Thursday, April 26, 2007

Democrats and Anti-terrorism

I am confused about a situation which seems to be becoming more and more common. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. Honestly, I'd love to know the real, actual answer.

How is it that stating that a particular candidate's or political party's plans to fight terrorism are more likely to result in death for Americans is somehow "scaremongering?" Perhaps it's just me, and, obviously, Keith Olbermann has a different perspective, but shouldn't the most important, most pressing concern about a particular series of anti-terrorism plans be what policy is more likely to result in fewer terrorist attacks? Shouldn't the core of the discussion involve which plans are more likely to prevent another catastrophic attack?

In short: why is it that when the charge is made that Democratic anti-terrorism plans would make the country more dangerous, the Democrats respond with ad homonym attacks and call the charger a terrorist and a fear-monger or say that it's just a politicization of the issue? If they feel that their plans are not more likely to cause civilian deaths, why don't they say so? If they feel that the charges levied against them are invalid, why don't they respond in kind? If they feel that the descriptions of their policies mischaracterize what's really going on, why not explain their policies?

This brings me to three possible conclusions:

1) The Democrats are playing politics with the issue, preferring the opportunity to score political points over engaging in a valid, legitimate debate about the most pressing issue facing our country.

2) The Democrats are incapable of presenting their policies in such a way as to engage in a valid, legitimate debate.

3) The Democrats believe that the essence of the charges is correct, that their policies will make Americans less safe. Presumably, this is because there are other factors which are more important than, strictly, safety.


Is the answer one of these or am I misunderstanding the Democratic response?

Finally - why is it okay to say that invading Iraq makes the country less safe but it is inappropriate to say that a precipitous withdraw from Iraq, elimination of vast numbers of anti-terrorism tools, or cutting back on offensive actions against terrorist would make the country less safe?

Must Read

There is nothing to say, other than this one should be required reading for everyone.


The Great Wall of Indifference
On patrol inside Baghdad's tensest neighborhood

by Bing West with Slate

Combag Outpost Fort Apache, Azamiyah. The news of late has been focused upon this Sunni district in northeast Baghdad, where materials for a 12-foot-high concrete barrier have been positioned along a main avenue. Of the dozens of barriers across the city being laid down - principally by U.S. military and contractors - Azamiyah was the one that caught international attention when the residents complained the government was "imprisoning and punishing them for the acts of a few" by forcing all cars to pass through check points. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, on a visit to Egypt, ordered the barrier halted, and the American ambassador agreed to comply.

On the surface, the episode is a triumph for the press in bringing to international attention an injustice, and for the prime minister in immediately responding and standing up for the rights of the Sunni minority.

On the ground, the episode is less inspiring. Here at Fort Apache in Azamiyah, Charlie Company is on the eight month of a 15-month tour in a combat outpost along the Tigris. (it was the setting for the 2005 documentary Gunner Palace.) Six of the first 110 soldiers to patrol in Azamiyah, a stronghold for Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda operatives, have been killed. 1st Sgt. Kenneth J. Hendrix had been hoping Azamiyah would make headlines because of the valor of Spc. Ross McGinnis of Knox, Pa., who has been nominated for the Medal of Honor. On Dec. 4, while patrolling Azamiyah's narrow streets, a grenade was pitched into McGinnis' Humvee, and he fell on it, sacrificing his own life to save the lives of his fellow soldiers.

"We got hit here with two IED's yesterday," Capt. Nathaniel Waggoner yelled to me. "The trigger men are outsiders. They don't give a damn what happens to the locals."

Where are your carbon credits now, Al Gore??

So, a study finally shows what many people have been thinking for a long time: carbon credits largely are a fraud.

Industry caught in carbon 'smokescreen'
April 25, 2007

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on "carbon credit" projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a "green gold rush", which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of business offering both companies and individuals the chance to go "carbon neutral", offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more that double in size to about $68.2 billion by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4 billion in the same period.


Most projects yield minimal impact, the money being spent usually results in negligible benefit other than a "feel-good" for the donor, and people who are living ridiculously extravagant lives - two people living in 10,000 square foot mansions with four figure monthly utility bills while flying around the country in 1/3 full charter jets - while lecturing the rest of us really aren't as environmentally friendly as they pretend to be. did anyone really believe otherwise? did we really believe that someone could use ten, twelve times the amount of utilities as the average American family and pay a small fee to buy some "carbon credits" and it would make their waste somehow go away?

Quote of the Day

"Government should not parent the parents."
- Caroline Fredrickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, referring to FCC move to restrict TV violence.

Business groups get behind Dems' tax plan

I love how selective the Free Press is when they say that business groups support the State Democratic business tax plan. They point to the Michigan Manufacturer's Association and suggest that 3/4 of businesses are receiving tax breaks.

So, what are the 1/4 of businesses who are going to be paying so much more in taxes that they can fund tax breaks for the 3/4 that are getting them? The service industries - finance, banking, insurance, lending, medicine, legal, accounting, technology, business consulting. You know, the segment of the economy which is actually growing and keeping the state afloat. Of course, the manufacturing industry will love it - it'll shift taxes from the less profitable manufacturing industries (which are hemorrhaging jobs) onto the highly profitable service industries (which are creating jobs in record numbers). That's okay, though, because insurance companies and mortgage lenders and banks are evil and we should punish them as much as possible. After all, who needs home-owners insurance when there are no mortgage companies around to loan you money to buy a house?

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Joseph Lieberman rocks

Lieberman Floor Speech on Joint Iraq Resolution
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 14, 2007


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) today addressed the current Iraq debate on the Senate floor.

The text of the speech, as prepared for delivery, is below.


"As everyone here knows, we are now in the thick of the battle for Baghdad - a critical battle whose outcome hangs in the balance. A new commander, General David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by this Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action.

The question we now confront is simple: will Congress give General Petraeus and his troops a fighting chance to succeed?

The joint resolution before us would deny them that chance, forcing our troops to break off the battle of Baghdad before it has barely begun. Instead of providing General Petraeus with the necessary reinforcements he has requested - the reinforcements he is counting on - it would begin to strip troops away from him.

We need to be clear with ourselves, and with the nation, on this point: the joint resolution we are debating would impose a fixed date for the beginning of a withdrawal. One hundred twenty days after this legislation is passed, American forces would be required by law to begin redeploying out of Iraq. This would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, regardless of the wishes of our allies, regardless of whether security is improving or deteriorating.

It would bind the hands of General Petraeus, substituting the judgement of Congress for the judgement of our military commanders, our diplomats, and of our friends in the region.

Congress has many responsibilities, but the micromanagement of war is not one of them.

In fact, the proponents of this resolution make no attempt to justify why 120 days from now is the right time to commence a withdrawal. That is because there is no military or strategic logic at work here. This is a deadline that is as arbitrary as it is inflexible. It specifically denies General Petraeus the room for maneuver that history tells us any successful commander requires.

Surely we know better than this. Surely we cannot think that this is a path to success.

I remember hearing many of my colleagues arguing against precisely this kind of fixed deadline - some of them right here in this chamber - just a few months ago.

I ask my colleagues, what has changed? what is the strategic logic here?

We hear opponents of the current strategy insist that our troops should not be 'policing a civil war.'

