Slashdot Mirror
HomeSec In the News
The U.S. Homeland Security bill is steamrolling through Congress, on target to be passed within a couple of days. Since its passage is guaranteed, in whatever form it finally ends up, lawmakers are attempting to tack on their own pet projects to the bill so they can ride its coattails. A CNet article mentions that a version of the Cyberspace Security Enhancement Act has been appended to the HomeSec bill. William Safire blasts the addition in the New York Times. The Times has another story on the bill that notes some of the corporate pork that is also being added to the bill.
Is there any legitimate reason for the US's current process to ammend a bill. The way that anything can be added, related or not, seems like a poor way to go about things, can anyone think of a positive reason for this power?
The president needs a line-item veto. Bush Sr. wanted it. Didn't get it. Clinton wanted it. Didn't get it. Until the president has the ability to veto the individual components of a piece of legislation, we'll always have this type of pork.
All of the corporations are salivating at the prospects of the all-Republican, all-the-time federal government. Every corporate giveaway they want, they'll get, not the least of which I predict will be more goodies for Valenti & Co.
I'd expect most of them to be tacked onto Defense or Security bills, since by this time all but the late Paul Wellstone are terrified politically of asking anything but "When do we vote yes on it?"
Ever since Washington and Jefferson, this is how Congress has worked. And patriotic Americans understand that trying to dismantle the political process doesn't show proper solidarity and unity of purpose. Please don't post this kind of story in the future.
I'm sorry for saying this. It's not constructive and rather anti-US, I suppose.
But from all the things that look stupid about US politics from this side of the ocean, this phenomenon of tacking on loads of totally unrelated stuff to some bill must be the worst.
Has any politician who did this ever defended this process in public? Is there one politician left who takes this whole democracy thing seriously?
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
MSNBC has a good article up about this"
A last-minute addition to a proposal for a Department of Homeland Security bill would punish malicious computer hackers with life in prison.
I love that they are going to give life for cracking, wether you are white, grey, or black hat. Yet, this very same group of people are not willing to do a thing to stop CEOS/CFOS such as Ken Lay or Anshutz/Nachio who literally steal and plunder off with 100's of billions of dollars.
BTW, We have all but shut down the company (Anderson) that was monitoring, but the company that did the actual theft.
We live in interesting time.
Bush Jr. (or any other president) would only use the veto to kill of the other side's pork and goodies, not his own. I'd also expect it to be widely abused by whoever's in power to promote their own political agenda, rather than for the good of the people to eliminate non-germane pork.
Corporate freebies tacked onto bills in the current environment will be allowed to stay, since they paid the current President and party for them.
Specify that an existing ban on the "advertisement" of any device that is used primarily for surreptitious electronic surveillance applies to online ads. The prohibition now covers only a "newspaper, magazine, handbill or other publication."
Holy shit! That alone may be worth my privacy and soul! No more X10 ads! WHOOOO!
My reality check bounced.
It seems George Orwell was off by about twenty years....
Before everyone starts panicking over all our "lost privacy and rights", just remember what most working people have to do every year in April. The data collected by the IRS and the power the IRS has over everyone is enormous! Remember, both Nixon and Clinton severely abused the IRS' power by auditing all their enemies. The government takes all the money it wants to before you get any of it. They then redistribute to whomever they want to buy votes from (be it Corporations or Unions - take your pick).
This is nothing new and it's nothing that only "evil right-wing" conservatives do either. So, before everyone blasts this bill, think about the IRS and the power they already have (and have had for decades).
Just my $0.01 (after taxes).
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
The House and the Senate are each Republican, with a hefty margin. The President is Republican.
The only consolation I have is that there are some kinds of laws that they simply can't pass without having them over-turned, because of the Consitution.
I have never had such an appreciation for our nation's founders, or the term "tyranny of the majority", until now.
God Bless America. And hold on to your britches: it's gonna' be a helluva' two years.
When did the word Liberal become an epithet along the lines of "motherfucker" or "idiot" or "cocksucker"?
Furthermore, why are there so many young people that are so conservative these days? It's scary. Conservatism in young people manifests itself as militarism and social Darwinism, and if that's what our country is going to become, no wonder the rest of the world wants us dead.
Time to start looking into Canadian job opportunities.
Keep at it though! Practice makes perfect.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
Legislating what should be changed through behavior and public pressure is never a good thing.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
It's a liberal cause to be concerned about needless amendments to legislation? I thought conservatives were in favor of restricted government power?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Michael is an editor.
:)
You're not.
Michael gets to decide what is on the homepage, not you.
Read the FAQ, and find another site if you don't like this one
the Line Item Veto would be narrowly defined to vetoing budget items, and probably wouldn't apply here.
Also, there's some debate that the Line Item Veto is yet another way that we are increasing presidential power. Some point out that the office of the president has gradually been accruing more and more power, and that it is upseting the balance of power in the government.
Personally, I support the Line Item Veto, but I can also see where it's detractors are coming from.
The immediate problem with the line-item veto is that it is unconstitutional. Sometimes the Supremes get it right (6-3). :)
So of course it could be enacted as a constitutional amendment. This would be a grave error IMHO, as law-making authority belongs with the lawmakers, in Congress, not the White House, which has the veto as final sanity check on Congress (and over which the Framers pointedly permitted a 2/3 vote of Congress to override). A line-item veto would wreak havoc: the President would be able to "pass" a statute other than Congress intended (there's no reason the President would be limited to so-called pork -- why not dissect the statute's principal topic?). Why would anyone have this great faith in a single person to do the right thing -- Presidents engage in pork barrel politics, too, and surely we can all think of at least one President on the last thirty years we wouldn't have trusted with this.
If you have a problem with the lawmaking process, don't increase the power of a lone executive with whatever agenda; focus on the 535-member Congress, as the Framers intended. They did not want a monarch, or even an imitation one.
In fairness the debate on this is long and complex. I won't pretend to present or be able to present a full balanced picture. But grant that the issue is much more complex than a magic bullet for pork-barrel abuses, and look into it more than sound bites permit.
there's an override provision.
Best Slashdot Co
Filibuster:"The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action"
e.g. getting up in congress to debate the bill... and then proceeding to read the websters dictionary as long as you physically can in hopes that people will be too exhausted to put up with it and leave ( thus not voting on the bill )
or.. perhaps printing and reading all the -1 posts on a Jon Katz review
I would say this qualifies both as news for nerds and stuff that matters. The only thing I question is why this is not in YRO. This is about a bill that would let some agencies have unfettered access to your email (news for nerds) without even probable cause (stuff that matters).
On another note, I think it's time I get GPG and start encrypting my email if/when this bill passes.
Filibustering is a tool usable only in the Senate, whereby a group continues to debate the topic ad infinitum so that no vote can take place.
The Democrats will likely not oppose this bill en masse, and if a few of them attempt such a tactic they will undoubtably be accused of "holding Democracy hostage".
Well, for suitably small definitions of "hefty". It's less than 5% in each house.
Best Slashdot Co
Good comment. A filibuster refers to the unlimited right of debate accorded every Senator (not Reps). So anyone can hijack the Senate on a given issue -- Senators are accorded a lot of power, and the Senate is intened to be a slow-moving body. Filibuster can be overriden by a cloture vote -- 60 Senators.
As a practical matter, this is a rare happening and very very unlikely while everyone is trying to look patriotic and distance themselves from civil liberties. There would be huge political costs to whoever stuck their neck out, and their own party would probably turn on them (cloture). These are hawkish times, for better or worse.
