This is an update to a prior article.
Since the end of the Speaker election, the United States House of Representatives has passed a simple resolution supporting Israel in the ongoing war with Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups. The resolution, H.Res. 771, was supported by 98% of the House.
In the roll-call vote, 412 representatives (95%) voted “yea,” 10 (2%) voted “nay,” 6 (1%) voted “present” (i.e. present but not voting), and 5 (1%) were absent. (Vote data are from GovTrack.us.) Because the resolution passed by such wide margins, the primary focus of this article is on those representatives who did not vote in favor of the resolution.
Among Republicans, support was nearly unanimous. 218 Republican representatives voted in favor (99%), one voted against the resolution (less than 1%), none voted “present,” and two (1%) did not vote.
The one Republican opponent was Thomas Massie, representing Kentucky's 4th district. He explained his vote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter; he “condemn[s] the barbaric attack on Israel and... affirm[s] Israel’s right to defend itself” but opposes the resolution as written because he believes it involves the United States too much in a foreign conflict.
Debbie Lesko, representing Arizona's 8th district, and Derrick Van Orden, from Wisconsin's 3rd district, did not vote. Mrs. Lesko stated that she would have voted in favor had she been present; her statement is found in the Congressional Record. It is on page H5064 of the Record, which corresponds to page 18 in the PDF file. Mr. Van Orden wrote a press release saying that he supports the resolution but was unable to vote because he is currently in Israel, meeting with Israeli officials and others to gather more information about the war.
Support among Democrats was also broad, although not by quite as large a margin as among Republicans. 194 Democrats (92% of the party) supported the resolution, while 9 (4%) voted against it. Six (3%) voted “present,” and three (1%) were not present.
No members of The Squad, a group of some of the most progressive House Democrats, voted in favor of the resolution; all voted either “nay” or “present.”
The following Democrats opposed the resolution:
Rep. Bowman released a statement, agreeing with H.Res. 771's condemnation of Hamas's invasion, while calling the resolution “pro-war and anti-peace” and saying he believes it is outdated. (It was introduced shortly after the war began; passage was delayed due to the removal of McCarthy as Speaker.) He said that the resolution “does not include the urgent need for de-escalation and prevention of ground invasion nor any humanitarian efforts.
Rep. Bush said in a statement that she believes an immediate ceasefire is necessary.
Rep. Carson has released a statement saying that he does condemn Hamas's invasion of Israel, but opposed this resolution because it “is horribly one-sided” and “fail[s] to acknowledge the growing loss of Palestinian lives” and that Hamas does not represent the beliefs of all Palestinians.
Rep. Green said in a statement prior to the vote that he “believe[s] that there is a moral imperative for this resolution to reiterate our longstanding commitment to the peace process, a two-state solution, and concern for the wellbeing of the Palestinian people,” suggested certain amendments, and said he would not support the resolution without them. As these amendments were not made, he opposed the resolution.
Rep. Lee published a press release expressing similar sentiments to several others, condemning Hamas's actions while opposing the resolution because it “does not acknowledge the overwhelming loss of life and humanity” and “moves us further from – not closer to – a just and lasting peace.”
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez does not seem to have made a statement specifically regarding this resolution, but she did publish a press release on October 9 condemning the attack and calling for a ceasefire.
Rep. Omar wrote a statement criticizing both Hamas and Israel and supporting a ceasefire.
Rep. Ramirez said in a press release that she also condemns Hamas's attack, but opposed the resolution because it “did not honor our shared humanity, did not advance a two-state solution, and did not recognize the interconnectedness of the Israeli and Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation and safety” and “[w]e cannot unequivocally support or condone the Israeli government’s collective punishment of the Palestinian people in Gaza.”
Rep. Tlaib said in a statement that she believes the resolution presents “a deeply incomplete and biased account of what is happening in Israel and Palestine, and what has been happening for decades.” She said that it “rightly mourns the thousands of Israeli civilians killed and wounded in the horrific attacks but explicitly does not mourn the thousands of Palestinian civilians, including over 2,000 children, killed and wounded in the collective punishment of Palestine.” (While it is true that the resolution does not mention any Palestinians killed in the war, her statement that it “explicitly does not mourn” Palestinians is not entirely accurate. The resolution unequivocally supports Israel, but it does not say that everything Israel has done is justified.)
