Slashdot Mirror

The recount only covered 175,000 of the 6 million votes. It only counted 'marked or blemished ballots'. They arranged the ballots so confusingly that 113,000 people voted for two people at the ballots. 79,000 chose Gore and a minor candidate, and 29k chose Bush and a minor candidate. (don't know how many chose both Bush and Gore but I should think blue and red are easier to tell apart)

http://web.archive.org/web/20040820122543/http://www.norc.org/fl/results/media/mediagroup_readme.txt

Even at that stage, the recounts drove down Bush's end result by nearly 400 points from 537 to 154

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11.html

They also arranged the ballots so confusingly that 113,000 people voted for two people at the ballots. 79,000 chose Gore and a minor candidate, and 29k chose Bush and a minor candidate. (don't know how many chose both Bush and Gore but I should think blue and red are easier to tell apart).

http://www.issues2000.org/Florida_Recount_Official.htm

Realistically, the Supreme Court ended things for a number of reasons. Firstly, if we had found out that Florida was cheated, then the whole integrity of the voting system, and public confidence in it, would have been shattered. Secondly, Bush had just been granted executive power over the Courts anyway.

Also, whilst the NSA have existed during Obama's watch, he certainly wasn't he person who put PRISM in place. Bush put PRISM together. First he tried to use the Protect America Act in 2005, then when he found that the wiretapping hole still wasn't open for the internet he later amended the FISA act despite a lot of resistance. Without those changes in law PRISM would have never been legal. Granted, Obama re-signed it, but at that point in time PRISM would have kept on running whether or not it was legal.

Source: Protect America Act: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm
(That's actually a NYT report, but NYT pulled it from their site in 2007) See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qYGbieoMM for lawsuits

Source FISA Amendments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/20/ST2008062001087.html Resistance: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/senate.fisa/

If we're going to assume conspiracy, put down the DEA, prisons, and drug cartels as behind it too

Not too far from the truth. Considering that the DEA has the power to declare drugs to be illegal, that they are employed to track down and arrest people who possess, produce, or sell illegal drugs, and have had their power expanded more than any other law enforcement agency because of the drug war, I do not think it is some crazy conspiracy theory to think that the DEA is part of the problem here. Nor is it crazy tho think that private prisoner operators are part of the problem -- they are making billions of dollars maintaining the largest prison population in the world.

Cartels, no -- because they have no real say over laws or politics in America, not because they would fail to push for the continuation of the war on drugs if they could.

I think the real reason is simply that too many people think

Already wrong -- alcohol prohibition was the result of stupid ideas about a drug, the war on drugs is a concerted, deliberate effort to achieve certain goals. People are fed plenty of propaganda, but the politicians and businessmen with the power to continue or end the drug war are not idiots. They know what they are doing, and they know why they area doing it, and they know that their approach is not based on what is best for the American people.

I think it is a more plausible explanation than blaming alcohol and tobacco companies (and I've heard pharmaceutical companies blamed too)

Oh yeah?

unless you have evidence that it is actually happening

Well, since you asked...

http://www.drugfree.org/about/our-partners/sponsors-supporters

Note the pharmaceutical companies. By the way, here are some of the people that alcohol and tobacco companies make big campaign contributions to:

• Richard Burr (received the most money from tobacco companies), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Richard_Burr_Drugs.htm
• Mitch McConnell (received the second most donations from tobacco companies), http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Mitch_McConnell_Drugs.htm
• George Allen (third most tobacco company donations), http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/George_Allen_Drugs.htm
• John Boehner (fourth most tobacco company donactions), http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/John_Boehner_Drugs.htm

Alcohol is a bit different, with the top recipients of alcohol industry donations having mixed voting records on drugs -- still plenty of support for military tactics, but less opposition to medical marijuana initiatives (there is a lot more to worry about, though -- let's not forget the hundreds of other prohibited drugs).