That's why many people were pushing for the line-item veto power for the President awhile back (1996) and it was passed by the Republican controlled Congress. President Clinton used it several times to trim out pork items from bills and saved billions of dollars. I believe it was ruled unconstitutional in 1998 though. Personally I think it was one of the greatest laws ever passed and should become a Constitutional Ammendment. The amount of utter shit that rides along on popular bills is amazingly sad.
While the Homeland Security Bill is most certainly assured to pass now that the Republicans will control all of the 108th Congress (don't forget, its still the 107th, and the Dems still control the Senate) that doesn't mean all of the items being tacked on by the Senate will actually make it into law.
The House of Representatives already passed HR5005, the Homeland Security Bill, and did so with such tight rules that there was no chance for riders to be added. As such, when the conferees from the two houses to sit down and rectify the differences in the bill, the House will not have the pork that the Senate has... and I would go so far as to say that much of the pork will be stricken.
The computer hacking bill, on the other hand, has already passed the House. I was actually in the gallery at the time and watched the bill pass without a single objection. Even the floor leader managing the opposing side was in support of the bill. I don't know where "our" lobbyist was on this issue, but it was already decided long ago.
During the last few weeks of Congress there is a "great sucking sound". In other words, all of the bills that have been stuck in committee are suddenly tacked on to popular bills. Its been going on for years, and it is actually one of the few things that diminishes the power of the committee system, which in itself has some highly undemocratic practices. But that doesn't mean those items make it pass the conference committee.
Oh, and one last thing, about the line-item veto. Its not that the President's want it and didn't get it... Congress granted the power but the Courts ruled in unconstitutional because the President is not supposed to be vested with such power. If he did have that power, what would stop him from taking off items that would help members of the opposing party while keeping on items that help his own party? No, the power of the purse needs to stay in the hands of Congress. But we as voters need to stop rewarding Congressmen just because they send $50,000,000 toward our district.
Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
67% of eligible voters didn't vote, why? Sure some people are lazy, but it's not an all day exercise to go out and pull a lever. I can't believe all 67% would say they didn't vote because they were lazy.
We just don't care because we all have "better" things to do(get more money and buy stupid shit) rather than sit around to think and discuss(Note: I said discuss not just yell your party's rethoric at each other) issues.
I remember reading about countries that take election day as a national holiday. Celebrations and such, they understand what a great right it is to vote.
Does this mean that Iraq is a better "democracy" than us?
The fact that the left is so factionized hurts it so much. The anti-war rally in DC a few weeks ago was just a mishmash of leftist groups trying to get across their individual messages instead of putting aside their petty agendas and showing a united front.
Great time to attempt to market your group's ideas right? I mean the best time to recruit is any given oppurtunity.
Eh, in the end we're doomed, I'm starting to think the world really will end in 2012, at least for Americans.
-- taking over the world, we are.
Anyone else reminded of the Simpsons ep with the meteroite? (This is from memory, so don't flame me because it's not word-for-word.)
Senator introduces bill to save Springfield, everybody is happy.
Random Senator: "I'd like to add an amendment to that bill to allow funding for the perverted arts!"
Head Senator: "All in favour of the amendment"
Everybody else: "Yay"
Head Senator: "Motion Passed. All in favour of the Save Springfield/Perverted arts Bill"
Everybody else: "Nay"
- cut to Kent Brockman
Kent Brockman: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work."
SLASHDOTIA - The community known as Slashdot has announced today it's decision to secede from the United States of America. President and Commander(Taco)-In-Chief Rob Malda made the announcement shortly after new announcements came of ridiculous "rider" bills being tacked onto popular legislation.
Mr. Malda was quoted as saying, "with a Republican controled [sic] house and senate, we are loosing [sic] our RIGHTS as Americans! Well, those of us from Slashdot that live in America, that is. Therefore we are announcing the immediate secesion [sic] of Slashdot from the United States of America. We are drafting our Declaration of Independance [sic] as I speak. Thousands of my fellow Slashdotians are currently modding proposed wording for the decleration [sic] up and down, right now." He added, "Of course, I will be in charge of the final proofreading."
Fellow Slashdotian staffer Roblimo was quoted as saying, "Yes, we are hoping for a declaration that is +5 Insightful, but I fear we could end up with +5 Funny. It really depends on who happens to be participating in the conversation for the 1 hour it will take us to draft the document."
When asked how Slashdot -- devoid of a military -- figures to fair any better than the South did during the Civil War, Mr. Malda simply responded, "Two words: Slashdot Affect. [sic]"
Back to you, Dan.
"And like that
But then after complaining about Liberal being equated with a host of slurs, you insinuate a few of your own about the Conservative label.
Conservatism
Please, if you're going to gripe about labels, at least don't engage in the behaviour yourself.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Lets see in the US gov't we have the following agencies to "protect" the citizens
CIA
NSA
FBI
ATF
DEA
And probably a few others. All of these agencies are empires in their own right and the interface between them is largely opaque and there is lots of redundancies and external friction.
Why do we need another empire!
BTW, Canada has one the RCMP.
That is the reason why adding amendments to bills is unrestricted
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Will this get rid of those X-10 pop-up ads? If so then I'm all for it!!! ;)
(and I don't need to hear about how Mozilla can block those, I already know)
47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
What it boils down to is that Republicans are going to have enough division in their own party that Democratic votes will be required on many initiatives.
Anyway... given all that... I only have one thing to say... GO DUBYA GO!!! WOOO HOOO!!!
I wonder... is email header information analogous to the address, return address, and postmark of a snail-mail letter? Is the post office currently allowed to track these w/o a warrant?
How much time would the gov waste if we all sent blank emails to Kabul?
And won't be until January when the new Senate is sworn in.
And when the bill is finally voted on in the Senate, it will include plenty of Democrats voting for it:
In Wednesday's initial roll calls, the Senate voted 89-8 to end procedural delays. Though opponents will have other chances to slow the bill, the one-sided vote signaled that senators realized it was now politically impossible to kill it.
The Senate then voted 50-47 to kill a Democratic version of the bill that gave additional protections to workers.
From this article.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Dubya has not overturned, nor even ATTEMPTED to overturn hardly any of Clinton's "big government" programs like Americorps etc. Until he starts really shrinking the government, you can keep your tired claims. Clue: it hasn't happened yet.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I had submitted this message to my fraternity Egroup. It seems appropriate here.
k C: www.clsp.jhu.edu/ws2000/presen\a ry/jim_mayfield/homewood_ir_tutor ial.ppt+darpa+tides&hl=en&ie=U\
d c.upenn.edu/Projects/EARS/
a vios/1184 -1.html
n _langua ge.shtml
l . ht ml
.edu (learning institutions, .mil (US Military, they are funding
TIDES
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:1jQijQR-t9
tations/prelimin
TF-8
EARS
http://www.darpa.mil/iao/EARS.htm
http://www.l
SPINE
http://www.speechtechmag.com/issues/7_5/
QANDA, KL-WEB, and more info on TIDES
http://www.mitre.org/technology/mtp01/huma
Copy and paste what is needed.
Hmmm...
Now what could I do if I had a system to automatically transcribe
human-to-human speech over the phone??
Maybe I'd put it in a big fat fucking database, and use some of the
other contextual data-mining techniques to give me some useful
information.
