Slashdot Mirror

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

Here's the linky in case you wanted to read the story from The Hill that was referenced in the article: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

Here's TFA: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

What is "The Hill"?

This is "The Hill" -- you know, as is Capitol Hill. It's not some phantom source.

This is a search for Napolitano on that site.

This would appear to be where she says the usage could be widened to trains and metros.

What is "The Hill"?

This is "The Hill" -- you know, as is Capitol Hill. It's not some phantom source.

This is a search for Napolitano on that site.

This would appear to be where she says the usage could be widened to trains and metros.

What is "The Hill"?

This is "The Hill" -- you know, as is Capitol Hill. It's not some phantom source.

This is a search for Napolitano on that site.

This would appear to be where she says the usage could be widened to trains and metros.

It's a newspaper dedicated to covering Congress from insider point of view.

The article in question is here.

Link to article
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

Not to mention that the terrorists carrying the bombs came from OTHER COUNTRIES that could care less about screening. That and security totally missed the underwear bomber despite the US being warned by family members that he had become an extremist.

And both were thwarted by the same passengers who are now being subjected to a feel up like they're spending the weekend in county lockup. When the groping becomes uncomfortable enough, they think well all go through the virtual porn machine like good little sheeple.

This isn't about safety. It's about conditioning people for the next step.

Never let a crisis go to waste...

Forget that. Wonder about the odds of dying from a car crash, since you and millions of Americans decided to avoid flying this year because of the patdowns and since driving is much, much more dangerous than flying. The TSA kills Americans.

The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths.

I have personally stopped flying. I'll drive anywhere I have to. Not solely because of the scanners or pat-downs... But because it's become such a tremendous inconvenience.

Used to be you could hop in a plane, snooze for a couple hours, and be at your destination. These days it's hours of lines, invasions of privacy, more waiting, delays, shuffling from one gate to another... It's easier just to drive.

Unfortunately, it is less safe to drive.

These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.

I have absolutely no problems being scanned or getting a deep patdown. One is in the same situation when you get a physical examination from your doctor. We have no problems with that because we don't want to risk our health. Why can't we do the same for our security?

When I choose to go to a doctor and get an exam it is all entirely voluntary. I am not required to go any procedures I don't want. The same is not true when I try to fly home for the holidays... I am required to undergo some kind of invasion of my privacy.

These officers deal with so many people that I would doubt they would find it pleasurable after the 10,000th traveler. And even if they find pleasure off of it, what's the big frickin' deal?

Doctors are expected to be professionals. There are things that are and aren't allowed. And if you cross the line you'll be fired or sued for malpractice. It happens.

If my wife goes to the gynecologist and he's getting off on examining her I'm going to be pretty angry about that. That's not appropriate. And I'm sure as hell not going to tolerate it.

And the standards for hiring these TSA employees are significantly lower.

You may be OK with some random stranger getting his rocks off by fondling your child, but I'm not.

Forget that. Wonder about the odds of dying from a car crash, since you and millions of Americans decided to avoid flying this year because of the patdowns and since driving is much, much more dangerous than flying. The TSA kills Americans.

The patdowns are not responsible for any deaths. These reactions are caused by the irrational fear and exacerbated prudery of the TRAVELERS.

I have absolutely no problems being scanned or getting a deep patdown. One is in the same situation when you get a physical examination from your doctor. We have no problems with that because we don't want to risk our health. Why can't we do the same for our security?

These officers deal with so many people that I would doubt they would find it pleasurable after the 10,000th traveler. And even if they find pleasure off of it, what's the big frickin' deal? What if I like going to work because there's somebody good-looking in my office? (totally hypothetical, because it's sadly not my case, ha) Does that make me a bad employee? Pff!

You know what pisses me off the most at airports? Not hightened security, but the lack of electric outlets and free (or cheap) wifi. That aggravates me to no end.

The TSA kills Americans.

They also brought us "Guam could tip over and capsize".

http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize

"Republicans are beholden to different corporate interests..."

Is that so?

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/128455-google-clout-with-obama-administration-deserves-an-investigation-watchdog-says

$10 Billion dollars... Oh whoop-de-doo! Your Ms. Hillary scored $60 bil from the Saudis with a single "deal". Who do you think Wall Street will favor in 2012?

