, there is no nice web searchable index that I found for the Secretary of the Senate or the Office of Public Records. Those might require FOIA requests from anyone who would care to really dig.

So, from his wikipedia page, I find out that Senator Chris Dodd was in office from January 3, 1981 – January 3, 2011. That's just over 7 weeks ago, and his successor took over the same day.

If I go to the Office of Government Ethics website, I see that they only oversee the Executive Branch, and that in the Legislative Branch, the Senate is overseen by The Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

A that site, I notice a series of postings about proper behavior regarding gifts, training, and Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring.

Two documents in particular are of interest. First, we have a Feb 4 2008 Memo on Employment Negotiations and Arrangements [PDF]. Second, further down the page we have a Sept 25 2007 bulletin regarding New Ethics Rules regarding Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring [PDF].

In the Bulletin, it states that "If Senators want to engage in negotiations or make any arrangements for jobs involving lobbying, they must wait to do so until their successors have been elected. There are no exceptions to this rule... What about for other types of private employment that don’t involve lobbying? The same
rule applies unless the Senator files a signed statement with the Secretary of the Senate within three days of beginning such negotiations or arrangements. This statement, which is public, must include the name of the entities involved in these job discussions and the date they began."

Also, "For two years after leaving office, Senators cannot contact any Member, officer, or employee of the Congress on someone else’s behalf (except the United States) in order to influence their official activities."

In the memo, it reiterates the first item, stating that official notice must be given to the secretary of the senate. Of course, there is no nice web searchable index that I found for the Secretary of the Senate or the Office of Public Records. Those might require FOIA requests from anyone who would care to really dig.

So, from his wikipedia page, I find out that Senator Chris Dodd was in office from January 3, 1981 – January 3, 2011. That's just over 7 weeks ago, and his successor took over the same day.

If I go to the Office of Government Ethics website, I see that they only oversee the Executive Branch, and that in the Legislative Branch, the Senate is overseen by The Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

A that site, I notice a series of postings about proper behavior regarding gifts, training, and Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring.

Two documents in particular are of interest. First, we have a Feb 4 2008 Memo on Employment Negotiations and Arrangements [PDF]. Second, further down the page we have a Sept 25 2007 bulletin regarding New Ethics Rules regarding Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring [PDF].

In the Bulletin, it states that "If Senators want to engage in negotiations or make any arrangements for jobs involving lobbying, they must wait to do so until their successors have been elected. There are no exceptions to this rule... What about for other types of private employment that don’t involve lobbying? The same
rule applies unless the Senator files a signed statement with the Secretary of the Senate within three days of beginning such negotiations or arrangements. This statement, which is public, must include the name of the entities involved in these job discussions and the date they began."

Also, "For two years after leaving office, Senators cannot contact any Member, officer, or employee of the Congress on someone else’s behalf (except the United States) in order to influence their official activities."

In the memo, it reiterates the first item, stating that official notice must be given to the secretary of the senate. Of course, there is no nice web searchable index that I found for the Secretary of the Senate or the Office of Public Records. Those might require FOIA requests from anyone who would care to really dig.

So, from his wikipedia page, I find out that Senator Chris Dodd was in office from January 3, 1981 – January 3, 2011. That's just over 7 weeks ago, and his successor took over the same day.

If I go to the Office of Government Ethics website, I see that they only oversee the Executive Branch, and that in the Legislative Branch, the Senate is overseen by The Senate Select Committee on Ethics.

A that site, I notice a series of postings about proper behavior regarding gifts, training, and Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring.

Two documents in particular are of interest. First, we have a Feb 4 2008 Memo on Employment Negotiations and Arrangements [PDF]. Second, further down the page we have a Sept 25 2007 bulletin regarding New Ethics Rules regarding Job Negotiations, Post-employment and Influencing Hiring [PDF].

In the Bulletin, it states that "If Senators want to engage in negotiations or make any arrangements for jobs involving lobbying, they must wait to do so until their successors have been elected. There are no exceptions to this rule... What about for other types of private employment that don’t involve lobbying? The same
rule applies unless the Senator files a signed statement with the Secretary of the Senate within three days of beginning such negotiations or arrangements. This statement, which is public, must include the name of the entities involved in these job discussions and the date they began."

Also, "For two years after leaving office, Senators cannot contact any Member, officer, or employee of the Congress on someone else’s behalf (except the United States) in order to influence their official activities."