Read for yourselves, and make up your own minds.
I purposedly didn't put forth some kind of fucked-up conspiracy
theory, but the sources do not lie.
The US government IS going to put all electronic info in a database -
that is NOT contested by anyone. It is a law that will soon be passed,
as mentioned in the earlier "Homeland Defense" email.
DARPA is spending a lot of money on text-to-speech.
With those two facts in mind (they are FACTS, not speculation), read
some of the web pages above. The language is fucking spooky.
Automatic transcription of phone calls, context-sensitive search of
text (from the transcripts, or the e-mails, or the web pages you look
at, etc...), and other bullshit.
ROAR
http://www.hltcentral.org/page-975.0.shtm
http://www.darpa.mil/ito/Solicitations/RFI_0103
This one is fucking scary, that is all I have to say.
Notice that most of my sources are either
the ones who develop the tech) or
the projects).
These are not tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists.
Again, read for yourself and decide.
I've overclocked my brain!!!
I'm no great Safire fan -- he is occasionally credibility impaired (he makes things up), his defense of Israel verges on blindness, he continually tries to rehabilitate his former employer Nixon, and so on. But on occasion he leaps out with the ferocity contained in the NYT column to defend civil liberties -- in the libertarian get-the-hell-out-of-my-backyard-you-government-spi es tradition -- and gets it right, in the morally correct sense. Because he has credibility with the right, his words here carry much greater political influence that a stack of Mother Jones and The Nation reaching to the Moon. And I am grateful for his courage; he could just as easily sit it out, or mouth the sonorous rah-rah rant of the police state crowd.
Ensure to us citizens a country of security -- but without devastating our own. I have seriously begun to contemplate using cash more than traceable credit, and I'm not particularly paranoid, and yes I "don't have anything to hide." I just don't like buying a bag of Fritos wondering whether it will eventually raise my health insurance premiums because I don't eat right. Don't laugh, it could happen, in a thousand ways less fritoless (er, frivolous) than my example.
Thanks.
that the opposition to the Homeland Security Bill by the Democrats was nothing more than election year posturing. Doing what was best for the Dem's and not what they thought was in the best interest of the nation.
Obviously, they believe this bill to be in the best interest of the nation because here they are passing it. "Well, why oppose it now when the Republicans will take over and pass it anyway," you might say. Indeed, but if they truely believed it to be bad legislation, they should be fighting it to their dying breath. For them to support a bill now that they oppose would mean that they are checking their backbones at the door before they enter the Senate, which looks even worse.
NEW HOMELAND SECURITY BILL DROPS INVESTIGATION INTO 9-11.
I guess we don't need to know what happened, just what we were told what happened by the president.
Hammer of Truth
Where e'r we go, we know where the police is
For terrorists, above all else, we fear.
And with us, when we issue all these press releases,
The fallen patriots, in spirit, cheer
America, attacked by faceless cowards
Who hated freedom and democracy.
All agencies, once separate and rival powers,
United now, in one bureaucracy.
Forward we march, with Ashcroft banners waving
And on Fox News, we're interviewed each day.
Join with us on this road to hell that we are paving.
The constitution won't get in our way.
If we want to decide that riders and the like are problems, then we need to attack those problems. Adding a line-item veto is trying to take the cheap way out, and treat the symptoms rather than the underlying problem.
Maybe all we really need is some good reporting, someone who can read these bills and show the pork. Then again, we all have to remember that one Congressman's pork is another's home state livelihood. Really, that's how the pork all gets in there in the first place.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Last night, I watched Robert Reich on TV saying, "What's right and left? I don't know what that means!" Nancy Pelosi on NPR this morning, when confronted with 3 specific examples of a very liberal voting record said, "Why do you want to bundle those votes together? I don't understand what that means!"
;-D
Why are liberals so afraid of the word liberal? If you want to find out why liberal is a dirty word, answer that one. It's a simple branding issue; if you allow your competitor to define your brand for you, then don't be surprised when everyone thinks your brand sucks.
On the other hand, maybe liberalism truely is indefensible, so the only way for liberal candidates to win elections is through obfuscation and redirection. Why don't liberals just come out and say, "I'm for tax increases, vast welfare spending and bigger government!"
Oh, cuz they gotta win elections.
Seriously.. I don't think anyone here on Slashdot (except maybe the government spooks monitoring our conversations) actually believes that our governmental process works the way it's supposed to.
I predict that if we the people do not stop the runaway train that is the "US Government", this will be marked as the beggining of the end for America. As an American citizen, the current reality we live in is scary. I'm much more afraid of what is being done to undermine what makes the USA special than what Al-Queida is doing. It is no wonder why two thirds of the world hates American's. Our government has been in a downward spiral for a while, but they are quickly eroding the final freedoms we have left in the name of fighting terrorism and protecting corporations. As an individual, you are NOTHING anymore. You are are revenue stream to fund the whims of out of touch politicians.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Did anyone read Saffire's column? Unbelievable.
Here's the letter I just sent out to my representatives:
I am writing to ask you to make every effort to prevent the so-called "Total Information Awareness" system that John Poindexter and the Defense Dept's Information Awareness Office want to create. This system would systematically snoop on most every public and private action that you take. My understanding is that a provision of the Homeland Security Act contains this odious measure. As William Saffire says in the New York Times (or is quoting him a DMCA violation?):
"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend -- all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database."
To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you -- passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance -- and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen"
This sort of surveillance should be absolutely repellent in an open and free society, and I am discusted that it is being considered at all. Personal privacy and government openness should be the hallmark of the United States. It seems that the Republican government wants to turn that on its head. This is an invitation to abuse - if we visit the ACLU web site are we going to be on some Defense Dept list? What about this letter? This measure would be an incredible chilling of free and open debate.
This measure must be defeated.
Thank you
Tom Haviland
It's called compromise. ["]I'm on the edge on this bill, but...if you give this to my state/pet issue you have my vote[."]
That's not called compromise, that's called bribery.
The way it should work: "I'm on the edge on your bill, but... if you agree to vote on my (different) bill, you have my vote on yours."
Unrelated bills and laws should not be tied together for any reason. If you can't get enough votes for your bill, then maybe there's something wrong with the bill, and then it should be discussed so a better solution can be found - and the better solution should not involve an unrelated issue.
There really oughtta be a constitutional amendment to outlaw or discourage bills that address more than one issue... Or something...
The big problem is the increasing scrutiny that we will all fall under. And the fact that we are moving towards a war under the vaguest of terms. Hate to do it, but I'm gonna have to drop a quote:
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power... Power is not a means; it is an end...not power over things, but over men...In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement...There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother... Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. " - George Orwell
Whatever gave you the idea that the X10 could be used to spy on people? Perhaps the X10 ad shown a million times of a camera panning back and forth over a woman in a bikini who, of all things, is SMILING at the Peeping Tom?
;-0)
I glad someone else asked this question!
There were recent reports the the completely unencoded X10 wireless signals are easy to intercept outside on the intended area -- they drove around town picking up store security and other interesting video feeds. The users had no idea, and didn't realize they were throwing out their own privacy as well. (Don't make love around a baby monitor, either.
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item =1723
Yes, and look what happened to him.
:), even opposing the recent war resolution. There are politicians who are fine people: our accurate gripe is that they're not a majority, not that they are nonexistent.
Oh gosh, did I just say that?!? No, I'm not a conpiracy nut. The parallel to Mel Carnahan's death was eerie, though.