When the cost of safely delivering gasoline in-theatre is $400/gal, any non-trivial reduction in fuel consumption will result in a serious cost savings for the military. I'm all for this.

You are conflating the stimulus bill with TARP. Last I read, somewhat over half of the stimulus has been spent. Recovery.gov (the official tracking site for the stimulus) says 91% has been made available. So you can go with my vague recollection of something I read "a while back", or go with the Fed's 91%. None of the money has been or is ever intended to be returned.

The TARP money as well as the GM/Chrysler bailout money was intended to be at least partially recoverable. According to these guys the TARP is winding down and will end up netting a loss of $100 billion. If you believe the completely unbiased and disinterested reporting here the net of all of the bailouts and TARP will eventually be a $30 billion loss for taxpayers. (of course that estimate excludes the $30 billion confiscated from GM's creditors and the loss of all shareholder equity and any other externalized costs).

Call me a foil hat wearing lunatic but I say at this point we've seen more than enough evidence of close cooperation between the American government and America's large industries to call it a budding facism.

Consider: Pluralism has been steadily weakening as congress and the presidents sign law after law giving and allowing the president to take unprecedented power. The courts already lack any real ability to stop this trend.

New laws have made everyone a criminal. Those against whom the government chooses to enforce these laws are being imprisoned and harassed. It's no longer possible to be a law abiding citizen in America -- only on the ruling powers' good side or not. Police all over the US have an "us against them" mindset that has led to countless abuses to the extent that a police uniform is no longer a comforting site even for those who obey the law. It's now illegal in several states to even record these abuses and Americans everywhere are shutting up and keeping their heads down.

If these dangerous trends are not stopped the US will be a fascist police state very soon.

U.S. $ 1 million per troop.

Yours In Ashgabat,
K. Trout

Your Rights Online: FCC Fights To Maintain Control over Culture
"The FCC filed Thursday to appeal a recent court decision that struck down its policy of fining broadcasters for offending puritanical Christian moral majority groups such as Parents Television Council. The FCC's brief argues the court ruling would make it almost impossible to punish broadcasters that deviate from 1950s morality during hours when children are likely to be watching or listening."

Just as a reminder, most of these "complaints" are coming from dittohead idiots following form letter emails from the PTC and other such "watchdog" groups. It's not real outrage, it's manufactured in order to push a political agenda -- namely, the repression of sexuality in the US. If you want to try and influence and repress culture, a really good place to start is sexuality, after all.

it shouldn't be, IMO

I agree. I call it the "liar's law". Of course, with the dirty politics we have in Illinois, it's no wonder legislators don't want their words held against them.

If you think about it, your typical legislator does dozens of interviews, writes pieces and has his or her voting record publicly available. And they've got an opposition that has the resources to dig it all up. Sure, there are scandals tucked away, but they're mostly pathetically small amounts of money and sex you couldn't pay me to watch. The terrible, terrible laws being written are all public record.

There are situations where politicians go back on their promises, but there are specific reasons why, and I see a huge amount of criticism that really comes down to critics seeing what they want in candidates, and being upset when it's not the case. There's also cases when the coverage is thin, for example, when McCain nominated Palin, we essentially stopped paying attention to the presidential candidates for months.

In case you think I'm being naive, also consider this. There are a lot of people in politics, and the vast majority of them have no real reputation, no affiliation with a group anyone has heard of, so these folks really can lie with impunity. Legislators get hit with this stuff all the time, but they generally just have to take it on the chin. (Though the fact that they're beating it by carrying cameras themselves is, to my mind, outstanding.) I'm not trying to make a case that they're necessarily honorable or deserving of our sympathy, just that there are people who are a lot worse and really do a lot of damage to our political system.

So far, it's been a scorcher for folks all around the world.

released a report revealing 2010 having the record for warmest June, warmest April to June and warmest year to date

I thought weather is not climate.

I remember hearing that a lot in 2009. Don't hear it so much this year, for some reason.

Sadly, if you don't know what The Onion is, this is just as believable as Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) thinking that Guam will tip over if there is too many people on it. http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/3169-rep-hank-johnson-guam-could-tip-over-and-capsize

European leaders are trying to rein in their spending because they see the economic writing on the wall. Obama and his Democrats insist on charging straight ahead and spending more, even if it means rolling back their worthless campaign promises not to raise taxes on earners under $250k. Make no mistake, they are targeting you and I to pick up the tab for their heavy-spending ways.