On the whole? Tobacco and pharmaceuticals are big supports of the war on drugs; alcohol companies are supportive but less so. That's just judging by a few minutes of Googling; I am sure a deeper investigation would reveal more.

party's members adopted their 2010â"2012 program at their online convention held in May 2010. Its five main points are 1) End the Wars of Aggression and withdraw US troops from around the world, 2) End the Federal Reserve Banking System, 3) End the War on Drugs, 4) End Abuses of Liberty such as the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act, 5) End the Immigration Fiasco by eliminating government restrictions on human migration.[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party_(political_party)

Ron Paul
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

Now mind you, it's not so much a "we support drugs", as it is "prohibition" is leading to organized crime, and for what....personal liberty of someone to ruin their life or not. They can ruin it perfectly with alcohol just as easily with heroine.

But the liberties we are losing because of the 'War on Drugs' - THAT IS THE ISSUE!

Ron Paul plans to abolish the TSA, break up DHS, and cut military spending by $832 during his first term.

Sounds like he's the man you're looking for.

I do not understand how the writer of that piece comes from ÂCSDÂ to the Church tax and then back to the higher taxes for the top 1% earners in America. You might read http://www.issues2000.org/Background_Tax_Reform.htm or http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/obama_wealthy_taxes/index.htm but keep track of the changes, there can be changes, and the new president (whoever) is not yet there, normally stuff changes after inauguration :)

What I don't get is why geeks would want someone as US President whose main focus will be to increase the role of government and tax the people who work hard. It seems to me that successful, hard-working professionals would rather have someone who will focus on less government and lower taxes rather than more government.

I mean lets look at McCain vs Obama on Taxes. McCain wants to keep taxes low across the board and cut federal spending. Obama wants to cut taxes for people earning less than $75k a year and increase taxes for those earning more than $250k a year and he says he will increase federal spending.

We already know that the government is terrible at managing money, why would we vote for anyone who wants the government to have MORE control over money? The candidate that is committed to REDUCING the US government is the one that I'll be voting for and that sure as hell isn't Barack Obama.

To those people who say "well what about the poor and unfortunate"? How about we, as a society, get off our butts and help our fellow man directly? I work at a non-profit agency that provides services to a poverty-stricken inner-city and I can tell you from experience that direct volunteers and assistance are FAR more effective than government intervention. The government is lazy, riddled with too many layers of bureaucracy, wasteful, slow, and ineffective. The organizations that do the best are the ones which get direct assistance from individual volunteers and corporate assistance. One of the main reasons we have so many problems with poverty is the fact that we want to government to solve all our problems.

The mindset of "let the government tax the successful and help the unfortunate" is the wrong idea. It squanders resources by passing them through multiple layers of bureaucracy and it encourages people gaming the system to their advantage. The problems of society will only be helped when more members of society take it upon themselves to directly help those around them. Passing this responsibility off to the government does nothing but further rot our already fragile country.

What I don't get is why geeks would want someone as US President whose main focus will be to increase the role of government and tax the people who work hard. It seems to me that successful, hard-working professionals would rather have someone who will focus on less government and lower taxes rather than more government.

I mean lets look at McCain vs Obama on Taxes. McCain wants to keep taxes low across the board and cut federal spending. Obama wants to cut taxes for people earning less than $75k a year and increase taxes for those earning more than $250k a year and he says he will increase federal spending.

We already know that the government is terrible at managing money, why would we vote for anyone who wants the government to have MORE control over money? The candidate that is committed to REDUCING the US government is the one that I'll be voting for and that sure as hell isn't Barack Obama.

To those people who say "well what about the poor and unfortunate"? How about we, as a society, get off our butts and help our fellow man directly? I work at a non-profit agency that provides services to a poverty-stricken inner-city and I can tell you from experience that direct volunteers and assistance are FAR more effective than government intervention. The government is lazy, riddled with too many layers of bureaucracy, wasteful, slow, and ineffective. The organizations that do the best are the ones which get direct assistance from individual volunteers and corporate assistance. One of the main reasons we have so many problems with poverty is the fact that we want to government to solve all our problems.

The mindset of "let the government tax the successful and help the unfortunate" is the wrong idea. It squanders resources by passing them through multiple layers of bureaucracy and it encourages people gaming the system to their advantage. The problems of society will only be helped when more members of society take it upon themselves to directly help those around them. Passing this responsibility off to the government does nothing but further rot our already fragile country.