I mourned Wellstone's death, and the deaths in his family, and the others in the plane for that matter. It was very sad to lose a Congressman who among other things was a nice guy. And yes, who voted his conscience (a quality typically admired only when the vote was also what one wanted
For senator, I had a choice between a Republican and two members of the tinfoil hat brigade. The Dems were scared to run anybody
For representative, I had a choice between an Republican and, well, nobody. Even the tinfoil hat brigades didn't bother to run anyone.
Democracy in action.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
1: Go rent a black and white movie called 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington' for an insightful commentary into the foibles of the Senate.
2: Find the episode of the Simpsons where Mel Gibson does a remake of that movie.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
And yet, sadly, this is not too far from the truth.
Humorless sig goes here.
How about a "loopback" line-item veto?
Scenario: The President vetoes a couple of items, and thus "'passes' a statute other than Congress intended," as you aptly pointed out. The line-item-vetoed bill automatically goes back to Congress just like a vetoed bill, with one possible action added: Congress can vote on the bill as vetoed. If passed, it immediately becomes law without a return trip to the White House.
IMHO, that would keep the President's legislative power in check, while giving him an official feedback channel in the process. The possibilities for additional checks and balances that this system would provide seem to be worth examining.
Don't tell me, this is an old idea, right? Okay, go ahead and tell me.
Why, hello mister Vice Admiral!
Finding God in a Dog
> The Democrats will likely not oppose this bill en
> masse, and if a few of them attempt such a tactic they
> will undoubtably be accused of "holding Democracy
> hostage".
Agreed. The Democrats that voted against the Iraq resolution were already accused of being soft on terrorism. As long as people accept what the Bush and GOP have been saying without question, the Democrats will continue to be powerless to respond.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Gee, I was being facetious just now when I insinuated a conspiracy to kill Senator Wellstone, but some people are taking it seriously. I should not be so naive, I've been reading the last week about the "Apollo Hoax."
Conspiracy theorists, I don't need to hear from you -- I'll just turn your names over the CIA.
Don't get me wrong, I had a lot of bones to pick with Bob Barr, particularly when it came to the religious freedom of our Armed Forces. But I'm sad to see him go, because now we need privacy advocates more than ever before.
Finding God in a Dog
We folks at the Ministry of Truth will even take the time to proofread your comments and make changes where necessary.
. echo -e \\04 >
The bill also tacks on loosely worded research funding for Texas A&M. It also lets the White House decide who gets hired and fired, bypassing employment standards regulations (who's gonna be suprised when it's 99% white?). The government can now slap wiretaps whereever they think appropriate, and ISPs can divulge information without fear of reprisal. The nice people who make the smallpox vaccine are now protected from litigation, as are the nice people who make metal detectors, and the nice security guards who man them. So when the big bad man carries his briefcase of smallpox through JFK International, you won't be able to sue anyone for reading Archie Digest when he was supposed to be watching the screen, and when it turns out your smallpox vaccine was in fact a dose of really, really dilluted cherry Kool-Aid, well, sucks to be you.
In other news that undoubtedly went unreported, your faithful representatives have bitten the bullet, and given themselves another pay raise. Now your Reps, Senators, VP, and about 1000 other people (literally) make over $154,000 a year, not including kickbacks, expense budgets, under-the-table exchanges, contributions to their re-election fund...
God Bless America.
(I'm legally required to say that, now that Bush signed a bill re-emphasizing the importance of "God" in the pledge of alleigence, as well as "In god we trust" as your national motto. So much for separation of church and state, eh?)
(And before your left-wingers start running your mouth off, I'll point out that the Democrats didn't oppose any of these bills, admitting that the soon-to-be Republican majority would make the effort useless. So much for standing up for what you believe in.)
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Maybe if we all flood our Senators with the way we all feel about this bill instead of just ranting on Slashdot, they might actually notice. To get your Congressmen's email addresses (and links to their home pages for snail mail addresses) try this page . Maybe you didn't vote (not like most of us had much in the way of a choice), but it's not too late to tell these people how Americans feel about the laws they want to govern us with.
And is it just me, or are Congressmen's web pages very frightening places? I may have nightmares for days...
So what are you going to do? Bleed on me?
As a concerned 11th-generation American, I'm completely aghast at this latest bit of totalitarian legislation. Evidently, the CSEA (and the USA PATRIOT Act, for that matter) won't require *any* government agency to have "probable cause" to read/acquire anyone's personal information anymore. The Executive Branch will not even have to report to the Judiciary or Legislature on its frequent-as-you-like cyber-dragnets. Just in case you Americans out there on /. weren't aware of it, the United States Constitution is supposed to protect you from this sort of unfettered tyrannical power. Here's the text of the Fourth Ammendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
("and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" - well, I guess if we don't bother with the warrants anymore, it's not really violating the Constitution, now is it?)
Granted, the Founding Fathers didn't include "emails" in the text. However, any reasonable interpretation of the intent of this Ammendment must include emails and other personal communications (as these protections had been extended to telephone conversations).
Our government now has unlimited powers. My tax collector and the Dept. of Education may get to snoop into my private life at will. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: we no longer have a Rule of LAW in this nation. We now have a Rule of POLITICS. The politicos, the senators and congressmen who may pass this anti-American rubbish into law, should they do so, will be in direct violation of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
We are now ruled by the lawless (viz Adm. Poindexter, convicted felon). And by the time We The People give a damn, Soviet Russia will look libertine in comparrison!
I just hope I don't get arrested for saying that one day.
"Sic transeunt omnia."
I mean, they're sure to screw it up.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
"Conservatism in young people manifests itself as militarism and social Darwinism
I would prefer this to a state that gradually declines into communism through over-taxation, an excess of government programs, and an oppressive government. "
Let's see what happens when your right to travel interstate is taken away because only terrorists and the military have to travel that far. Or when some cop runs your plates, connects to the national database of offenses, and sees that one time you set the high school bathroom trash can on fire, and decides to beat you and jail you as a possible offender. Or when the government disperses anti-war protestors at gunpoint ala the Italian Fascists.
You have no foresight and thus I conclude that you are a college student whose parents were yuppie scum.
Actually I did wonder about something like that -- but then you really would have to amend the Constitution. Well, rewrite part of it. At least then it would require sincere confrontation of the radical nature of the change.
Also, you ought to question the wisdom of introducing this feedback loop into a system that is plenty loopy. We already have protracted periods of the two houses bickering over reconciling a bill (when each passes a different version). This would add a third party to the party. That's spelled "G-R-I-D-L-O-C-K" -- which for anti-gov't folks is a good thing, and they support line-item veto.
To be honest, I've been so strongly opposed to the line-item veto (but note that Presidents Clinton and Bush thought it was a great idea) that I haven't thought a lot about how to "fix" it. This doesn't mean I like pork; it drags down bills I like, too. But if the President doesn't like the pork, veto the entire bill and make Congress explain itself.
Can God make a rock so big He can't move it?
You claim that either answering "yes" or "no" limits God's power. You are incorrect. An answer of "yes" limits God's power. An answer of "no" does not.
Think in terms of physics. A being with limitless power can move an object of any size. Since matter and energy are equivalent, this being can also create an object of any size. However, no matter how big the object he creates, he will still be able to move it.