Taxation citation.

I realize liberals might not like the WSJ as a source, but the article is well-written and informative. They have a graph which shows the actual impact the tax hikes would have. It's not op-ed, it's straight-up reporting of what is already out on the news wires. See the Associated Press report as well.

"Raising revenue is part of the deficit solution, too," Hoyer said.

No, it's not. Throwing more money at a problem that is rooted in waste has never solved the problem, it has only extended it. We are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars, yet instead of

"We didn't invade Iran like McCain promised."

He promised we'd take military action if neccessary, and that he'son the record saying that he would attack Iran “if it’s a provable direct threat” involving nuclear weapons, and he’d need “a whole lot of other information about Iranian intentions.”

Isn't that pretty much Barack Obama's policy as well?

"We're not staying in Iraq for "100 years if need be " as McCain promised"

You yourself summed it up. "If need be". It's obvious that we won't need to. So why is McCain at fault in that statement? Further, that statement was misconstrued as a promise to stay "100 years", irregardless of circumstances. MoveOn's commercial... the one with the mother and baby saying "you can't have him"... was the biggest example of this fallacy.

"DADT is going away"

Maybe, maybe not. But that's not up to the President. That's up to Congress.

"He's gotten the federal gov't to lay off pot users where states have allowed pot us."

"Lay Off" is stretching things a bit. The Attorney General said that prosecuting pot users wouldn't have as high a priority, not that it would stop. And Obama reaffirmed his objection to legalization. And he certainly hasn't opposed California authorities cracking down on pot dispensers.

The ruling doesn't actually establish much precedent for expectations of privacy; in fact the judges go out of their way not to: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/103941-supreme-court-okays-search-of-policemans-texts

There's already a better method, which doesn't kill liquidity (as some have suggested below)... simply put a microtax on all stock transactions of less than a percent.

Even this super-AI is going to make mistakes - it's profit margin is not likely to be large on the _average_ transaction, to microtaxes like this will keep this sort of activity to a minimum. Lots of people have suggested such a tax.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/56789-afl-cio-dems-push-new-wall-street-tax

Basically: this sort of transaction does NOTHING for the economy except leech money from the people that actually produce things. Wall Street, as a whole, has a purpose: allocation of capital to build the economy. But there's no reason that people working on Wall Street should make more money than other facilitators or utiilities of our system, like payroll accountants or garbage collectors. The only reason they do is because we let them.

New D.C. CTO scraps 'Apps for Democracy'

They will and are already paying.
As they should....

And from a liability standpoint, there SHOULDN'T be a difference, but there is. You run into a car, you have to pay for it. BP blows up the gulf: they should pay for it. Except they won't.

Oh, they say they will, and if they don't, they'll be made to.

Second it doesn't take into account Bush keeping the cost of the wars "off the books".

Let's explain it this way:

So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
Then he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. This $300 billion was, of course, totally qualitatively different from the TARP money in that it was spending, not lending. It would never be paid back. Once it was out the door, it was gone. Other spending and falling revenues due to the recession pushed the final numbers for Obama’s 2009 deficit up to $1.4 trillion.

  So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.

But, since you brought up the wars, let's look at how much they cost. According to the left wing Cost Of War.com site, the total cost of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is about $990 Billion. Obama's deficit spending had exceeded that in his first year in office. Now, keep in mind that the $900 billion was the total cost since 2003 when we invaded Iraq. So, unless Obama increased funding for the wars by more than seven times, your "wars kept off the books" as an excuse for Obama's deficits argument is total bullshit.

And you accuse me of lying?

Earlier this week Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that his party would not cooperate with the Democrats for the rest of the year.

So if they stick to that, how could it end? Well, badly. I just hope common sense breaks out at some point.

The IRS will also penalize you under current law if you follow their advice and they were wrong. Shouldn't it also be their responsibility to get their understanding of the tax code right? Even an IRS Commissioner admits it's too complex for him.

Can't we just bring some sanity to the tax code? Something like this: ((AmountEarned*X)-AmountPayed)=AmountOwed where 0
I see no reason the tax code should be so complex that we have to have multiple tax forms.