In the memo, it reiterates the first item, stating that official notice must be given to the secretary of the senate. Of course, there is no nice web searchable index that I found for the Secretary of the Senate or the Office of Public Records. Those might require FOIA requests from anyone who would care to really dig.

http://leahy.senate.gov/contact/
Here is my letter:

Regarding your Speech at the Hearing On Costly Problem Of Online Infringement.
You state that people who steal will always find a way. That statement clearly shows that your administration doesn't understand the issues at hand. For one thing, making a copy of a bike and taking the copy home to assemble a new bike from a copy at home doesn't mean its a its stealing. If someone found a way to scan a bike and make a copy of it, it would be new technology and it would change the way we went about obtaining bikes. Its not productive to ban the makers and users of the technology simply because they have made it much more easier for people to obtain want they need.

When the entertainment industry refers to music piracy as using bolt cutters to steal a bike what would happen if we started banning or restricting the use of bolt cutters simply because the product has non-legitimate uses?

This is an issue where the entertainment industry saw the writing on the wall (digital entertainment being much easier to distribute) and choose to do nothing about it. Now they are losing business because of their decision to do nothing and now should pay the price for doing nothing. Dont make the public suffer with further restrictions on copying simply because this industry choose to stick their head in the sand and not change their business. If you follow the same line that they caused you and your administration is going to perpetuate the problem and cause more suffering than needed. If you are taking money from this industry I suggest you stop doing so and simple bow out. you are not helping the American people by catering to this industry's wishes. They exist because the people of this country allow them to. Nothing more, nothing less.

http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/ Write him and tell him you appreciate it. Especially since it's not even time for elections yet... :D If you don't live in Oregon, write your rep and tell them that you see something like this and that it actually matters to you... And that you'll remember this come time to vote. http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

"Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less."

Legalized by the Constitution. Quoting Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes

Someone suggested submitting the 18,000 lobbyists in congress to the list.

If you are willing to cough up $250 you can get names and contact info here.

If you are willing to do the legwork, this is the official lobbyist registration list for the Senate.

From
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=e53627da-30c4-4a6a-a953-c8681291a966

It was the most profitable relative to the prior year, not the most profitable.

American businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.66 trillion in the third quarter, according to a Commerce Department report released Tuesday. That is the highest figure recorded since the government began keeping track over 60 years ago, at least in nominal or non-inflation-adjusted terms.

Corporate profits have been going gangbusters for a while. Since their cyclical low in the fourth quarter of 2008, profits have grown for seven consecutive quarters, at some of the fastest rates in history.

And those profits were built on cost cutting (layoffs), not on sales growth. If all company could lay off 100% of its employees and use only offshore labor and robotic labor then their profits would skyrocket... but who would be able to buy their products?

This breakneck pace can be partly attributed to strong productivity growth -- which means companies have been able to make more with less-- as well as the fact that some of the profits of American companies come from abroad. Economic conditions in the United States may still be sluggish, but many emerging markets like India and China are expanding rapidly.

So a lot of it is coming from layoffs and cost-cutting, but it's also coming from foreign markets with expanding economies. I suppose if automation advanced to the point where we required none or very few workers to produce the necessary goods and services, that would require a drastic overhaul of our economic system, since capitalism would pretty much be obsolete at that point.

In absolute terms it was a bad year.

Likewise, Now that they have gotten the profits by laying everyone off, since sales are down (waaay down for some like Best Buy), how do they grow profits?

A bad year for retail, but apparently a decent year for large companies with a strong international presence. Unfortunately if this trend continues and causes more retailers and small businesses to fail, things could potentially get even uglier as people lose those jobs.

We're in a strange position... It's good for Company A to lay off as many employees as possible, as long as Company B keeps enough people employed to buy A's products... but it's also in Company B's best interest to lay off as many employees as possible to cut costs, as long as they can sell to A's employees. Like you pointed out, both A and B are going to suffer if *no one* is employed, but it won't directly help the bottom line to hire more people. So what's the solution? I don't think there is one.

I think as people retire debt (either by paying it off or by going bankrupt) sales will get better.
The tightening of credit might help here, as people aren't able to take on more debt. Of course, this has other drawbacks as well, since so much of our growth has been dependent on borrowing-and-spending.

I'm more concerned about most manual labor jobs disappearing over the next 20 years.
Yeah, me too. The common solution offered is "Go to college! Get an education and a better job!" but not everyone has the desire, capability, or means to go to college. Nor could the economy support them all if they did. People doing manual labor jobs are going to have to do *something* when those jobs disappear, but what?