That position might come as a surprise to the soldiers who have been serving in Bosnia and Kosovo over the past decade, dispatched there under a Democratic President with the support of Democrats in Congress - the support of many of the same colleagues of mine who today are clamoring for withdrawal.

I ask you, what has changed?



I could not agree more.

Joeseph Lieberman: A JFK Democrat

Senator Lieberman's Statement on Majority Leader Reid's Comments that the War is "Lost"
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 20, 2007

WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) today made the following statement in response to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment that the Iraq War is "lost."

"This week witnessed horrific terrorist attacks by Islamist extremists in Iraq, killing hundreds of innocent civilians and leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to declare that the war is 'lost.'

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Senator Reid's statement is not , based on military facts on the ground in Iraq and does not advance our cause there.

Al Qaeda's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. They are trying to murder as many innocent civilians as possible in an effort to reignite sectarian fighting and drive us to retreat from Iraq.

The question now before us is whether we respond to these terrorist attacks by running away as Al Qaeda hopes - abandoning the future of Iraq the Middle East, and ultimately our own security to the very same people responsible for this week's atrocities - or whether we stand united to fight them.

This is exactly the wrong time to conclude that we have lost the war in Iraq, or that our new strategy has failed. Instead, we should provide General Petraeus and his troops with the time and the resources to succeed. We should not surrender. We should not surrender in the face of barbarism."

Monday, April 23, 2007

Professor Fired Over Va. Tech Discussion

Another victory for academic freedom:

BOSTON (AP) - An adjunct professor as fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said "pow."

The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.

During the demonstration, Winset pretended to shoot some students. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.

"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald.

He said administrators had asked the facility to engage students on the issue. But on Friday, he got a letter saying he was fired and ordering him to stay off campus.

Winset, 37, argued that the Catholic liberal arts school was stifling free discussion by firing him, and he said the move would have a "chilling effect" on open debate. He posted an 18-minute video on the online site YouTube defending his action.

The college issued a statement saying "Emmanuel College has clear standards of classroom and campus conduct, and does not in any way condone to use of discriminatory or obscene language."

Student Junny Lee, 19, told The Boston Globe that most students didn't appear to find Winset's demonstration offensive.

John Edwards: I'd invest billions in Michigan

Interesting that it's John Edwards and not John Dingell making this proposal...

The U.S. government should invest billions to help Michigan become the hub for transforming the nation's energy economy, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Saturday.

Speaking to more than 1,800 Democrats at the annual Jefferson Jackson dinner at Cobo Center in Detroit, Edwards said he'd like to see Michigan evolve.

"We should put billions of dollars into creation of the new technology and $1 billion should go right to the car companies," he said. "I don't want to see the cars of the future built anywhere else."

Crow Calls for Limit on Loo Paper

This is the problem with many so-called "environmentalists" these days. Instead of doing something that actually matters, they're concerned about napkins and toilet paper. How hard is it for some people to understand that paper is a renewable resource?

Crow has suggested using "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required.

The 45-year-old, who made the comments on her website, has just toured the U.S. on a biodiesel-powered bus to raise awareness about climate change.

Reid: Congress Will Endores Iraq Pullout

A more accurate title for this article:

Reid: Congress Will Endorse Iraq Genocide

Overturning a law that doesn't exist?

Some may see it as a bizarre realignment of the starts, but I agree with the (conservative leaning) Detroit News' support of a Democratic initiative to eliminate the ban on stem cell research in Michigan. However, I have been unable to see such a ban in the laws. Currently, in Michigan there are tax incentives and other state benefits for biomedical research. By law, that excludes embryonic stem cells. I haven't seen anything which outright bans this research, however. Is this a situation similar to the Federal funding ban, where the research is allowed but public moneies can't go toward it? Or, is there a genuine, outright ban on embryonic stem cell research. If, indeed, this research is outright banned, we need to correct this immediately. If this is a mischaracterization and the ban is on state funding, well, that's a different situation all together.

"End the War"

Mohammed at Iraq the Model is exactly correct. Every time I see war protesters with their "End the War" signs, I am flabbergasted. How do they expect the war to end? If the U.S. pulls troops from Iraq, how will that stop extremist Sunni or Shia groups from attacking each other? How will that stop the neo-Bathists from trying to reinstitute a Saddam-styled government? How will that stop Al Qaeda in Iraq from trying to install a repressive regime based on a perversion of Islam? How will that stop Iran from supplying weapons to militia groups? How will that cause the militias to put down their arms and join the government?

How will that secure the tenants of liberal democracy?

Snitches, and not the golden kind

CBS's 60 minutes last night ran a story about snitches in the rap community. This will no doubt get a lot of attention today, with a large focus on the perennial "rap music is bad" mantra which is going to grab the media's focus in the coming months in light of the Virginia tech horror and the Don Imus firing. The basic premise of the article is that in order to have "street cred", one must resist cooperating with the police about anything. The story focuses on the marketing of the "stop snitchin'" credo.

The part which will be overlooked is the real reason why witnesses are refusing to cooperate: a combination of mistrust of police and fear of retaliation. For all of the bravado of the "stop snitchin'" slogan, it's fear and mistrust which keep the average citizen from cooperating with the police and not some misplaced machismo or the favored liberal "brainwashing" theme. If trust can be rebuilt between police and citizens, if criminals who commit crimes can be reliably sent to jail, if police who cooperate with police can be kept safe, then nothing that Busta Rhymes, L'il Kim, or Com'mon can do would matter.

CAFE Standards - will anyone listen?

This past weekend, The Detroit News makes a compelling argument regarding CAFE standards. Will anyone listen? CAFE increases mean tens of thousands of American jobs lost and previous CAFE increases did nothing to reduce the total fuel consumption. It's doubtful that their well-reasoned comments will resonate within the government. Even John Dingell - the Michigan Representative who heads the Energy House Committee - has shown a willingness to sell out Michigan and accept CAFE increases if they're part of a "comprehensive" plan. What's frightening for our state's economy, already among the nation's worst, is that while Congressmen of other districts are fighting to prevent regulations being enacted which would cripple their economies, Rep. Dingell seems to have surrendered the fight and is willing to accept job losses.

40% better mileage with one simple, available technology

Today's Detroit News points out what everyone should already know: diesel engines need to play a role in this country's comprehensive energy policy. Diesel engines are both more reasonably priced and more effective for extending fuel economy when compared to gas/electric hybrids. It's great to see that someone it talking about this, but it's a shame that it's no one in the government.

Quote of the Day

Dahlia Lithwick, law columnist for slate.com:
Viewed in [a certain] light, Gonzales did exactly what he needed to do yesterday. he took a high, inside pitch to the head for the team (nobody wants to look like a dolt on national television) but hit a massive home run for the notion that at the end of the day, congressional oversight over the executive branch is little more than empty theatre."

Certainly, Dahlia doesn't agree with the notion that congressional oversight of the executive branch should be "little more than empty theatre" but she is recognizing the fact that, except for incidences of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and the power of the purse, Congress has no actual power over the executive whatsoever.

Of course, this is merely an example of the balance of powers: other than the veto, the President has no power over the legislative whatsoever.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

AP sides with Schumer

Is this more ridiculous AP bias, or does this author really think the Senate has any power to decide in Gonzales remains Attorney General?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was to be summoned to a Capitol Hill showdown Thursday as he fights to save his job in the face of calls for his ouster over the bungled firings of eight U.S. attorneys that Democrats say were driven by party politics.