A few suspect emails do not destroy millions of man hours of research.

The Humanity in general and the Western civilization in particular were on trial. We are accused of "destroying Gaia" and facing the punishment of huge fines and severe drop in the quality of life (such as living with worms composting our garbage).

So, guess what? When, suddenly, thanks to a whistle-blower (whom the prominent Illiberals in Congress want prosecuted, BTW), we learn of the massive prosecutorial misconduct (some of it, such as deleting files after receiving Freedom of Information requests, outright criminal), that affects a substantial amount of evidence against us, we move for the "court" to dismiss the entire case.

Those "millions of man hours" are now tainted.

For once, they make a rational and decent statement! This is a big improvement over their stupid tirade about Obama swatting a housefly.

That's up there with MADD complaining about Obama sitting down & having a beer with Henry Gates, Joe Biden, and James Crowley. No, really, they did:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/53349-update-beer-summit-sparks-fight-between-madd-restaurant-group

MADD stopped long ago being an anti-drinking & driving group and is now just an anti-drinking group.

sure, uh huh

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/unamerican-attacks-cant-derail-health-care-debate-.html

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/08/13/reid-protesters-are-evil-mongers/

the fact that you cite the strawman fallacy just proves how ignorant you are. Obama has practically mastered the art of using it at this point.

I can't be bothered with an on-line PDF-file — is voting fraud on the list? Because the Honduran fraudster got the backing of the current US Administration... Someone needs to tell the mullahs, that the easiest way to the heart of America's President may lie through something, that they already doing...

(Flamebait my muscular behind...)

So, what, your position is that a good (but futile) deed does not count in a person's favor?

That is a gross misrepresentation of my position. My position is that Obama knew that amendment had no chance in hell to pass, and thus his act of voting for the bill when he knew that the telecoms would be granted immunity is not an act of good, but one of evil.

Not a big fan of "dreaming the impossible dream?"

I'm a realist, which means that while I might like to alter the current power structure to the point where it would be essentially unrecognizable, feed the hungry and save the whales, I know that the Republicans and Democrats are both essentially concerned about taking and holding power for themselves, not with actually making a difference.

Further, I believe the system is designed to prevent an idealistic president from actually making a large direct difference. The place where the president is in a position to influence the nation is not one of policy, in which he is typically forced to follow policy, but in attitude. First Lady Michelle Obama's installation of an organic garden at the white house reminds me of past events in a way that perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about here.

Let me just reiterate: Obama is not an idiot. He never believed that amendment would pass. You have been duped.

Maybe so. Dick Morris argues that this is exactly how he's neutralized Hillary Clinton:

http://thehill.com/dick-morris/the-incredible-shrinking-clintons-2009-05-26.html

Obama, being a fool

Obama isn't a fool. He knows what the consequences will be. He just doesn't care. He doesn't care because his constituents don't care. His constituents love it when he makes business yell. They hate business.

They all figure US businesses are captive victims and they can squeeze all the 'justice' they want out of them. These tax moves are clever and far sighted. They will cause businesses to kill US jobs. Obama doesn't mind.

When, after these and other changes, business does what business must to survive (kill US jobs) Obama will claim another injustice and impose trade regulations to 'stop' it. He can't do that now. Remember the NAFTA stink during the campaign when Obama's people said the wrong thing to the Canadians? Remember the TARP stink over the 'buy American' language? It's too early yet to act this way on a large scale, but the time will come...

People in the US need to be made to hate business enough that Obama and his ilk can get away with this stuff. That's what Obama's voters want. It's what the unions want.

Will this eventually cause a general drop in the standard of living in the US? Probably. Does that matter to Obama and his voters? Nope. They want 'fairness'. They want 'justice'. They don't care if the white professionals in Tech take it in the rear. They just don't care.

Real soon now they're going to get Franken seated. When that happens the real battle for Card Check begins. That's when Walmart gets unionized. Walmart will be paid off with amnesty for illegal immigrants in the form of some guest worker racket. More voters for the left, you see. Obama and his people don't care that this will end whatever remnant industrial base still persists in the US; eventually they'll have the unions draft the trade regulations to fix it.