Thus, the reason God can't create a rock so big He can't move it is because it is a logical impossibility. There is no limit to the size rock He can create, nor the size rock He can move, thus His "power" has not been limited. He has simply been constrained to the realm of logical possibilities. This no more limits His power than the fact that He can't create a circle with corners.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
While reading thru the comments for this topic, I noticed a lot of people talking about liberal v. conservative, Democrat v. Republican, and the two ideologies that they are supposed to represent.
I thought I'd interject a little flash of reality. There is really only one major political party in this country: the Get Reelected Party (called the Republicrats by Libertarians). Most politicians out there will add any rider they think they can get away with, if it will help them get more campaign contributions or more votes. Both major parties take millions in corporate bribes (Fritz Hollings, the senator from Disney, is a Dem), both support pet projects for their home districts that they can use in their reelection campaigns.
There isn't that much difference between the two big parties. Dems say they want to increase social freedoms, but they'll vote for the patriot act if it's in their best interest. Reps say they favor smaller government and more personal responsibility, but every president since WWII has increased the budget, size, and power of the federal government.
Until the Congress is forced to only create laws that fall within its Constitutionally limited scope of power, this kind of corruption will continue. And the only people who can force them are the voters, but they'd rather vote for the guy who tells the most beautiful lie.
For more info.
Hackers will face harsher penalties if they knowingly cause, or attempt to cause, death or serious bodily injury using the computer as an "instrumentality" for committing their crime. Although there is room for debate about how this provision will be implemented, it seems reasonably limited to distinguish garden-variety hackers from hacker-terrorists.
Society has always been sickened by those who posess tools, knowledge and position but chose to harm others. Without the text of the abomination before me I can't really judge it, but it looks like a provision to punish people who try to harm others with a computer. It's strange that the federal government would wish to add this federal crime on top of the normal state laws against murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, etc. regardless of tool used. Not too strange when you consider that government always seeks more power.
Consider the source for the accuracy of the statement, "... [the] bill would punish malicious computer hackers with life in prison." M$ would like to lock up people that interfere with their ability to extort money from the public. This is why they continue to use inflamatory terms like "pirate" to describe file copy without permission, and put negative conotations on terms like "hack". They only wish they could put "hackers" in jail and are doing everything possible to convince the public that it is morally correct to do so. It's foolish to even think in those terms, but trust M$ to help themselves by putting the words into your mind in that form. Some "news" is better left unread. The MSNBC article is obviously not a good one.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
OK,
We all knew that this was going to happen. Most of us, anyway, saw it several years ago. DMCA, Stamp Tax. SSSCA, Tea Tax. Homeland Security Act, Boston Massacre. Did any of you pass American History? America did not rebel because Britain suddenly unilaterally invaded the shores with thousands of troups; It rebelled because the British Parliament steadily eroded what the colonists perceived as their basic rights. Insert citizens for 'colonists' and congress for 'parliament' and you'll see we find ourselves in exactly the same predicament now.
On the one hand, you have a legal/democratic system that supposedly protects and represents your rights as a citizen. On the other hand, you have the reality of experience which says that congresspeople in D.C. don't really give a damn what you think. Frankly, your name isn't on that fat check they got for their reelection. Therefore, you don't count.
So, the question once and again is, what are you going to do about it, sitting in your dimly lit basement out in suburb USA? Let's look at the list of possible responses:
1. Do nothing. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off
2. Bitch on Slashdot. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
3. Write a letter to your Congressman. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
4. Vote. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
5. All of the above and join the EFF. Result: This stuff still happens and pisses you off.
6. Stand up and protest, take to the streets. Result: people in power pay lip-service to your cause. Mostly, this stuff still happens and pisses you off
7. Go on strike, refuse to return to work until stuff changes. Result: People in power pay lip-service to your cause, try to co-opt the outrage of your movement for their own gain. Pretty much this stuff still happens and pisses you off.
8. Form a political party and vote for candidates who support the way stuff outta be. Result: Opposition parties roll over and fawn over your agenda while working behind the scenes to undermine it.
9. Armed insurrection. Result: A whole lotta innocent people die. Old regime is sent to the wall to be shot. New regime ?
The way I see it, slashdotters and champions of liberty ought to be on level 5 looking to jump to levels 6&7. Bring Wall Street and every corporate LAN to a standstill with a sick-out and you'll start to see some action. Advancing to higher levels would be great, but anything less will get you a big fat nothing.
Now, as my high school history teacher liked to say: "chew and digest."
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
I'm sorry. I didn't fully express... Carter did all kinds of things wrong. It was never dishonest, though. If he did something, it was because he thought it was the right thing to do. And I felt like that was what grandparent poster was asking about.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
REdundant. Politicians are always running their mouths. They can simply express their intentions without all the showmanship of voting and such. If you bring this to me, I will veto (or line item veto) it. So they shouldn't bring it. Dont waste the tax payers time.
Recent unearthed lost memo from George Orwell to publisher: "Oops! Did I say it was called "1984"? I meant "2003". Please fix ASAP."
Each house sets its own procedural rules. The House would explode if debate were not strictly limited -- there's just too many of 'em. The Senate is a more deliberative body. I found a brief history of the filibuster that -sounds- accurate (should be verified). I was interested to learn just now that the cloture majority required has changed over time. The filibuster has a storied history, as it has been invoked over some of the most divisive question to come before the Congress.
If you'd like another example of how the Congress doesn't work as people suppose, read about the phenomenal power of the committees to shape legislation, or keep it off the floor altogether so that it can't be voted on. One of the most powerful committees? The Rules Committee! (Pork-master Byrd -- half his state is named after him -- is often noted for his formidible command of parliamentary rules.)
Oops, are we off-topic? Nah, civics is always a good thing.
Go look up with SCOTUS members supported Congress's "Gun-Free School Zones" and "Violence against Women" acts, both of which completely ignored the Constitutional limits on Federal power in their attempt to make the 'commerce clause' apply to EVERY possible situation. Hint: It wasn't the conservative triad.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
calculating, cold, and heartless in nature
Do you mean someone being objective?
Could you also explain why Western society (in general) feels they "owe" something to the downtrodden? Is it because of the West's religious background (Catholicism)?
I'm not suggesting that there should be a closing of all social programs, but apparently if I work my butt of and manage to do pretty well, now suddenly I'm supposed to feel guilty and give "X" to people who either don't work their butt off, or cannot do so.
I honestly don't understand this, and if you can explain, or correct me, I would appreciate it.
As far as I'm aware, that sort of strong encryption is practically all but breakable - even when confronted by fantastical hypothetical situations involving all of the computing power on planet Earth...
:)
And if that's not the case... if I am misinformed.. well, I still like believing it.
"Sic transeunt omnia."
Our system of government is based on the concept of checks and balances: The three branches policing each other. Congress policing itself is both improbable (since the current membership has proven itself for sale to the highest bidder) and not consistent with our theory of government (since by definition, a system of checks and balances assumes that no branch can police itself.)
I agree that adding JUST the line-item veto would upset the constitutional apple cart, but that's only because you're adding a power to one branch without putting a check on it in another branch.
Which is why I propose this solution:
1) Give the President the line-item veto and ALSO
2) Allow congress to over-ride that line-item veto with the 2/3 majority that they can already use to over-ride a presidential veto of a whole bill.
This seems to achieve what we want:
- Power doesn't get over concentrated in just one branch of government.
- Everytime some piece of crap gets attached to a bill to study the mating habits of deep-sea slugs there is a chance AFTER it hits the news and before it becomes law to keep from paying for it.