The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled a daylong hearing for Gonzales' first appearance under oath since the firings set off an uproar in February that has only escalated with a bewildering series of conflicting accounts from the attorney general, his current and former aides and White House officials.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Outsourced Democracy

Scott Adams took a break from vainly trying to convince people that stealing copyrighted material is, in fact, stealing to suggest a novel idea. His basic idea is to leverage the innovations which have given us barely comprehensible, hesitantly English speaking tech support workers to solve the problems of our democracy:

It's common knowledge that all major government decisions in the United States are made via a process that Thomas Jefferson described in the constitution as 'lobbyists bribing weasels'. Voters attempt to solve this problem by electing the weasels who do the best job lying about their intentions to change the system. So far this hasn't worked.

That's why we need to outsource the important decisions to India. I'm sure a consulting firm in India could help the United States come up with a coherent energy policy, a plan for universal health care, a cure for global warming, and an anti-terrorism plan.


He further goes on to suggest that these plans would then be debated in the public sphere for implementation by our politicians. Having the plans available, though, would allow for public debate which is completely lacking now.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

"Environmentalists"

Perhaps the group I hate the most are the self-congratulatory "environmentalists" who spend far too much time telling the world just how great they really are.

Count Kathleen Hughes of the New York Times among them.

She writes this sickly saccharine, self-gratifying column in the Times in which she goes on and on about how great she it is that she is sacrificing so much to dry her clothes on a clothesline instead of in a dryer. She's so needy for everyone to know just how much she cares for the planet that she initially wanted to hang her clothes out in the front yard, just to show all of her neighbors. Thankfully, her family had more of the right idea. What kills me the most, though, is how impossibly wasteful her electricity usage is.

She started using the clothes line after getting a monthly bill of over $1,100 last summer. She prides herself on having a March bill of "only" $576. In March. When it was cold. The unmitigated gall she has lecturing the public on how wasteful they are with their electric use when she's spending that much on it herself shouldn't shock me anymore, but I guess it still does. After all, when you take a peek at the electric bills of Al Gore and John Edwards, all the while they're preaching about conservation. I have sadly come to expect this from the right, elitist leftists. Sadly this lack of self-perception seems to have infected her daughter as well, who notes: "It looks like we care about the earth, " when clothes are hung on the clothesline, but who is "always busy at the computer."

This is the essence of their hypocrisy: trying to look like they care about the earth while blowing through 3 to 5 times as much energy as average Americans.

Quote of the Year

Majority Decision, Gonzales V. Carhart:
We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy." 505 U.S., at 879 (plurality opinion). It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden, which exists if a regulation's "purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." ld., at 878. On the other hand, regulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's right to choose." ld., at 877. Casey, in short struck a balance. The balance was central to its holding. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar."

Most important note of all: the "ultraconservative" Alito and Roberts agreed with the above - an affirmation that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability, that the state can not place "substantial obstacles" in the pate of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion, and can only act to limit abortions if they are not "a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose."

So, despite all the ballyhoo of the supposed "ultraconservatives" on the court and the "threat" to Rode v. Wade and to Casey, we end up with the result that if Roe v. Wade was to be challenged before this court , it would be a 7-2 decision to uphold Roe v. Wade. Only JJustices Scalia and Thomas were willing to support a move to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Communist Art

In today's Dilbert Blog entry, Scott Adams posits:

I think a reasonable person can dislike capitalism and wish for a more socialist world where art is free for all takers. But a reasonable person can't expect that a socialist world would produce nearly as much art. That's bat-shit thinking.
His justification is that the time and effort he spent building Dilbert, pretty much dawn-to-dusk for 10 straight years with minimal time off, wouldn't be worth it if he wasn't able to achieve his level of economic wealth. This is, basically, the main problem with strict communism: the number of people willing to put forth the time and effort to become a doctor, start a business, create new technologies, etc., wouldn't be wouldn't be so inclined if they received the same rewards as a cubicle worker who spends more of his work hours on the Internet than doing actual work. This being said, I can certainly appreciate his argument.

However, it falls apart in that the vast majority of artists don't have his level of dedication (or, to be honest, talent). The vast majority of artists putz around with their painting or sculpting or hot gluing or cross-stitching, assuming that it should be enough to make them a living. Most artists, i.e., the non-commercially viable artists, don't have the talent or dedication to actually put out art that other people would actually place value in (shown, in our society, by paying money for it). As they can't make a living as an artist, they instead find a job working as a barista or English Garden's cashier. If we lived in a communist society, they'd be able to make the same living creating their shitty art that they would by ringing up my flat of azaleas. It's just the good artists - the ones who put in the time, effort, and dedication to make items of true value to society - who would be disinclined to create art.

The net result isn't that we would have less art, as Adams suggests. We would have less good art and a whole lot more shitty art, while I'd have to learn how to steam a latte without burning myself.

Fake voters all around us?

Cynthia Tucker, an editorialist witih the Atlanta journal-Constitution blames the GOP of making false, "paranoid" accusations of voter fraud and describes voter ID cards as "attempts to supporess voting by people of color" and unconstitutional. She cites a study that sees voter turnout drop, especially among minority voters. The question must be asked: why?

Here's the scenario: The government provides free photo identification cards to individuals who register to vote. All you need to do is show up, register, prove your citizenship, get your photo taken, and you get an ID card which allows you to vote. When you go to vote, someone looks at your card, looks at the list, and then hands you a ballot, which you fill out in secret and submit in secret.

Now, assume that Ms. Tucker is correct and the above scenario results in a decline in overall voter turnout of 3% and 6-9% decline among minorities.

How is this not evidence of some people voting illegally, using other peoples' names?

Let's set that aside for a moment. Let's assume that everyone who votes at a polling station where there are no ID checks follows the law, votes legally and properly, and does not vote under someone else's name - despite the ridiculous ease with which this can happen. The fact that it is easy to fraudulently vote and that it is equally difficult to catch someone voting fradulently casts doubt on the process. In the 2000 Presidential election, Florida was decided by a few hundred votes. In effect, the election of the President was decided by a tiny handful of votes. How can we be sure that 20 or 30 determined, morally vacant, rabidly pro-Bush supporters didn't go around to 15 to 20 different polling places, walk up to the line, glance down at the book and just rattle of a name, then illegally cast a pro-Bush vote in a heavily Democratic district? We can assume that didn't happen. However, the specter of voter fraud, and the ease with which it is perpetrated, is enough to cast doubt on the entire system.

America's approach to democracy is a laughing stock to much of the rest of the world. The voting system lack standards, has no controls in place to ensure that only those who legally can vote are the ones voting, and we frequently utilize polling technology and machines from the middle of the last century. America is supposed to be the shining beacon of democracy throughout the world. How can we do that when we ourselves have such a faulty system?

The current situation in many states, with individuals being allowed to vote without verification, calls into question the legitimacy of our democracy.

Quote of the Day

Tracy Bridges, whose exercise of his 2nd Amendment rights helped stop Peter Odighizuwa's murderous rampage at Appalachian School of Law in 2002, speaking on NBC's Today show:
We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter. At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there."

An American problem?

Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006:
18-year-old Sebastian Bosse entered Geschwister Scholl School and used a firearm and a smoke grenade to injure 37 before committing suicide.

Erfurt, Germany, April 26, 2002:
19-year-old Robert Steinhauser used two firearms to kill 13 teachers and 2 students before committing suicide.

Zug, Switzerland, September 27, 2001:
Friedrich Leibacher entered the canton's parliament and shot dead 14 politicians.

Osaka, Japan, June 8, 2001:
37-year-old Mamoru Tukama, former janitor, killed eight children using a kitchen knife and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers before being captured. He was eventually convicted of murder and put to death.

Port Arthur, Australia, April 28, 1996:
28-year-old martin Bryant killed 35 and wounded 37 at the popular tourist destination of Port Arthur.

Why don't they care anymore?

Today, Europe reacted to the masacre at Virginia Tech.

The roughest part is how horribly inaccurate so much of this is. Suggestions that it's easier to get a machine gun than a driver's license, that this individual - who happens to be a Korean national - is indicitave of the violence inherant in American culture, that this has something to do with assault weapons or automatic weapons, or that rates of violent crime are rising are just flat out wrong. The bottom line is that college campuses are the most disarmed areas of American life. A single individual with a concealed firearm could have dramatically reduced the number killed.

Bild makes the most interesting points. They suggest, laughably, that it's easier to get a machine gun than a driver's license in the U.S. However, I can't help but point out that cars kill a whole lot more people than guns in the U.S. Also, the do mention the tragedies at Erfurt and Emsdetten. Germany is a country with a much smaller population, with vastly fewer firearms and they have had their own share of these horrors equalling our own. If anything proves that the strict control of firearms does nothing to prevent these sorts of horrors, Erfurt and Emsdetten do.

I do want to point out the editorial from Italy's Il Messaggero - "During the period following World war II, America was seen as the guardian of democracy and was equated with the defense of liberty; today, America is a superpower that begins wars and lives with the constant necessity of having to defend itself against the enemy..." This is an attitude throughout the world reflected when the view the U.S. What is so disconcerting is that the actions of the U.S. haven't changed, except that we're less likely to engage in warfare than we were in the "period following World War II". What's changed is only the perceptions of Europe. It's amazing how little some care for the spread of democracy when their own democracy isn't being threatened.

Why should the people of Italy or Germany or France or, hell, the American Left care about the plight of women in the middle east (regularly murdered as punishment for being raped, denied the right to vote, subject to beatings from their husbands, fathers, and brothers, treated as prisoners in their own home, denied the ability to earn their own livings outside of “temporary marriages” if they are divorced or widowed, denied education)? Why should they care about the slaughtered innocents of Darfur? Why should they care about the tyrannical oppression of the North Korean people? Why should they care about terrorists wanting to exterminate the Jews or reconquer southern Spain? Why should they care about narcoterrorists in Central America? Being the guardian of democracy and the defender of liberty sometimes means that you have to do the dirty work of deposing a dictator. Of course, it’s much easier for Europe or the American Left to pretend that the women of Iraq chose the rape rooms and the people of North Korea chose starving to death and the people or Darfur chose the systematic annihilation of their homes and their children. That’s their government and it would be wrong of us to impose our on them. It’s much easier for Europe and the American Left to sit back in their benighted racism and assume that the peoples of Africa, south-eastern Asia, and the Middle East are animals incapable of determining their own fates, incapable of living in a democratic country with liberty for all.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

"You can't erase e-mails, not today."

Yesterday evening, Slate.com recycled an old post discussed the deletion of files from computers. This was published in response to Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) charging that the Republican Party's e-mail system could not permanently erase e-mails. Leahy: "You can't erase e-mails, not today." Presumably, they're using Microsoft Exchange to handle their e-mail. Microsoft Exchange Server is by the moist likely e-mail server used.

The Slate article with an old story - Robert Johnson, former publisher of Newsday, who was indicted for possession of child pornography. He tried to use a program to clean out his desktop computer's local hard drive to conceal illegal material. The program failed and forensic tech experts were able to recover the files on his hard drive. The Slate article does a pretty good job explaining how this works.

What it doesn't do, however, in address anything even remotely relevant to the situation at hand.

Certainly, the basics are the same -- a computer has the information which is then downloaded to a hard drive. The hard drive, being magnetic media, will retain an "image" of previous data recorded to it so that even if it is erased and written-over once or perhaps twice, the prior data is possibly recoverable using sophisticated means. Other than that, however, there's nearly no similarity.

First of all, the type of file used as an example in the Slate article is completely different. Exchange stores e-mails as a database, which means that the e-mails are stored inside of a file itself and the data is moved around, resorted, and reordered on a continual basis as the database keeps itself in a neat, tidy order. So, where a single movie file would stay the same and sit on a hard drive, an e-mail database is constantly changing. The data for each e-mail is moved around as the database resorts itself to new data coming in, data being reorganized, or data being deleted. If an e-mail is deleted from the database, the space where the e-mail resided is going to be reused much more quickly and much more frequently than on a desktop hard drive. Every time the data is overwritten, this degrades the shadow of the previous information at that location. On a database which is being constantly written and rewritten, a deleted e-mail is likely to have been overwritten so often that trying to lift a shadow of the data is impossible.

Secondly, and much more importantly, the GOP is likely using an encrypted database (depending on their version of Exchange). It doesn't matter if the actual physical image of the file can be recovered, as it's encryption renders it useless.

Also, even if fragments can be recovered, nothing can be done with them. While fragments of a movie file can still be shown, fragments of an encrypted database are worthless. Much of what makes it so easy to find a deleted movie is its size. There's a good chunk of data out there. When you only need a small piece - when, for instance, a few seconds of a movie are enough for a conviction - then having a large source of data is a boon. When any missing data makes the entire data unusable, a large e-mail database is a killer.

Finally, the vast scale of trying to find missing e-mails is ridiculous. Even movie files - on the order of several hundred megabytes for low resolution movies or a few gigabytes for high resolution - are tiny compared to the e-mail database of a large organization. The Republican Party's e-mail database is likely on the order of terabytes, thousands of gigabytes. Even if the entire volume of every e-mail ever run through the system was available for the search and viewing of a well trained data miner, this is a ridiculous amount of data. Trying to weed through this volume of garbage, most of which no doubt are stupid forwards or endless e-mail exchanges trying to set up meetings, is a herculean task.

All this speaks only to the technical feasibility of recovering the several million e-mails the Democrats want. More importantly, though, is the legal justification. Even if the GOP is capable of compliance with the request, they should resist it. Neither Alberto Gonzalez nor any of his subordinates have been charged with a crime and are not suspected of committing a crime. This is clearly the Democrats trying their damnedest to get any member of the Administration to say something under oath which, after mining through millions of e-mails, they find to be incorrect.

I thought the Clinton impeachment took political grandstanding to an all-time low, but the new Democratic tactic of trying to manufacture perjury charges takes it to a ludicrous level. It's a shame that Patrick Leahy didn't work for Richard Nixon. Apparently, instead of breaking into the Watergate, the Administration could have just demanded the Democrats turn over their paperwork and then threaten them with perjury and contempt charges if they didn't comply.