Then it's on to medicine. There are a lot of white professionals that need punishing there. Doctors, drug companies, insurance companies, etc. The trick will be sending those folks up the river without harming too many Obama voters.

This will continue and accelerate. No one has ever spent as much fiat money to pay for voters as Obama is/has. You can assume this will translate into a landslide reelection with monster coat tails. Obama has plenty of time. What you understood to be the US is over. The damage inflicted during the next seven and a half years it permanent, just like all the other damage inflicted by collectivists in the US.

Adapt and get used to it. Law is a good bet because a law degree goes a long way in a government controlled system. That's why lawyers, who contributed 5 times as much money to campaigns as the entire 'tech' industry, prefer Democrats like Obama 4-1 when they vote with their wallets.

The more they occupy their time with frivolous stuff like this, the less time they have to plan their next rape of our rights and pocketbooks.

They took no time at all to pass the "Rape and Pillage the Taxpayer", er, "Stimulus Package".

Hell, they couldn't even read it because Pelosi had the vote because her broom was all ready to fly her to Europe for her vacation.

So much for "Change". I guess the "hope" part is what we get to abandon.

And of course, Nancy Pelosi claims she's "not partisan"

Believe that? If you do, I've got a couple of nice bridges in New York you can buy. Cheap.

The President is appointing the legal staff of the BSA and RIAA to the top law enforcement positions in the land, and the MPAA has initiated the revolving door maneuver with Assistant Attorney General John Malcolm. It seems to me that the more things change the more they remain the same. What we've done is change who our government is sold out to.

Apparently with the change of administrations imaginary property has become the new military industrial complex because of a focus shift from foreign to domestic policy, in accordance with the party predilection. We're pulling out of wars with other people and engaging ourselves. Next step: disarm the victim. Yay! I can't wait to see how this turns out. I would rather we engaged foreign people if we have to fight at all, but my true preference would be to relax and let stuff sort itself out.

The headline might as well read "Sun's McNealy wishes for invisible pink unicorn."

No one is advocating bringing back the fairness doctrine. This is a right-wing/libertarian talking point. Let it go, ffs.

How about Schumer and Pelosi? Or Sen. Jeff Bingaman? Then there's the fact that it was included as part of the Democratic Party Platform in 2000. Oh, then there's this article quoting Nancy Pelosi's support of it. Illustrious leader Dick Durbin has also advocated its reinstatement.

Just because they're paranoid, doesn't mean there's nobody out to get them.

I think it's clear that Obama is doing the best he can to not be a criminal, excluding lobbyists from his administration for example

Obama the One, the Messiah whom we can never criticize (how absurd), has had lobbyists working for him and he took millions from lobbyists during the election, including over $7 million from TV/Movies/Music, and you know they will be expecting tougher IP laws for their bucks. Had Obama kept his pledge to take public funds as he promised McCain, there would have been a hell of a lot less lobbyist money in the campaign, and the election might have been closer. So it's fair to say that lobbyists had a significant impact on Obama getting into the White House.

So now he's Mr. Clean? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I'd prefer to hear him reject lobbyist money for the 2012 election cycle, and ban his staffers from talking to lobbyists, not the token, meaningless ban on employing them in his administration.

This whole "Obama is above criticism" meme is fucking scary in a constitutional democratic republic.

And your open admission that you would abuse your mod points to punish someone for having the temerity to do so makes me hope you never get any.

The Real Deal on the Current Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working home owners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.

Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.

The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.

Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.

Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.

Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.

Yes, Barack Obama, by mentioning arugula, has shown he is the elitist among the major party candidates.

John McCain, on the other hand, is just chock-full of mavericky goodness and simple values, and isn't elitist at all, despite the fact that he and his wife own a private jet and 8-12 homes on 8 properties (McCain says he doesn't know... it must be hard to keep track), spent $273,000 on household employees last year, and THIS JUST IN: own 13 cars. Oh, and despite McCain's claims that he has only bought American cars all his life, those cars include a Honda, a Lexus, and a Volkswagen, and also in the family is the Prius he boasted about his daughter buying just last year when he was pandering to voters with different concerns.

Oh, and Cindy McCain may have worn a $313,100 outfit on the first night of the Republican convention and said you just can't get around Arizona without a private plane, but trust the people who brought you the Iraq war: she's as down-to-Earth and "simple folk" as they come.