- We get lower taxes and have more money to spend on our own families' needs, and tertiary benefits could include a stronger economy, which is something many of the readers of this sight (myself included) are desperate for.
Defining "success" as a reduction in tax-money spent on special-interest pork, could this work? It's true, the president could only cut pork from the other party, but I postulate that any pork reduced is a "good thing."
Comments?
Who did what now?
As a computer security professional, I regard this
as a personal threat against my safety. If the
bill is passed, I intend to leave the U.S.
immediately, probably for Canada. The threat of
mis-prosecution which takes my life, and
irrepairably harms my dependents is too great.
DMCA was one thing, but CSEA has a LIFE penalty.
Unfortunately, even leaving the U.S. may not
be sufficient, if I become a target of U.S. political
terrorism, because the U.S. feels free to
prosecute foreign nationals on the basis of
U.S. law and to assassinate anyone (even U.S.
citizens) who are abroad. But I regard the
probability of attack as being significantly
less if I am not within U.S. territory, and
consider that the government of Canada is
likely to protect me from extradition, while
the U.S. intelligence agencies are unlikely
to consider assassinations on Canadian territory
as acceptable policy.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Do you wear a tin hat to keep out the secret government rays that can read your mind? Have you seen aliens, too?
Your vision of what a conservative is very, very twisted. Actually, it seems you have a twisted world view in general.
Though you do troll rather well.
Cheers.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
"Gosh, that election really sucked. Well, at least it'll probably be the last one we ever have."
(from the What Do You Think section)
If my view is twisted, then what is correct? That which is proscribed by the Republican National Committee? Please enlighten me, o keeper of all wisdom.
Have you read any of their laws? I don't thing they're capable of simplicity!
More seriously, a statute necessarily has many sections (I don't know how granular a "line" is -- a single sentence?) to make it cohere with existing law, to provide for financing of its various components, etc. Either Congress would nullify the veto by piling things up into single "lines" or statutes would be capable of nothing more complex than "school buses must stop at railroad crossings."
Anyway, the basic idea is that its Congress' job to decide what's in the law, the President's whether to exercise the special tool of a veto. The line-item veto would essentially invite the President to hang out on Capitol Hill, because Congress would seek to satisfy his/her preferences rather than go through a song-and-dance of sending laws over to be partially vetoed. Thus the President would gain a ton of influence over lawmaking, and could (would) introduce his or her own pork just like any representaive does now. It's like having a trial judge act as the 13th juror -- not what the framework intended.
The House is controlled by the Republicans, and was even before the recent elections.
The Senate is 50-49-1 (the 1 is the independent that Jesse Ventura appointed in Paul Wellstone's place)
also: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/11.15E.thomas.con
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2002
Journalist Helen Thomas condemns Bush administration
By Sarah H. Wright
MIT News Office
Veteran journalist Helen Thomas brought the grit and whir of a White House press conference to Bartos Theater on Monday evening, speaking with passion about the media's role in a democracy whose leaders seem eager for war.
Actually, the 82-year-old former United Press International reporter didn't just speak: she surged into her topic, giving everyone present an immediate sense of the grumpy wit and fierce precision that gave her reporting on American presidents Kennedy through Bush II such a competitive and lasting edge.
"I censored myself for 50 years when I was a reporter," said Thomas, who is now a columnist for Hearst News Service. "Now I wake up and ask myself, 'Who do I hate today?'" Her short list of answers seems not to vary from war, President Bush, timid office-holders, a muffled press and cowed citizens, pretty much in that order.
Angered by what she views as the Bush administration's "bullying drumbeat," Thomas referred early and often to her own hatred of war, quoting from poets and politicians to bear down on President Bush and his colleagues.
Winston Churchill, Alfred Lord Tennyson, Louis Brandeis, George Santayana, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Martin Luther King Jr. all made appearances in Thomas' sweeping portrayal of what she sees as the administration's betrayal of both the character and will of the American people and the principles of democracy.
"I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor. It's as if they learned none of the lessons from Vietnam," she said to enthusiastic applause.
Thomas ignored the clapping just as she once ignored the camera flashes and shouting matches of the Washington press corps.
"Where is the outrage?" she demanded. "Where is Congress? They're supine! Bush has held only six press conferences, the only forum in our society where a president can be questioned. I'm on the phone to [press secretary] Ari Fleischer every day, asking will he ever hold another one? The international world is wondering what happened to America's great heart and soul."
Like any star, Thomas, who resigned from UPI in 2000, appreciated her audience's thirst to get the insider's view of our national leaders, and she gave generously, in snapshots, though the Reagan and both Bush regimes were cast in darker hues.
"Great presidents have great goals for mankind. During my years of covering the White House, Kennedy was the most inspired; Johnson rammed through voting rights and public housing; Nixon will be remembered for his trip to China and for his resignation; Ford for helping us recover from Nixon; and Carter for making human rights the centerpiece of foreign policy," Thomas said in an even, respectful tone. She just sighed over Clinton, who "tarnished the Oval Office."
Thomas' mood became visibly more somber at the mention of Ronald Reagan's military buildup and at the name Bush. Again and again, Thomas warned the MIT audience, "It's bombs away for Iraq and on our civil liberties if Bush and his cronies get their way. Dissent is patriotic!"
After her talk, Thomas participated in a panel discussion with MacVicar Faculty Fellows David Thorburn, professor of literature, and Charles Stewart III, professor of political science. Philip S. Khoury, dean of the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, introduced the speakers.
"Helen Thomas offered a very powerful indictment of the current behavior of the Bush presidency in her comments on the incoherence and inconsistency of Bush's policies and the danger to civil liberties of Bush's rhetoric," said Thorburn.
He compared the lack of public awareness of an antiwar movement in 1965 and 1966 with the wide public debate about Iraq going on today. "An aroused citizenry can instruct the government," he said.
Stewart also focused on the current public debate about Iraq, declaring that it may be a "hopeful sign. The polls say Americans don't want to talk about Iraq - they want to talk about the economy, about education. But the press has continued to point out the important thing. Everyone knows there's been a dance between the President and Congress over Iraq."
Thomas didn't let the press off the hook, though. "Everybody learned the lessons of Vietnam, including the Pentagon. In Vietnam, correspondents could go anywhere - just hop on a helicopter and report on the war. Now we don't have that access. It's total secrecy. The media overlords should be complaining about this. I do not absolve the press. We've rolled over and played dead, too," she said.
Asked to advise young journalists, Thomas pounced. "Remind the politicians you interview that you pay them, that they are public servants. Remember every question is legitimate. And don't give up. There's always a leak. There's always someone who's trying to save the country," she said.
The talk was sponsored by the MIT Communications Forum.
Considering the amount of discussion taking place on /. about these issues, maybe people should also ask their representatives to read /. themselves. Maybe it could be set up that /. emails a link to all the senators and congressmen whenever a "Your Rights Online" or "United States" kind of story is archived. Seeing intelligent discussion about this might make them rethink things. Might. If nothing else, they'll know that some of their voters are against this sort of thing.
Which just goes to show - nobody wants you to read the bill, they want you to think what the pundits think. So much for fucking "news" sources.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Who's going to determine whether the amendment is related or not? The Supreme Court?
The reason it has to be this way is because any other way would give too much power to too few people.