These Democrats voted “present”:
Rep. Casar said in a thread on X (post #1; post #2) that while he cosponsored it when it was introduced, he did not vote in favor the resolution because “it chooses not to recognize the thousands of Palestinian deaths since Oct. 7,” reflecting a belief that it was outdated.
I was unable to find any statement from Rep. Castro.
Rep. Jayapal published a statement, saying in part that she “cannot in good conscience vote for a resolution that ignores [the civilian casualties] and the humanitarian impact on Palestinian civilians and their families as this war has unfolded and escalated,” while saying that she does still condemn Hamas's attack.
Rep. Pressley also published a statement explaining her vote. She holds a similar view to Rep. Jayapal, condemning Hamas's actions while believing that the resolution does not recognize the impacts of the war on civilians.
Rep. Velázquez, like Reps. Casar and Garcia, said in a press release that she initially cosponsored the resolution, but no longer supports it because it “does not acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians and the horrific toll the war has taken on the innocent people living in Gaza.” She also expressed support for “an immediate ceasefire.”
Rep. Correa does not appear to have made a statement on this resolution, but in a post on X on October 18 (a week before the vote on the resolution), he expressed support for Israel while emphasizing the importance of protecting civilians.
I could not find any statements from Rep. Gonzalez regarding the resolution. However, in a post on X about the Speaker vote which took place earlier the same day as the vote on the resolution, he said that he was absent due to the death of a family member.
Mr. Payne stated that he would have voted in favor of the resolution had he been present. His statement, along with that of Republican Debbie Lesko, who was also absent, can be found in the Congressional Record on page H5064 (numbered 18 in the linked PDF file).
In a shocking turn of events, a thread on QRZ.com's forums has led to an argument over the best means to attract youth to amateur radio. Also surprisingly, several posts criticized the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), which has, until now, always had the full support of every radio amateur in the country.
It is believed that this marks the first time the topic of encouraging young people to obtain licenses has ever been discussed in amateur radio circles; it is also the first argument to ever take place on “the Zed,” as the popular forum, which has always been entirely peaceful until now, is often called. The criticisms of the ARRL are also entirely new, and are certain to lead to extensive changes within the organization.
At publishing time, some users were beginning to complain about FT8; this is the first time anyone has ever expressed a negative opinion regarding the relatively new but very popular mode.
This is an updated version of a prior article.
Large majorities of members in both houses of the United States Congress, including all Senators, have expressed support for Israel in the ongoing war with Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups using simple resolutions. Although these resolutions are entirely symbolic, as they do not have the force of law, they do express the beliefs of individual members who support them, and the collective view of the entire House or Senate when passed.
Unless otherwise stated, all data in this article are from GovTrack.us and are current as of October 20, 2023.
The Senate has passed S.Res. 417, “A resolution standing with Israel against terrorism,” unanimously. The vote passed 97-0 with three Senators absent, but all 100 senators sponsored or cosponsored the resolution. (The three who were absent are simply listed as “Not voting” on GovTrack, but the Congressional Record for October 19 indicates that they were “necessarily absent.”) The resolution was introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York.
A new article on a House resolution regarding the war is available.
Two resolutions have been introduced into the House of Representatives to support Israel, and another calls for a ceasefire without expressly supporting either side. None of the resolutions have been voted on at this time, because the House cannot do normal business until it elects a replacement for former Speaker McCarthy, who was recently removed.
H.Res. 768, entitled “Standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists,” has 382 sponsors, comprising 88% of the House; this includes 197 Republicans, or 89% of the party, and 185 Democrats, or 87%. (Sponsorship counts include both the bills' primary sponsors and their cosponsors.) The primary sponsor is Representative Michael McCaul, who represents Texas's 10th congressional district. Representative McCaul is a Republican.
H.Res. 770, entitled “Condemning an act of war against Israel by Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and associated forces, and for other purposes,” has 44 sponsors, or 10% of the House. 32 Republicans, 14% of the party, and 12 Democrats, 6% of the party, sponsor this resolution. H.Res. 770 was introduced by Republican Representative Zach Nunn, representing Iowa's 3rd congressional district.
A total of 387 representatives (89% of the House), including 201 Republicans (91% of the party) and 186 Democrats (88% of the party) have sponsored one or both of the resolutions supporting Israel.