Senator Sanders has a form (direct link) collecting signatures telling the FCC to stop the Comcast / NBC merger. (If there were an alternative to Comcast up here in Vermont, I'd take it...) Feel free to let the FCC know how you really feel....

Tell them that you support Wikileaks and that you want answers about what the cables reveal the US Goverment is doing. That what the US is doing against Wikileaks in response to this is wrong and unAmerican. The response by the US Government is embarrassing.. it confirms that we really do all of these backhanded actions that the cables say.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/12/amazon-severs-ties-with-wikileaks

"I call on any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them. Wikileaks' illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world."

C.f. "There are times when we must all endure adjustment to the Constitution in the name of security."

Coincidence? I think not!

After reading press reports that Amazon was hosting the Wikileaks website, Committee staff contacted Amazon Tuesday for an explanation.

Clearly Lieberman's office called them before they took it down. It is not cool at all in my book for government officials to be calling web providers and demanding "an explanation". It's unpatriotic. Downright un-American.

"This morning Amazon informed my staff that it has ceased to host the Wikileaks website. I wish that Amazon had taken this action earlier based on Wikileaks' previous publication of classified material."

Clearly Amazon reported their compliance to Lieberman after they did it.

"The company's decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them."

Clearly Lieberman thinks it is a good idea for communications service companies to be under the heel of random senators' offices. It would seem that in his and Amazon's view, cloud computing and data center hosting arrangements should be provisioned at the pleasure of His Royal Highness.

"Wikileaks' illegal, outrageous, and reckless acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around the world. No responsible company - whether American or foreign - should assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials.

Lieberman and Amazon need to go on record and explain whether or not this policy should extend to other organizations such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. Amazon needs to make a statement about whether or not The New York Times is welcome to host on their EC2 service, and whether or not they intend to exercise editorial control.

I will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with Wikileaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information.

Is this guy channeling Nixon, or what?

... The chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee?
Gee... I don't know. Maybe their kids carpool to school together?

Or maybe it has to do with all that "security" shtick of his. Can't really say. Go ask him.

Hey, me too, and seriously, if you do this: write to your favorite congresscritter(s) to let them/him/her know. The House and Senate Transportation committees are good places to send a note if you don't want to write to your own congressional reps. (The Senate committee already hauled Pistole in last week for a grilling. Hopefully they will keep on top of him.) Consider cc'ing the TSA, White House, and the Air Transport Association (airline trade group). Other good organizations to write to might be the ACLU, We Won't Fly, and Fly With Dignity.

Opting out altogether is great, but not if no one knows about it. If you let organizations like this know, you'll get included in the numbers.

But why the enforcement of staying with current contracts? It stinks of the lobbying parent describes.

Not only does it stink, it's a rotten fish in plain sight. Quoting directly from the statement released by Hatch:

"My purpose in calling this meeting was to explain in no uncertain terms the Utah congressional delegation's interest in ensuring that Utah's solid rocket motor industry is protected."

"I will continue with other delegation members to ensure the agency abides by the law and protects this industry that is so vitally important to our national security and northern Utah's economy."

"delegation members say the Utah experts they consulted say the legislation's requirements for the heavy-lift rocket can only be realistically met by using solid rocket motors"

Hatch and Bennett are the two US Senators from Utah, while Bishop represents Utah's 1st District (most of northern Utah) and Matheson represents Utah's 2nd District (most of Southern and Southeastern Utah), the latter two in the US House of Representatives. (The western portion of Utah forms the 3rd House District, represented by Jason Chaffetz. No word on why he didn't sign on with everyone else.)

Hatch and Bennett are the two US Senators from Utah, while Bishop represents Utah's 1st District (most of northern Utah) and Matheson represents Utah's 2nd District (most of Southern and Southeastern Utah), the latter two in the US House of Representatives. (The western portion of Utah forms the 3rd House District, represented by Jason Chaffetz. No word on why he didn't sign on with everyone else.)