Monday, April 16, 2007

U.N. finally taking action in Darfur

It has taken long enough, but it looks as though at least a few U.N. troops will be going into Darfur. The inaction on this front by the U.N. is criminal.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Sudan on Monday approved the deployment of attack helicopters and more than 3,000 U.N. troops, police, and other personnel in Darfur to beef up the 7,000 strong African Union force in the troubled region.

Sudan's U.N. ambassador Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem informed the secretary-general in a letter that the government had approved the U.N. plan to send helicopter gunships, the last outstanding item in the U.N.'s "heavy support package" for the AU force.

"It is the sincere hope of the Sudan that implementation of the heavy support package would precede expeditiously," Abdalhaleem said.

Sudan's Foreign Ministry confirmed the government's acceptance of the "heavy support" package.

Granholm plans to release prisoners to save $$

A bipartisan plan in the Michigan Legislature seems to be trying to release inmates to try to save around a hundred million dollars from the budget. I'm all in favor of saving money, but the fact remains that if a criminal is locked up in prison, that criminal isn't out committing more crimes. With the ricitivism rate as high as it is, does cutting sentences really mean we're going to save money when the vast majority of those released will wind up back in the system once again after an expensive trial?

No end for jammed prisons
Gov's inmate release plan won't solve budget and space crisis
Norman Sinclair / The Detroit News

DETROIT - Despite Gov. Jennifer Granholm's plan to release up to 5,500 inmates to shave $92 million of the state's $686 million deficit, experts say the money and bed space crisis will continue as long as some 30 percent of the inmate population -- or 16,000 prisoners -- remains locked up even though they are eligible for parole.

"We need fundamental reforms to reduce the prison population that was driven up in the last 20 years -- not by crime but by policy choices the state made," said Barbara Levine, executive director of the Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending, a prison spending policy advocacy group.

Deputy Corrections Director Dennis Schrantz recently predicted that without the release of the 5,500 inmates, the system will run out of beds by September. And a recent Pew Foundation study predicts Michigan's prison population will increase 11 percent by 2011.

Inmate Ross Hayes, for example, has cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars for his upkeep. He was first eligible for parole 23 years ago.

Hayes was 16 in 1974 and high on drugs and alcohol when he stabbed and killed an 89-year-old homeowner who returned home unexpectedly and surprised him during a burglary.

A psychologist said Hayes had the emotional maturity of an adolescent, and a probate judge reluctantly ordered Hayes tried as an adult. His lawyer advised him to plead guilty to second-degree murder in return for a life sentence with a chance for parole after 10 years.

Hayes is now 49 and serving his 32nd year in prison. He has an excellent prison record and has earned a GED and two associate's degrees. He converted to Christianity and got married in 1998.

In 2001, Dale Daverman, great-nephew of the victim, was surprised to discover that Hayes was still in prison and visited him. Since then, Daverman has been an advocate for Hayes' release.

"I am absolutely convinced that Ross Hayes is sincere and has remorse for what he did. My father, brother, and I feel Ross has paid his debt to society," Daverman wrote the parole board's chairman that year.

But Hayes has repeatedly been turned down for parole.

Both parties want reform

In a statement to The Detroit News, Granholm said sweeping reforms she is proposing will reduce prison population while keeping residents safe.

"(The plan) calls for revisions to Michigan's sentencing guidelines, increased use of community-based sanctions for appropriate offenders, reinvestment of funding for local criminal justice services, expansion of the bipartisan prisoner re-entry program and paroling more prisoners into this successful program that has shown a double-digit improvement on recidivism," the governor said.

Legislative changes in sentencing guidelines in the 1990s produced "truth in sentencing" requiring prisoners to serve all their time behind bars. The change also wiped out halfway houses and community facilities used to ease prisoners back into society before parole.

The state's financial crisis is creating a new bipartisan spirit for reform. On March 29, state Rep. Paul Condino, D-Southfield, introduced a bill aimed at strengthening and spelling out parole guidelines.

It would also make the board accountable for following those guidelines to grant parole.

The bill sets guidelines for parole and makes parole decisions transparent and subject to appeal. It would also require the board to account for exceptions it makes when refusing parole.

Condino could not be reached for comment.

State Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said he, too, has convened a subcommittee to take up prison reform of parole.

"Having practiced law in that area. I have often wondered why we got rid of the appeal process in the parole system, because it does take away the discretion of the court and gives full authority to the parole board, which has become a very political entity. I am all in favor of bringing back discretion to that process," Bishop said.

"Any way we can make the system better, we ought to be looking at it. Instead of just talking about commutation of prisoners, you've got to fix the system before you can just implode it and walk away."

The Corrections Department and the parole board are already seeing positive results by taking a less rigid approach to parole involving a group of 4,153 nonviolent non-sex offenders previously rejected for parole.

Parole board more flexible

In January 2005, the board began taking second looks at the group who would not have been considered for parole again for 12 to 24 months.

That closer look resulted in parole for 2,076, according to a Corrections Department memo dated Jan.8.

CAPPS and a State Bar of Michigan group that deals with prison issues believe other reforms need to go no further than a return to policies abandoned in 1992. At that time, Gov. John Engler pushed legislative changes that abolished a supervisory parole commissions as well as the civil service parole board and replaced it with political appointees.

CAPPS calculates that adoption of Condino's bill and three other reforms could reduce the prison population to pre-1922 levels of 42,000.

The three reforms are:

Capping the time some of the 3,700 technical parole violators are serving in prison for violations that did not involve a new crime.

Reinstate good time credits similar to what inmates earn in federal and other state prisons, which would cut average sentences by 15 percent at a savings of $100 million.

Rescind a board policy that treats parolable life sentences as natural like sentences. Hayes and 800 other inmates fall into this group.

State Rep. Rick Jones, R-Oneida, who was Eaton County sheriff for 33 years and a jail administrator for five years, supports these recommendations.

"We are incarcerating people longer than the states around us at a cost of millions of dollars," Jones said.

It's about time

Marc Corriveay, a Democrat from Northville, has the right idea. He's seeking to end the use of state-owned vehicles by Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges. Sounds like the kind of cost-cutting Michigan needs. The annual $400,000 it saves may not seem like much but enough of these small, baby steps will bridge the budget deficit.

Democrats launch bid to take state-owned vehicles from judges
April 16, 2007
by Chris Christoff
Free Press Lansing Bureau

LANSING - House Democrats plan to announce plans today to end the use of state-owned vehicles by Supreme Court justices and Court of Appeals judges.

Rep. Marc Corriveau, D-Northville, is to sponsor legislation to end the long-standing perk, detailed in a Free Press report April 8.

The report noted that in addition to nine Supreme Court justices and 28 appeals judges, 10 Supreme Court staff members are also given cars for personal use and official court business, at a total cost to the state of $423,000 last fiscal year.

The practice of giving taxpayer-funded cars to high court judges dates to 1965.


Tim Noah on Robert Novak

Friday, Tim Noah continued his assault on Robert Novak on slate.com.