H.Res. 786, “Calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine”, has 17 sponsors, all Democrats, making up 4% of the entire House and 8% of Democrats. This resolution was introduced by Representative Cori Bush, who represents Missouri's 1st congressional district. Although it does not explicitly support Palestine or oppose Israel, the use of the phrase “occupied Palestine” in the title could be seen as loaded language against Israel.
Eight Democrats have cosponsored one or both pro-Israel resolutions as well as H.Res. 786. They make up 2% of the House and 4% of their party.
In the map below, congressional districts whose representatives have sponsored one or both of the pro-Israel resolutions and not the pro-ceasefire resolution are green, while the districts of those who have sponsored only the pro-ceasefire resolution are red. Districts of representatives who sponsored both the pro-ceasefire resolution and at least one of the pro-Israel resolutions are blue, and vacant districts and those whose representatives have not sponsored any of the resolutions are light gray. Click the map for a higher-resolution downloadable version.
United States Congressional Resolutions on Israel-Hamas War by Samuel Sloniker, including map created with MapChart, is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
An updated and expanded version of this article is available: United States Congressional Resolutions on Israel-Hamas War
Two resolutions have been introduced into the United States House of Representatives to support Israel in the ongoing war with Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups. Neither resolution has been voted on at this time.
H.Res. 768, entitled “Standing with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists,” has 382 sponsors, comprising 88% of the House; this includes 197 Republicans, or 89% of the party, and 185 Democrats, or 87%. (Sponsorship counts include both the bills' primary sponsors and their cosponsors. Both bills' primary sponsors are Republicans. All data is from GovTrack.us as of October 15, 2023.)
H.Res. 770, entitled “Condemning an act of war against Israel by Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and associated forces, and for other purposes,” has 44 sponsors, or 10% of the House. 32 Republicans, 14% of the party, and 12 Democrats, 6% of the party, sponsor this resolution.
A total of 387 representatives (89% of the House), including 201 Republicans (91% of the party) and 186 Democrats (88% of the party) have sponsored one or both of the resolutions.
(It is important to understand that, while sponsoring one or both of these resolutions is an expression of support for Israel, not sponsoring either does not indicate support for Hamas. No vote has been taken yet; representatives can support a bill or resolution without cosponsoring it.)
In the map below, congressional districts whose representatives have sponsored one or both of the resolutions are highlighted in blue, while those who have not sponsored either are red. Vacant districts that currently have no representative are light gray. Click the map for a higher-resolution downloadable version.
Sponsors of H.Res. 768 and H.Res. 770 to Support Israel by Samuel Sloniker, including map created with MapChart, is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
The image on the left is an annular solar eclipse, while the one on the right is a total eclipse. In an annular eclipse, the moon covers the center part of the sun, leaving a ring visible, while in a total eclipse, it covers the entire sun, allowing the faint solar corona to be seen.
Annular eclipse image by Smrgeog, used under CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Total eclipse image by Luc Viatour, used under CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Image comparison created with JuxtaposeJS by Northwestern University Knight Lab. Annular vs Total Solar Eclipse Comparison by Samuel Sloniker is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
There are currently two bills relating to #HamRadio in #Congress. Please contact your representative in favor of both! You can find your representative by ZIP code on the House of Representatives Web site. You should be able to find a phone number or office address on the representative's Web site; both phone calls and letters are helpful.
Remember to explain why amateur radio is important; a brief discussion of the use of ham radio for emergency communications helps to show the importance of these issues. If you have personally been affected by the rules that these laws would change, that is definitely helpful to mention.
Both of these bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives and are currently in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The Amateur Radio Communications Improvement Act would replace the current symbol-rate limit regulating digital modes with a bandwidth limit, which would be less restrictive and more effective.
Update, November 2023: H.R. 3241 is unlikely to pass, because the FCC is making the proposed changes independently, making this bill redundant.
The Amateur Radio Emergency Preparedness Act would override most homeowners' association restrictions on antennas.
Many people see amateur (ham) radio as an outdated method of communication in this era of cell phones and the Internet. However, it is far from obsolete. Ham radio still brings many benefits both to its users and to the general public.
First, amateur radio is useful for emergency communications. Although the global Internet is extraordinarily reliable, the local infrastructure used to access it is less dependable. Natural or human-caused disasters can damage cables and networking equipment, disconnecting affected areas from the Internet. Cell phone networks can suffer similar issues, and are also affected by overloading; often, when the network survives a disaster, the extremely high volume of calls resulting from the emergency makes it nearly unusable.