These are all terrible things, however, they are not conservativism. They are fascism. I am not a fascist, I am a conservative. To see the kinds of things that I support, please visit the libertarian party website here: http://www.lp.org/issues/ [lp.org]
Personally, I think Ashcroft and Bush are christian fundamentalist fascists, as opposed to conservative republicans.
The problem with the LP is that there's too much emphasis on what government can't do. If you make the government as powerless as the LP wants it to be, there will be anarchy and Turner Diaries-reading militia types will carve out little fiefdoms and things will fall apart rapidly. You have to have a compromise of lack of government involvement and regulation of things that can be harmful. The LP wants no compromise and while it's a refreshing viewpoint it's not feasible.
Most people don't argue with things like the Clean Air Act (if they do, they are major shareholders in heavy industry) and other legislation that improves the quality of their life. There IS some legislation that makes things better for us.
However, I don't want these republicans writing their fundamentalist religion into our laws. I'm afraid that by the time all these nutcases are done the US Code is going to look more like the Bible than the new international version does.
If prayer in schools ever becomes mandatory I'm definitely getting the hell out of the USA. My kids aren't going to live under that kind of mental tyranny.
I understand that the LP is against such things, so this is sort of a non-sequitur.
I do have forsight. I have enough forsight to see that if our country continues spending outrageous amounts of money on goverment programs that should be privatized, we are going to be seriously harmed. Government doesn't, and can't, know what is best for people. Government involvement in our lives can only harm us. By limited our freedoms to do with our money as we please (social security, welface, etc.) we are not able to effectively run our own lives.
My brother was a star football player and baseball player. He led his high school football team to the state championship, and worked, if not at a prestigious job, at a steady job. He's now 36 and totally crippled by rheumatoid arthritis. It hit him suddenly. He's on SSI, gov't disability.
Now, if the government didn't spend the money on the disability program that keeps his kids fed and clothed, I wouldn't have my niece and nephews, and my brother would be even more miserable than he is now.
Oh, and if it wasn't for medicare, my grandmother probably wouldn't be alive today.
Don't tell me that government programs are wasteful. Some of these things have dire consequences, not just whether some kid from the projects gets to go to school in the suburbs or whether a wheat farmer in Iowa gets his loss covered because someone dumped a bunch of cheap Russian wheat on the market.
You obviously have no actual argument, since you are forced to resort to feeble attempts at insults.
No, I attempt to insult you because I think you're a naive asshole kid.
Hm. There was a short-lived charge by the Congressional Republicans (during the "Republican Revolution" early in Clinton's first term) to dismantle the US Department of Education and a few others.
/may/ not support having a DoEducation (because the states may be able to handle it reasonably well), the propaganda worked. It still would, which is why Bush wanted to call himself "The Education President".
It didn't last very long, however -- you can imagine how it played out politically, even if you don't remember it. "The Republicans don't want your children learning", et al. As long as the voters (a) didn't realize that most educational funding doesn't come from the Federal level, anyway and (b) that the US Constitution
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Sarcasm aside, you are on the right track. That is, the punishment should fit the crime. Therefore, the question is, How broad is the impact?
I think all of us, deep down inside, have a gut feeling that 'punishment should fit the crime'. The problem is that it gets difficult sometimes to measure the impact of a crime.
Let's consider a drastic example: a sexual predator rapes and kills a 5 year old girl. Forensic evidence indicates that she died a very slow and painful death. This is obviously horrific but what is the "impact"? A girl is dead and her parents and a handful of others who knew and loved her will suffer severe emotional distress. Now consider someone involved in white collar non-violent crime, like the Enron debacle. Scores of people have lost their life savings. Scores! Now here's the question: which of these crimes has a more severe impact on society? I certainly wouldn't want to be the one crunching the numbers on that one.
And who is going to compute the impact? It's hardly a straightfoward calculation. So that leaves it open to broad interpretation. In other words, you can probably come up with any number you want. A hacker could be accused of providing sensitive information to terrorists. As for proof, the government would simply state they didn't know who the hacker gave the data too.
Another thing to consider is premeditation. A white collar crime is ALWAYS premeditated. A violent crime may not be. The legal system is set up to punish premeditated crimes much more harshly than 'heat of the moment' ones.
Trying to make the punishment fit the crime sounds great in theory but there are some significant problems with trying to implement it in practice.
And, for the record, I think life in prison for hackers is a bit steep, myself.
GMD
watch this
--thanks for bringing this up, because it's true! First they assassinated him, this is just SO obvious to anyone who spends more than 60 seconds on it. Then, add in the new "conveniently easy" computerised pre-hacked voting scam machines- -SURPRISE, we have this huge flip flop in the elections, and even the dems are all now lining up to vote for anything this junta wants, they saw EXACTLY what happens to people who rock the boat and don't play ball with the ruling CFR lead junta. It's not democrats or republicans, it's one cfr faction sort of kinda at war with another. That D and R noise is melodrama for the rubes mostly, keep tossing them this bone of "choice". Now I'm not a D, didn't agree all with wellstone at all, but I can for sure see he got whacked. he wanted an investigation into 9-11, he smelled a rat, and righteously so. Can't have that, can we?
We're inside a junta now, and this junta controls the worlds largest military, and is building the most advanced technological surveillance and command and control apparti. There is not going to be any "overnight" martial law scenario-because it's already here! It's in place! People keep waiting for it to get "worse", it is, but it's DAILY in small steps, daily and steady.
At least now we'll have a backup for when we lose an email, forget a phone call or any other piece of information.
Lets work for an amendment where you can get access to the data about you if you were to lose it, instead of this rampant naysaying!
This is a bit random in order, forgive me..
Politicians will pass laws that benefit the people who give them the money, and I we (voters) sit back and expect them to do the right thing, it will turn out poorly.
LP politicians will do the exact same thing. That's the problem with a representative gov't, it relies on the representatives to do the right thing by the people, and in most cases they don't because it's not the right thing by themselves.
A question for you - Should I be forced to put my money into a program, when I could put it else where and be benefitted more?
Depends. Do you care about your neighbors? If so, "forced" wouldn't be the word you used there. You'd be glad to help.
American society functioned just fine in the pre-FDR and pre-Depression days without Income tax and the "New Deal" programs. Therefore, it is naive to think that the only way to deal with these problems is to bring in Uncle Sam.
American society was quite different before then. Wealth wasn't tied up in securities, it was more about hard goods and currency. When wealth started going to the securities markets (stocks, commodities, etc.) that's when the economy of the country went down the toilet. There's a natural boom and bust cycle with business, and when peoples' consumer power is tied up in the business' success or failure, then it becomes a completely self-feeding cycle.
I have yet to hear of any attempts to write religion into the US laws.
The abolition of abortion rights is the big thing I'm thinking of. Such an effort attempts to legislate the fundamentalist/Catholic christian perspective.
Including "Under God" in the pledge, accomodates more than religion. It also accomodates atheists and agnostics. They might not have a "god" per say, but they do have a system of morals and values that can be seen as a "god."
That's not true. "Under [capital G] God" refers directly to the Christian god. This clause was added during the McCarthy era, when the Christian belief was used to differentiate the USA from the Soviet Union.
I want to support your brother, but I refuse to support a single mother with 7 children , each one of them fathered by a different man ( who btw most likely is one welfare as well.)