Noah states that the legal distinction between "undercover" and "covert" in regards to Ms. Plame's classification status, does not matter. What does matter:

  1. Of course, the legal definition of Plame's status is critical. Did Richard Armitage commit a crime by mentioning Plame's name to Novak? Did other members of the Executive -- notably Scooter Libby and Karl Rove -- commit a felony by mentioning her name to the press? I may be in the minority here, but I actually care if Armitage, Rove, or Libby broke a law here. If they did, they should go to jail. If they did not, we should move on from the issue.
  2. As a result of the leak of her name, Ms. Plame resigned from the CIA. She indicated that public knowledge that she worked at the CIA, even though no one has been very specific ass to exactly what it was that she did, was enough to keep her from being able to continue to work at the CIA. Is this really the case? Was it the reveal of her identity in and of itself that somehow prevented her work at the CIA or was it her association with the hack-job garbage report that her husband produced and the appearance of impropriety of him ostensibly being recommended by her?
  3. Was there any threat to national security? Anything like, oh, mentioning that we could tap Osama Bin Ladin's satellite phone, or dissemination of the fact that we don't hang up the phone when a foreign national who is overseas and has a tapped line happens to call someone in the U.S., or the publication of the names of actual foreign-based CIA operatives, or trying to unconstitutionally engage foreign powers in surreptitious diplomacy against the Administration's policies, or exposing covert actions inside of Iran to try to prevent Iran from using nuclear weapons.

The bottom line of what shocks me is that the press seems hell-bent on riding Novak, Rove, and Libby for the reveal of Plame's identity but no one is upset in the least when an AP writer decides on her own to publish the identities of two CIA field operatives who were engaged in interrogation activities while in Afghanistan because she's taken it upon herself to decide what is and is not proper interrogation techniques. (Note -- there's a reason there's no link to this article. Further publication of the identities of these individuals is in no one's best interests.)

What is most frustrating about this situation is that actual undercover agents engaged in actual covert activity are revealed with impunity and no one cares. Valerie Plame , who was probably not actively engaged in undercover activity in the recent past, has her name leaked and the left is up in arms. It is frustrating that the only concern that people seem to have is trying to "get" Karl Rove and other members of the Administration, not trying to safeguard our nation's security.

Quote of the Day

Congress finds the following:
(2) In declaring, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness', the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, derived the creative cause of nationhood from 'the Laws of Nature' and the entitlements of 'Nature's God', such literal referrals in the Declaration of Independence thereby serving to celebrate the unity of human thought, natural law, and spiritual causation. - HR808 IH

Perhaps it's just me, but the so-called "Department of Peace and Nonviolence" that Reps Kucinich, Kilpatrick, Conyers, Rangle, et at, want to institute is rather frightening. They're looking to institute a new cabinet position under religious pretext and give it power over every other cabinet position, most notably the departments of Treasury, State, Defense, and Education; institute governmental approved propagandist education for all school levels; interfere in local and state government, manage the media and free press; interfere with diplomacy with the U.N. and with foreign powers, and to set policies involving conflict within the home.

Frankly, the idea of having a religious leader with powers in the U.S. that overarch all government at all levels, conflicts within the home, and interaction between the U.S. and foreign powers is rather frightening, particularly when it's Dennis Kucinich and Carolyn Kilpatrick whose religious leader is being foisted upon us.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Hillary Clinton, Sen. D-NY Offical Voting Record

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) Current Office: U.S. SenatorCurrent District: Junior SeatOffice Seeking: U.S. SenatorFirst Elected: 11/07/2000Last Elected: 11/07/2006Next Election: 2012Party: Democrat BiographicalIssue Positions(NPAT)Campaign FinancesInterest Group RatingsVoting RecordSpeeches and Public Statements
Currently, the newly designed and written 104th - 109th (1995-present) Congressional sessions are available. However, the historical portion of the Key Votes program is still under construction.In the meantime, for information concerning Key Votes from 1991-1994, please call our Voter's Research Hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART (1-888-868-3762) and one of our researchers can look up any vote you need.