When local network infrastructure fails, ham radio operators can bridge the gap and provide temporary communication services. Many “hams” have completely self-contained portable stations including antennas, radios, and power sources such as batteries, solar panels, and generators; these stations do not require any local infrastructure to be functioning. The operator can use the station to relay information from the disaster area to another location with Internet access and vice versa, allowing those in the affected area to communicate with the outside world.
Ham radio can be affected by the same overloading issues as cell phones; the operators cannot, of course, handle an infinite amount of information. However, ham radio operators can overcome this problem in ways that cell networks cannot. Cell towers cannot tell the difference between an urgent request for medical supplies and a casual chat with a friend; the two calls will be handled with the same priority, possibly resulting in the less important call being connected but not the more important one. Calls to 911 or other emergency service numbers are generally prioritized, but automatic algorithms cannot detect all high-priority calls.
Ham radio can handle these situations much better because human operators are involved, not just computers that blindly relay information. Unlike cell towers, ham radio operators will prioritize traffic based on its importance. Urgent messages needed to save lives are handled first. Other messages that are important but less time-sensitive, such as “safe and well” reports from local residents informing loved ones outside the area that they have not been harmed, are given lower priority, while irrelevant messages may not be sent at all. Because ham radio operators prioritize traffic based on its importance, they can ensure that the most critical messages are delivered.
Emergency communication is not the only area in which ham radio is useful, however. It also has many educational benefits. Passing the exam to earn a license requires a basic understanding of electronics theory, and license upgrades that allow greater privileges require more in-depth knowledge; this can encourage operators to learn things that they would not have learned without ham radio. After obtaining a license, ham radio remains an excellent way to learn more about electronics and communications; there is always more for a ham radio operator to learn.
Ham radio can also help in learning about topics that seem unrelated to radio technology. Talking to other operators around the world is an excellent opportunity to learn about geography; it is interesting to learn about another country on a more personal level than would be possible from reading about the country in a book or online. Also, many organizations run “special event stations” commemorating historic events, providing an opportunity for other ham radio operators to learn about historical topics they would not have known about otherwise.
One final use for amateur radio is its benefit to international relations. By connecting people around the world with a common interest, it encourages friendly communication across geopolitical boundaries. This can be a helpful reminder that despite international disputes, the people of other countries have much in common with us. Although individual operators are unlikely to have a strong influence on international relations, ham radio can still help over time by promoting friendly interaction between operators living in different countries.
Ham radio has many important uses and benefits, including providing emergency communications, promoting education, and improving international relations. Even with today's technology, ham radio remains a useful hobby and means of communication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
I accidentally pulled the cord out of my #PineTime charging cradle. Thankfully, fixing it is quite easy. (Update, October 26: It's been working fine with this repair for over two months now.)
Opening the charging cradle case is normally difficult, but having the cord pulled out makes it much easier. Hold on to the top part, then insert a somewhat pointy object such as a pen into the hole where the cord goes. Push down with this object, and the bottom should separate from the top. Be sure not to lose the small rectangular piece of plastic with the hole; the cord goes through this.
There is a small PCB inside the charger. Remove the screw (it is a small Phillips screw); do not lose it. The PCB will lift up easily.
Push the cord through the small piece of plastic from step 1. This may be a bit difficult, because the cord barely fits through the hole. Push the piece of plastic a few centimeters/inches back for now; the exact distance doesn't matter.
Cut the wires from the cable to be about the same length, and strip them if needed. You only need a couple millimeters/less than an eighth of an inch of wire exposed; too much could make it difficult to avoid shorts.
Solder the wires to the solder connections on the PCB; do not solder to the large copper pads. Make sure you connect red to + and black to –.
Put the PCB back in the case (make sure the large copper pads line up with the pins) and fasten it with the screw.
Connect the cord to a USB power source and check the pins on the outside of the case with a multimeter set to measure DC voltage. When viewing the top of the charger with the pins up, the left pin should be positive and the right pin should be negative. The voltage should be approximately 5 V.
Put the cord back through the hole in the case. Move the small piece of plastic along the cord so it fits in the slot for it.
Put the bottom part of the case back on; be sure to put the side that holds the cord in the right place. There will not be a firm snap; the case should still stay together.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.