OK, I agree with you in spirit.. but how do you separate the single mother with 7 kids and not make it a matter of civil liberties? If you say take away their right to litigate about it, then you have to take away the right of the deserving to litigate about it, also. It just isn't that cut-and-dried. The only way to do it fairly is no social programs at all, or to give everyone access to social programs.
If you want to read a real joke, click here.
Before you label me a coldhearted bastard, let me ask you...what entitles you or your family members to the fruits of other people's labors through forced taxation? Hmmm?
1) Because you didn't have the balls and the drive to vote in people that believe the same way.
2) Because people are worth keeping alive no matter whether they make as much money as you or not, or whether they come from the same social class as you, or whether you even like them.
If he won't tell you they're wasteful, I will. Have you and your relatives ever heard of charity and insurance policies and planning ahead?
Have you ever heard of pissing into the wind? Charity is a joke, insurance policies are for the rich, and planning ahead is impossible for people that are just barely getting by to start with. Of course, you'd probably rather send out death squads to kill anyone making less than $35,000 a year, so there's that pissing into the wind thing again.
The rest of your message is basic right wing talk radio political fast food, so I'm not even going to dignify it with a direct response.
The most ridiculous notion is that you're equating american social programs with Soviet communism, which not even Reagan did at his most reactionary.
I would rather starve in the street than accept medicare, social security, or any other government subsidy or be dependent on government (or contractor) employment.
Would you rather your children starve than take government money to feed them? If so, I hope to hell you don't have kids or never have kids because I can just imagine how fucked up they will turn out.
We already know what happened. Based on testimony from the portion of the investigation that did take place, it seemed clear that certain federal agencies screwed up. That's actually putting it mildly, considering that the 9/11 attack was merely a culmination of several years worth of terrorist acts that were Bin Laden's doing. The real problem is that the public at large just doesn't seem to understand the difference between an effective solution, and a bunch of abusive legislation masquerading as a solution.
For more enlightenment, read David Brock's Blinded by the Right.
Read David Brock for enlightenment? The guy's an admitted liar!
So, was he lying then and telling the truth now, or was he telling the truth then and lying now? I personally think the latter. Maybe he lied both then AND now!
Brock is a controversial writer who needs to sell books. He hadn't had a best seller in a long time, so he hatches this plan to write a book the refutes all of his previous books. Instant best seller and it gets him back on all the talk shows.
I think what you probably meant to say was, "Read David Brock for some liberal warm fuzzies." But enlightenment? Please.
But a lot of us are trying anyway. Don't be harsh if it looks like we're not doing anything! The administration control media and they're the ones with armies and police etc. so why would they be telling you that Americans are resisting them? They're going to do just like Saddam does, and tell you that 100% of all REAL Americans support the administration all the way.
You need to smarten up and realize that media is state-controlled, has been since before the first Gulf War, and you are not going to know what the American People think by watching Fox or reading Bush press releases.
OK?
I read advice like that in a store window (of a progressive-y kind of shop), and it rang very true. You've got to respect your own limitations, and if you're up against something too big for you, sometimes you have to let other people take point for a while, and go recover.
I'm going into the studio today to try and cut a new version of an 'activist' song I wrote (which is strongly for third-party representation), in hopes that it will actually help. I'm willing to stress out badly in order to get it right this time, and make it hot enough so people will want to hear it as a song. This continues a pattern of using the abilities I have for the cause- but a few years ago, I was a complete political dropout with my head in the sand. And maybe a few years from now, I'll be a dropout again. It's not about any one person being so indispensable.
Thank you for the effort you made while _I_ was hiding away from the reality. I hope a lot of us can take over for you now that you need some time off.
And you know it was about concern for power and not merely whining about someone's tax on tea
"Decent respect to the opinions of mankind", that's what they felt they owed to the powers of the earth
Wasn't long before they wrote a Constitution in the hope that they'd create a thing of lasting worth
They'd seen kings and they'd seen nobles, read about the days of ancient Greece and its renowned democracy
People vote for bread and circus, noblemen laugh at the people, kings make everyone just peasantry
Racked their brains to know the problem, knew we'd have ambitious leaders, figured their design might solve the thing
Wonder what they'd think about it if they knew we ended up allowing some guy to act like a king (you know what they'd say?)
Houston, Houston we have a problem
Houston, Houston we've lost our way
Houston, Houston we have a problem
We're a thousand miles up and the ground went away
Houston, Houston we have a problem
Houston, Houston we've lost our way
Houston, Houston we have a problem
There might be nothing left at the end of the day
More than two hundred years ago they didn't have the televison- you might think them wiser, purer men
But you know they had corruption, and you know they had attack ads- they had politicians even then
If there's something we've forgotten, maybe it's to pay attention to their careful plans for liberty
Maybe it's to still remember they had lessons they could teach us and they were a lot like you or me
More than two hundred years ago our forefathers, they tried to make a nation that could never know decay
From their weakness and corruption, kings and serfs and politicians reaching out to forge a better way
They knew it was human nature, even so they had the courage hoping we would understand somehow
Wouldn't they be sick to see us now?
Wouldn't they just puke to see us now?
Houston, Houston we have a problem
Houston, Houston we've lost our way
Houston, Houston we have a problem
We're a thousand miles up and the ground went away
Houston, Houston we have a problem
Houston, Houston we've lost our way
Houston, Houston we have a problem
There might be nothing left at the end of the day
Houston, Houston we have a problem
Houston, Houston we have a problem
Houston, Houston we have a problem...
(I wrote this song, "Houston, We Have A Problem", to express exactly the opinion you just expressed...)
text light: http://www.gnn.tv/after_math/index.html
But yeah- I'm doing something, as best I can. I'll keep it up as long as I can. If I'm not good enough I hope there are other people better than me also out there making an effort...
Here's a better solution for preventing pork.
1) Except for emergency legislation, all legislation must stand for public review for a period of not less than 18 months.
2) At the end of the 18 month period, the House and Senate are allowed a simple yes/no vote on the bill.
3) If the House or the Senate wish to modify the bill, then the 18 month clock is restarted.
4) An "emergency legislation" is allowed to be passed without the 18 month review process.
5) An emergency legislation bill is only allowed to be in force for 2 years, with NO chance for renewal. Also, any no other emergency legislation substantially similar to any previous emergency legislation is permitted.
So, consider the life of a law under these proposals. Let us say a new, terrible weapon of mass destruction is invented, that can be made from rolls of toilet paper and chewing gum. This weapon can destroy cities, so it is decided that a law requiring the refomulation of chewing gum and redesign of toilet paper rolls is needed to prevent the average Joe from making this weapon.
So, Congress passes "The George and Ray Emergency legilative act of 2002", which bans the manufacture of the old forms of chewing gum and toilet paper. This act can only run until 2004 (2 years later).
The Congress also drafts the proposed "George and Ray act of 2004", which codifies for all time the changes. They have 6 months to do so if they want continuous coverage.
Now, Senator PorkBarrel decides to try to slip in a rider on the bill getting his home state a US$100 billion development plan.
Under the current system, he can do this at the eleventh hour, and be pretty assured that it won't be spotted.
Under the proposed system, he knows his rider must be under public scrutiny for a year and a half. So do all his croneys in Congress.
His croneys WANT this bill passed, so they are unlikely to allow a rider that is going to be spotted by the public to jeopardise the bill, so the bounce it.
Failing that, after a few months scrutiny, somebody spots the rider. Much furor is raised over the rider, and the Congress gets told "remove the rider, or we remove you next election."
www.eFax.com are spammers