Date
Bill Title
Vote
03/17/2005
Unintended Pregnancy Amendment
Y
10/21/2003
Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill
N
10/21/2003
Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion bill
N
06/21/2002
Military Abortion Amendment
Y
Agriculture Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
05/08/2002
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
Y
02/13/2002
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
Y
Appropriations(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
03/29/2007
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill of 2007
Y
03/27/2007
Iraq Withdrawal Amendment
N
07/12/2006
Transit Security Amendment
Y
06/22/2006
Defense Department FY 2007 Authorization bill
Y
06/15/2006
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
Y
05/04/2006
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2006
Y
05/03/2006
Influenza Vaccine Injury Compensation Amendment
Y
05/02/2006
Sugarcane Growers Funding Amendment
N
12/21/2005
Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill
Y
12/21/2005
Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill
N
11/16/2005
Commerce, Justice, Science, Appropriations Bill FY 2006
Y
11/15/2005
Defense Department FY2006 Authorization bill
Y
11/10/2005
Foreign Operations FY2006 Appropriations Bill
Y
11/03/2005
Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA Appropriations Act
Y
10/27/2005
After School Funding Amendment
Y
10/27/2005
Labor, HHS, Education, FY 2006 Appropriations bill
Y
10/26/2005
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Funding Amendment
N
10/20/2005
Transportation, Treasury, HUD, Judiciary, Appropriation
Y
10/07/2005
Defense Department FY2006 Appropriations bill
Y
10/05/2005
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program Amendment
Y
09/22/2005
Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA Appropriations Act
Y
07/29/2005
Interior Department FY 2006 Appropriations Bill
Y
07/29/2005
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006
Y
07/20/2005
Foreign Operations FY2006 Appropriations Bill
Y
07/19/2005
US Agency for International Development Amendment
N
07/14/2005
Increase the Number of Detention Beds Amendment
N
07/14/2005
Homeland Security Department FY 2006 Appropriations Act
Y
07/11/2005
Air Cargo Security Programs Implementation Amendment
Y
07/01/2005
Energy and Water Appropriations bill FY 2006
Y
06/29/2005
Interior Department FY 2006 Appropriations Bill
Y
05/10/2005
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005
Y
04/21/2005
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2005
Y
04/18/2005
Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment
Y
09/21/2004
Legislative Branch FY2005 Appropriations Bill
Y
07/22/2004
Defense Department FY2005 Appropriations bill
Y
06/24/2004
Defense Department FY2005 Appropriations bill
Y
03/12/2004
Budget Appropriations, FY2005 resolution
N
01/22/2004
Omnibus FY2004 Appropriations Bill
N
11/12/2003
Fiscal 04 Military Construction Appropriation-Adoption
Y
11/06/2003
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
Y
11/06/2003
Department of Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations,
Y
09/25/2003
Terrorism Information Awareness bill
Y
09/16/2003
Energy and Water Appropriations, FY 2004 bill
Y
07/24/2003
Homeland Security Appropriations, FY 2004 bill
Y
07/17/2003
Terrorism Information Awareness bill
Y
07/11/2003
Emergency Supplemental Appropriation, FY 2003 bill
Y
04/03/2003
Appropriations for Operations in Iraq
Y
02/13/2003
Fiscal 03 Omnibus Appropriations-Adoption
Y
01/23/2003
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003
N
10/16/2002
Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill
Y
08/01/2002
Department of Defense Appropriations, FY2003 bill
Y
07/25/2002
Legislative Branch Appropriation, FY2003 bill
Y
07/24/2002
Supplemental Appropriations, FY2002 bill
Y
07/18/2002
Military Construction Appropriations Act FY2003
Y
06/07/2002
Supplemental Appropriations, FY2002 bill
Y
12/07/2001
District of Columbia FY2002 Appropriations bill
Y
12/04/2001
Department of Transportation Appropriations Act FY 2002
Y
11/15/2001
Agriculture FY2002 Appropriations bill
Y
11/15/2001
Appropriations bill FY2002, Commerce, Justice, State
Y
11/08/2001
Veterans Affairs and HUD Appropriations Act of 2002
Y
11/06/2001
Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Act, 2002
Y
11/01/2001
Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 2002
Y
11/01/2001
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002
Y
10/18/2001
Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill
Y
10/17/2001
Interior Department Appropriations for FY 2002
Y
09/26/2001
Military Construction FY2002 Appropriations bill
Y
Budget, Spending and Taxes(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
03/23/2007
Congressional Budget for 2008
Y
08/03/2006
Death/EstateTax and Minimum Wage Bill of 2006
N
05/11/2006
Tax Reconciliation bill
N
03/16/2006
Debt Limit Increase Resolution
N
03/16/2006
Natural Resources and Environment Funding Amendment
Y
03/16/2006
2007 Budget Resolution
N
03/16/2006
Education Funding Amendment
Y
03/14/2006
Reinstate Pay-As-You-Go through 2011 Amendment
Y
02/02/2006
Tax Reconciliation bill
Y
12/21/2005
Budget Reconciliation bill
N
11/18/2005
Tax Reconciliation Bill
Y
11/17/2005
Pay As You Go Amendment
Y
11/17/2005
Tax Rate Amendment
Y
11/17/2005
Earned Income Tax Credit Amendment
Y
11/17/2005
Hurricane Victims Tax Benefit Amendment
Y
11/17/2005
Temporary Tax on Crude Oil Amendment
Y
11/03/2005
Medicare Prescription Drug Amendment
Y
11/03/2005
Pay As You Go Amendment
Y
11/03/2005
Budget Reconciliation bill
N
04/28/2005
Budget FY2006 Appropriations Resolution
N
03/17/2005
Education Amendment
Y
03/17/2005
Perkins Vocational Education Program Amendment
Y
03/17/2005
Budget FY2006 Appropriations Resolution
N
03/17/2005
Tax Subsidy for Domestic Companies Amendment
Y
03/17/2005
Homeland Security Grant Program Amendment
Y
03/17/2005
Native American Funding Amendment
Y
10/11/2004
JOBS (Jumpstart Our Business Strength)
Y
09/23/2004
Increased Child Tax Credit bill
Y
05/11/2004
Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act
Y
04/29/2004
Internet Access Tax bill
Y
05/23/2003
Jobs and Economic Growth bill
N
05/15/2003
Jobs and Economic Growth bill
N
04/11/2003
Congressional Budget for fiscal year 2004
N
03/26/2003
Budget Resolution FY2004
N
03/19/2003
ANWR Oil Drilling Amendment
Y
05/26/2001
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, 2001
N
05/23/2001
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, 2001
N
05/10/2001
Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution
N
Business and Consumers(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
11/17/2005
Price-Gouging During Emergencies Amendment
Y
11/03/2005
Targeted Case Management Amendment
Y
07/26/2005
Corporate Financing of Terrorism Amendment
Y
03/10/2005
Bankruptcy Reform Bill
NV
03/08/2005
Violent Protestor Amendment
Y
03/07/2005
Minimum Wage Amendment
N
03/07/2005
Minimum Wage Amendment
Y
04/08/2004
Pension Funding Equity Act of 2004
Y
07/15/2002
Accounting Industry Reform bill
Y
06/18/2002
Terrorism Insurance Bill
Y
Campaign Finance and Election Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
10/16/2002
Help America Vote Act of 2002
N
04/11/2002
Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001
Y
03/20/2002
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001
Y
02/27/2002
Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001
N
04/02/2001
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001
Y
03/26/2001
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001
Y
03/21/2001
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Union Amendment
Y
03/20/2001
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001
Y
Civil Liberties(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
06/27/2006
Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment
N
Congressional Affairs(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
11/10/2005
Investigating Contracts in Iraq Amendment
Y
10/18/2005
Congressional Pay Raise Amendment
Y
09/15/2005
Financial Relief For Hurricane Katrina Victims Amend
Y
09/14/2005
Special Committee on Contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq
Y
09/14/2005
Congressional Commission on Hurricane Katrina
Y
10/23/2003
Congressional Pay Raise Amendment
N
Defense(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
11/15/2005
Status of Detainees Substitute Amendment
Y
11/15/2005
Judicial Review of Detainees Amendment
Y
11/10/2005
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay Amendment
N
11/08/2005
National Commission on Detainees Amendment
Y
07/26/2005
National Defense Authorization Act - Cloture
N
06/23/2004
Military Construction FY2005 Authorization bill
Y
11/12/2003
Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization - Conference Report
Y
10/17/2003
Emergency Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan
Y
05/22/2003
Fiscal 2004 Defense Authorization-Passage
Y
12/13/2001
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
Y
10/02/2001
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
Y
Education(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
10/26/2005
Elementary and Secondary Education Act Amendment
Y
10/26/2005
Individuals with Disabilities Education Amendment
Y
10/25/2005
To Increase The Maximum Federal Pell Grant Amendment
Y
05/13/2004
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
Y
05/13/2004
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
Y
12/18/2001
No Child Left Behind Act
Y
Employment and Affirmative Action(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
05/11/2004
Unemployment Benefits Amendment
Y
Energy Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
08/01/2006
Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006
Y
03/16/2006
ANWR Revenues Amendment
N
03/16/2006
LIHEAP Funding Amendment
Y
11/03/2005
Alaska Judicial Review Amendment
Y
10/26/2005