Those "uppity" Obamas, with their one house, on which they got a better-than-average mortgage deal (gasp!) based on Obama's senate income and book proceeds, have one car for the family. And both Obamas paid for their education with student loans, with Barack, who was raised by a single mother and his grandparents, ending up as president of the Harvard Law Review. John McCain, the son and grandson of Navy Admirals, was practically the definition of a legacy admission at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Yeah, that arugula comment really tells the whole story of who's an elitist.

if breaking the law is never punished.

Attorney General Mukasey, is that you?

I just noticed that the top-scoring Republican on the CNet tech voter guide page is "Senator George Allen." Wha? Jim Webb beat him 2 years ago and has been serving in the Senate since January of 2007. So that made me look more carefully. This is a 2006 voter guide. So the numbers may have changed a lot since the page was created.
John McCain could have a COMPLETELY different rating by now, because there's almost no substantive issue on which he hasn't reversed his position at least once in the last ten years. For example, McCain was against using the military for "nation-building" (never mind that that was never the mission in Bosnia anyway) when Clinton was president, and was against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy when they were proposed and passed, but has obviously completely reversed his positions on both those issues and a number of others. For example, McCain was for outlawing abortion before he was against it (when he wanted to be a "maverick," bucking the Republican Party's position) before he was for it again (when he needed votes from the "Christian Right" in the current presidential campaign).

So what do we have in TFS? The use of a flawed means of analyzing Biden's tech voting record; the omission of the more relevant comparison of Obama and McCain, leaving the Biden numbers in a vacuum, looking scarily low for us tech nerds, even if we put aside the flawed nature of the rating; and the use of a page from 2006 to make this argument.

Seriously, I hope the schwag is really good, and not just cheesy "McCain 2008" mugs or T-shirts or something.

I have to give the modern (post-Reagan) Republican Party credit. They have the most amazing, unbroken party unity I've ever seen. This year, Bush's deep unpopularity has some Republican members of Congress (e.g., Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon) running away from Bush and pretending they've been endorsed by Obama. And the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee told Republican members of Congress to run away from the Republican brand in this year's election. But still, when they need a vote in Congress for legislation a Republican president wants, they command party unity that would be the envy of the Chinese Communist Party of the 1970s. And this despite the Republican voter coalition consisting of at least three distinct parts whose interests are often at odds with each other. There's the Christian Right, which would have the government legislate their version of "what God wants," the libertarian Goldwater types, and the "Rockefeller Republicans," who tend to be socially liberal, at least in relative terms in the 21st Century USA, but conservative on economic issues. You would think this coalition would have fractured, but the Rs have managed not only to hold it together for a quarter-century, but actually strengthened it, taking over all three branches of government for about half of this decade. Meanwhile, the Democrats never seem to muster that kind of unity. Clinton and Carter, the last two Democratic presidents, had a lot of problems with Democratic-majority Congresses. Will Rogers famously said that he did not belong to any organized political party - he was a Democrat. As Homer Simpson would say, "it's funny because it's true." OK, there are signs that Howard Dean and Obama are transforming the party, but I can't imagine it ever being the complete lock-step monolithic voting the Republican Party has been for the last 20 years or so.

What actually happened, of course, was that the House adjourned for its August recess. As scheduled. Just like it does every year. Presumably it was scheduled months in advance. Everyone knew it.

Except this time the minority party refused to, you know, leave. Though the government is not in session, the Republicans insist on hanging around anyway.

Actually, Congress is going into recess a week earlier than they had planned. You can see here the original date for them to start August recess was August 9th.

Plain and simple this is an effort to freeze debate on matters central to the upcoming presidential election, most notably the offshore drilling issue. This issue hinges on the theory that the current gas price crunch could be significantly helped by opening up offshore drilling, a theory heavily supported by Republican presidential candidate John McCain. The truly interesting fact is that the Majority Leader Harry Reid (a Democrat from Nevada) previously threatened to CANCEL the August recess if two key Democratic bills weren't decided in time for the recess.

Smells a bit of hypocrisy if you ask me.

How did he stay in office so long if there was already evidence of corruption in 2003 and 2004?

His last election was in 2002