Seriously, Oregonians or not, I suggest contacting this man and praising him for his position. We tend to write our elected officials when we're angry with what they're doing, but we also need to let them know when we're happy that they've done something we like.

http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/

GO Sen. Wyden - Makes me proud to be an Oregonian -- Kudos sent via web at: http://wyden.senate.gov/

In the spirit of telling our public officials when they do right, please pass on some "thanks, keep up the good work" to Ron Wyden: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/ The name of the bill is the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act"

I emailed him my thanks. I encourage other Oregonians to do the same. I also think it's important to make the distinction that being against this and other poorly written similar bills that restrict freedoms is *not* the same as being pro-piracy. This is a distinction many people (not here, per se, but in other media) seem to be failing to make. Let him know you understand that distinction and you appreciate his paying attention to it. His link is: http://wyden.senate.gov/

by going to http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm. Send the Senator a letter saying thank you.

"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm

Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.

That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.

"George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. "

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Created.htm

Write him to say thank you:

http://wyden.senate.gov/

I'm embarrassed to say that one of my senators is on the passing committee, and I've already written him about that, but let's keep Wyden supported.

I just would not expect them to be the guardians of the Constitution, since it is clearly not their job.

Except for the part where it clearly is.

You're looking at the original version of the bill. The latest amended version doesn't include the second list; instead, it permits domain-name registries, registrars, financial transaction providers, and advertisers to take action against any domain that they believe is dedicated to infringing activities. The bill grants these entities immunity from all liability resulting from these "voluntary" actions.

I've been keeping an eye on this bill for over a month now. Here is where it currently stands.

The bill has been referred to committee. For those not familiar with the process of a bill entering into law in the US, this is the second step (the first being the introduction of the bill). In this case it is the Senate Judiciary Committee to be precise. At this point, the only Senators who have any say about the bill are the members of the committee.

It is scheduled for consideration by the committee on 11/18/2010.

The committee's job is to discuss the bill, make modifications to it, and decide it it should be put before the entire senate for discussion and a vote.

Ideally, a bill such as this could be killed in committee, that is the committee does not agree to move it on the entire Senate. In this case that is unlikely to happen. All but 4 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm are co-sponsors http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3804 of this bill. And the chairman of the committee is also the sponsor of the bill.

It turns out that both the House of Representatives and the Senate provide convenient web forms that let you think you're contacting your Congresscritters.

FTFY. Unless there's a Paypal donation button on the form, you might as well just redirect it to /dev/null.

Yeah, something like this.

This really has gone too far. TSA should be eliminated. Let the airlines and airports provide security - they, at least, have no interest in intimidating and humiliating their customers.

I'm not the type to write Congresscritters, but it can do no harm. A bit of Googling... It turns out that both the House of Representatives and the Senate provide convenient web forms that let you contact your Congresscritters.

Even if you are not normally political, please consider taking the time to send a message. It takes no more time than posting on /.

And #15 According to the Joint Economic Committee the richest 1% have 21% of the money. So at least one thing is going right.

http://jec.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=91975589-257c-403b-8093-8f3b584a088c

U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee

"share of total income accrued by the
wealthiest 10 percent of households jumped from 34.6 percent in 1980 to 48.2 percent in
2008.1 Much of the spike was driven by the share of total income accrued by the richest 1
percent of households. Between 1980 and 2008, their share rose from 10.0 percent to 21.0
percent, making the United States as one of the most unequal countries in the world.2 Moving
even further up the income distribution, the share of income accruing to the wealthiest 0.1
percent of households – those with incomes of at least $1.7 million in 2008 – has grown sharply
as well."

The point of the first poster is that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" by Thomas Jefferson had nothing to do with keeping the church out of the state until 1947 when the Supreme Court re-interpreted the meaning of it. The phrase and concept previous to this meant that the state could not tell the church what to do or believe, nor that there was any established state denomination. The whole concept came about as the state in many causes would outlaw a specific denomination and only allow worship in a specific, state sanctioned, denomination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Jefferson.2C_Madison.2C_and_the_.22wall_of_separation.22

To understand why this was so important you have to look back before the Constitution to the Colonies, most of which had an established state religion, and in some cases, the Dutch colony of New Netherland (New York) had even outlawed anything other than the Dutch Reformed Church and imprisoned people (Quakers).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#Colonial_support_for_separation

This is so clearly seen in the fact that there is a Chaplin for both the Senate and the Congress, even to this day.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/office/chaplain.htm
http://chaplain.house.gov/

The Senate Chaplin page sums it up:
"Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State."