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program Amendment
Y
07/29/2005
Energy Policy Act of 2005
N
06/28/2005
Energy Policy Act of 2005
Y
06/16/2005
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Amendment
Y
06/16/2005
Reduction in Dependence on Foreign Oil
Y
06/14/2005
Environmental Effects Caused by Ethanol Amendment
N
03/16/2005
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Drilling Amendment
Y
07/31/2003
Energy Omnibus bill
N
06/10/2003
Reduction of Foreign Oil Dependence Amendment
Y
06/10/2003
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Amendment
Y
04/25/2002
Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001
N
Environmental Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
12/21/2005
Removal of ANWR Provision from HR 2863
Y
11/03/2005
ANWR Amendment
Y
09/13/2005
EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule
Y
10/30/2003
Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003
N
Executive Branch(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
03/20/2007
United States Attorneys Act of 2007
Y
12/07/2006
Andrew von Eschenbach, Commissioner of Food and Drugs
Y
12/06/2006
Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense
Y
05/26/2006
Michael Hayden Confirmation
N
01/31/2006
Samuel Alito, Associate Justice
N
09/27/2005
John Roberts, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
N
06/20/2005
Second cloture motion on John Bolton, Ambassador to UN
N
06/14/2005
Thomas B. Griffith, US Circuit Judge
N
06/09/2005
Richard A Griffin, US Circuit Judge
Y
06/09/2005
Janice R Brown, US Circuit Court
N
06/09/2005
William H. Pryor, Jr., US Circuit Judge
N
06/09/2005
David W. McKeague, US Circuit Judge
Y
05/26/2005
First cloture motion on John Bolton, Ambassador to UN
N
05/25/2005
Priscilla R. Owen, US Circuit Judge
N
05/24/2005
Motion to invoke cloture on Priscilla R. Owen
Y
04/21/2005
John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence
Y
02/15/2005
Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security
Y
02/03/2005
Alberto R. Gonzales, for Attorney General
N
01/26/2005
Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
Y
01/06/2005
Objection to Presidential Electoral Vote Certificate
N
10/28/2003
Michael Leavitt, Adiminstrator of the EPA
Y
01/22/2003
Thomas Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security
Y
02/01/2001
John Ashcroft for Attorney General
N
01/30/2001
Christine Todd Whitman for Administrator of the EPA
Y
01/30/2001
Gale Ann Norton for Secretary of the Interior
N
01/24/2001
Norman Y. Mineta for Secretary of Transportation
Y
01/24/2001
Thompson for Secretary of Health and Human Services
Y
01/23/2001
Martinez for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Y
01/23/2001
Anthony Principi for Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Y
Family and Children Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
07/25/2006
Teen Pregnancy Education Amendment
Y
07/25/2006
Child Custody Protection Act
N
07/14/2004
Federal Marriage Amendment
N
04/10/2003
Enhance AMBER Alert bill
Y
02/24/2003
Enhance AMBER Alert bill
Y
Foreign Aid and Policy Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
09/07/2006
Media in the Middle East Amendment
N
03/16/2006
National Defense Funding Amendment
N
11/15/2005
Iraq Progress Reports Amendment
Y
11/15/2005
Reporting Matters in Iraq Amendment
Y
12/07/2001
International Courts Amendment
Y
Government Reform(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
11/19/2002
Homeland Security Act of 2002
Y
Gun Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
07/13/2006
Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment
N
07/29/2005
Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill
N
07/28/2005
Child Safety Lock Amendment
Y
03/02/2004
Firearms Manufacturers Protection bill
N
Health Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
11/03/2005
Medical Assistance and Prescription Drug Amendment
Y
11/03/2005
Hurricane Health Care for Survivors Amendment
Y
11/03/2005
Medicaid Generic Drug Amendment
Y
10/27/2005
AIDS Drug Assistance Program Amendment
Y
03/17/2005
Medicaid Amendment
N
06/27/2003
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit bill
N
07/31/2002
Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act
Y
06/29/2001
Patients' Bill of Rights bill
Y
Immigration(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
10/31/2006
Secure Fence Act of 2006
Y
07/13/2006
Double-Layered Fencing Amendment
N
06/20/2006
Triple-Layered Fencing Amendment
Y
05/25/2006
Confidentiality Requirement Amendment
N
05/25/2006
Immigration Reform Bill
Y
05/24/2006
H-2C Visa Program Ammendment
Y
05/23/2006
Employer Verification Amendment
Y
05/23/2006
Orange Card Program Amendment
Y
05/18/2006
"State Criminal Alien Assistance Program" Amendment
Y
05/18/2006
English as Unifying Language Amendment
Y
05/18/2006
English As National Language Amendment
N
05/17/2006
Employment-based Immigrant Visa Amendment
N
Labor(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
06/21/2006
Minimum Wage Adjustment Amendment
Y
06/21/2006
Increasing Minimum Wage Amendment
N
03/06/2001
Ergonomics Regulations resolution
N
Legal Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
02/10/2005
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
N
04/22/2004
Victims' Rights bill
Y
03/25/2004
Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2004
N
Military Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
03/15/2007
United States Policy in Iraq Resolution of 2007
Y
09/28/2006
Military Commissions Act of 2006
N
09/28/2006
Habeas Review Amendment
Y
09/28/2006
Oversight of CIA Interrogation and Detention Amendment
Y
09/28/2006
Military Commissions Amendment
Y
09/06/2006
Cluster Munitions Amendment
N
06/22/2006
Troop Redeployment Amendment
N
02/02/2006
Military Funding and Tax Cuts Amendment
Y
05/21/2004
Condemning Iraq Abuse of Prisoners resolution
Y
10/11/2002
Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Y
National Security Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
09/13/2006
Security of Cargo Containers Amendment
Y
09/12/2006
National Security Amendment
Y
07/12/2006
Rail and Transit Security Amendment
Y
07/11/2006
FEMA Amendment
Y
07/11/2006
USEMA Amendment
N
03/02/2006
USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization
Y
12/16/2005
USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization
N
07/14/2005
Disclosure of Classified Information Amendment
Y
10/06/2004
National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004
Y
10/25/2001
USA Patriot Act of 2001
Y
09/14/2001
Military Force Authorization resolution
Y
Science and Medical Research(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
07/18/2006
Stem Cell Research Bill
Y
Senior and Social Security Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
02/02/2006
Medicare Part D Amendment
Y
11/17/2005
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Amendment
Y
11/03/2005
Medicare Premiums Amendment
Y
11/03/2005
Prescription Drug Plan Amendment
Y
03/17/2005
Prescription Drugs Amendment
Y
Social Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
06/07/2006
Same Sex Marriage Resolution
N
06/11/2002
Hate Crimes Bill
Y
Technology and Communication(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
10/22/2003
Reduction of SPAM bill
Y
09/25/2003
Do-Not-Call Registry bill
Y
09/16/2003
FCC Media Ownership bill
Y
Trade Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
09/19/2006
U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Y
06/29/2006
U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement
Y
07/28/2005
CAFTA Implementation Bill
N
06/30/2005
CAFTA Implementation Bill
N
07/07/2003
U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Y
07/07/2003
U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Y
08/01/2002
Trade Act of 2002
N
Transportation Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
07/29/2005
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
Y
05/17/2005
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
Y
02/12/2004
Highway Trust Fund bill
Y
06/12/2003
Aviation Administration FY2004-2006 Authorization bill
Y
09/21/2001
Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act
Y
Veterans Issues(Back to top)
Date
Bill Title
Vote
02/02/2006
Tax Rate Extension Amendment
Y
11/17/2005
Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment
Y
10/05/2005
Health Care for Veterans Amendment
Y
Vote Key
YNNVPYPN
YeaNayNot Voting, Excused, Absent, or PresentPair YeaPair NaySelection and Descriptions of Key Votes Program
Project Vote Smart provides easy access to Congressional and State voting records and maintains a collection of key votes grouped by issue. Key votes typically include the initial passage of legislation and final conference report votes versions (the compromised versions of bills passed in separate House and Senate version). PVS uses a criteria to select key votes:1. The vote should be helpful in portraying how a member stands on a particular issue2. The vote should be clear for any person to understand3. The vote has received media attention4. The vote was passed or defeated by a very close margin5. Occasionally, a specific bill is consistently inquired about on the PVS Hotline; the vote is added to the web site
Descriptions of the votes are written by PVS staff and based on information included in the Congressional Record and or State House and Senate Journals, with additional background information from newspapers, magazines, etc. PVS provides summaries for each selected key vote. The summary does not necessarily reflect the final version of the bill.
Key votes selected by PVS staff go through an approval process before web site posting, with political scientists and journalists of opposing viewpoints reviewing both the selection and the content. This is to ensure clarity, relevance, nonpartisanship and accuracy. After the approval process is completed, the votes are ready to go into the database and subsequently on-line.