Young students fighting governments of foreign countries and organized crime families that could (as US government keeps saying) crush the infrastructure of the US? No, this is about shaping the ethics of police state workers from a young age to keep dissenters in check. KINDERGARTEN??? Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010: http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=52895dd6-1931-4770-b089-3c6a23a41de0 An analysis available at: http://cryptome.org/isp-spy/s3480.htm Section 405: "(B) the use and impact of special hiring authorities and flexibilities to recruit the most qualified applicants, including the use of student internship and scholarship programs for permanent hires;" Section 406: "(2) K THROUGH 12.—The Secretary of Education, in coordination with the Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications and State and local governments, shall develop curriculum standards, guidelines, and recommended courses to address cyber safety, cybersecurity, and cyber ethics for students in kindergarten through grade 12." "(3) UNDERGRADUATE, GRADUATE, VOCATIONAL, AND TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS.— (A) SECRETARY OF EDUCATION.—The Secretary of Education, in coordination with the Director of the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, shall— (i) develop curriculum standards and guidelines to address cyber safety, cybersecurity, and cyber ethics for all students enrolled in undergraduate, graduate, vocational, and technical institutions in the United States; and (ii) analyze and develop recommended courses for students interested in pursuing careers in information technology, communications, computer science, engineering, math, and science, as those subjects relate to cybersecurity. (B) OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.—The Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in coordination with the Director, shall develop strategies and programs— (i) to recruit students from undergraduate, graduate, vocational, and technical institutions in the United States to serve as Federal employees engaged in cyber missions; and (ii) that provide internship and part time work opportunities with the Federal Government for students at the undergraduate, graduate, vocational, and technical institutions in the United States." Section 407: Monetary awards for doing a good job suppressing the population?

[citation needed]

Global temps cooled and stayed there for 40 years during the post-WW2 economic boom. When carbon dioxide emissions were rising, and atmospheric co2 was rising, temps decreased.

I can go on... the warming-at-altitude problem. Greenhouse-based warming is supposed to heat the mid troposphere faster than the surface. But that's not what is happening. The troposphere is warming much slower than the surface.

The 2500 IPCC scientists who are "all in agreement"? Yeah, quite a few of those aren't scientists. And quite a few scientists didn't agree but got counted anyway.

I'm not saying AGW is impossible. It sure as hell isn't an undisputed fact. And guys like you frothing at the mouth... is that "sticking it to the man"? Toeing the AGW line is so NOT punk rock.

... and start filing complaints with these helpful people. Also start talking with the various Finance Committees.

That's true, for some lax definitions of "true".

In my case, when I was sitting without a job for a full year, I would have gladly taken a low wage job, just to get back to work and have some income.

Instead, as the economy got worse, American jobs kept disappearing. One company I called with a question before even applying said that they couldn't afford to hire anyone else. Their application (online) was gone the next day.

Personally, I think the situation's the same in other companies. In addition to the agreed wage, there's a significant overhead cost for each employee. Companies can't afford to hire people, so people don't buy things, so companies can't afford to hire people. It's a vicious cycle.

There are several ways out of it. One retail shop I have connections to had their most profitable day ever during the 2008 Christmas season. They had a huge sale, with discounts cutting their profit margin by about half. People could buy things, and the company could make money again.

I think the other half of the cycle can be fixed as well. If companies had simply started hiring again, at a far lower wage, then people could afford to start buying again, albeit slowly.

In fact, that seems to be part of the intent behind Title I of the HIRE Act, which gives up to $6000 (in the form of tax credits) to companies who hire previously-unemployed workers.

Lowering the cost of hiring makes hiring more likely. This is pretty much the point I was originally tried to make, which got ignored in favor of a little quip against labor unions, so here it is again, nice and clear:

In my opinion, American workers generally expect too much in return for their work.

None of them have been charged yet, but I heard that many of these people have been brought in as part of an investigation into child exploitation. On top of that, several of them are self-admited pedagogues, pediatricians or even podiatrists, but they are somehow allowed to continue working in positions which bring them into contact with school children on a regular basis.

Since this is all a matter of public record, can we publish these facts along with their photographs, home and work addresses next to a vaguely worded editorial about the evils of child abuse? That sounds pretty fair to me.

While the name of the bill is actually funny, haha, the rest of the submission makes a big deal out of nothing.

According to the Constitution only the House can originate a bill of revenue [1]

In order to comply with this clause, the Senate typically takes a revenue-raising bill that has already been passed in the House of Representatives and amends it (or replaces it entirely) with its own bill. [2]

For instance, TARP (Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008), was originally passed by the House as the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act. [3]