Q: Bush's energy bill provided billions of dollars in tax breaks & subsidies to the oil companies with the goal of boosting domestic production at a time of record profits. Do you support that?

A: I don't think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they're legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don't think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn.

You are correct on Ron Paul's chance of winning for the wrong reason. Ron Paul does indeed have a low probability of winning. The reason is he is a moderate 'small l' libertarian Republican. Conservative Republicans won't like that as he wouldn't be conservative, while the leftist Democrats won't like him as he is a Republican and he is not a leftist. The problem I see with Mike Gravel is he is way too far to the left. Heck He is further than Hillary Clinton. Any further to the left and he will be touching Rush Limbaugh who is on the extreme right, which makes him much more scary.

http://issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
http://issues2000.org/Mike_Gravel.htm

Personally, I prefer to vote for anyone closest to the middle. I don't care which party they are running under because the party affiliation does not matter. Heck, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger is actually more to the left than the former Democratic Governor Grey Davis.

You are correct on Ron Paul's chance of winning for the wrong reason. Ron Paul does indeed have a low probability of winning. The reason is he is a moderate 'small l' libertarian Republican. Conservative Republicans won't like that as he wouldn't be conservative, while the leftist Democrats won't like him as he is a Republican and he is not a leftist. The problem I see with Mike Gravel is he is way too far to the left. Heck He is further than Hillary Clinton. Any further to the left and he will be touching Rush Limbaugh who is on the extreme right, which makes him much more scary.

http://issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
http://issues2000.org/Mike_Gravel.htm

Personally, I prefer to vote for anyone closest to the middle. I don't care which party they are running under because the party affiliation does not matter. Heck, Republican Governor Schwarzenegger is actually more to the left than the former Democratic Governor Grey Davis.

Maybe he is implying that since Gore likely wouldn't have invaded Iraq, we'd have an extra third of trillion or so in the budget to help out NOLa.
I don't think Democrats are gods gift to my personal freedom, far from it. I only vote for democrats because they are the lesser of two evils. They have in the last 30 years shown themselves to be more financially prudent. They also dont invade third world countries.

If it were up to me all uniformed police would have to wear cameras and mics at all times so we could all watch the watchers. The government would stop spying on it's own people. We would legalize all the silly vices (sex, drugs) and tax them instead. The government would spend hundreds of billions on public transit and getting us off of foreign oil, not on trying to force democracies on countries that crave theocracies.

Most days I just wish we had a parliamentary system ala Iraq or Sweden where smaller parties could actually have a say, as there is no greater personal freedom then castinv a vote that actually counts.

For those wondering who Ed Markey is- he is a Representative (D- 7th district,MASS) who was going to run for Kerry's seat in the Senate until Kerry lost. He is the ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._Markey
http://markey.house.gov/
http://www.issues2000.org/MA/Ed_Markey.htm

Bob Barr: very conservative Republican
Voting Record on Issues 2000

Pat Schroeder: Democrat; pro-copyright, but also pro-access to information
http://www.iastate.edu/~cccatt/p%20schroeder.html" >Women's studies article
Wikipedia

Ralph Nadar:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/501/501p13b. htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Ralph_Nader_China.htm

He advocated trade restrictions with China in the name of human rights, and free trade with Cuba in the name of human rights. Millions of people voted for him the first time he ran. And hundreds of thousands voted for him in the last election.

Also, the search isn't working properly on the website, but I have personally spoken with a representative of International Answer, and they support lifting all sactions against Cuba, and restricting trade with China due to human rights concerns. Here is there website:
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
International Answer recently got a group of 300,000 to protest at the White House, so I can only assume many hundreds of thousands, if not millions who support their policies.

Also read the articles on http://www.socialismtoday.org/ ... Trade with China is only covered as something that is bad, or at least should be done with great caution. Any restrictions with Cuba are presented as absolutly evil.

Plus, I have first hand knowledge. About half the people I know who want to end trade restrictions with Cuba, want to put trade restrictions on China.

I can say with absolute certainly, that millions of people think that U.S. shouldn't trade with China, but should trade with Cuba. In fact, that is pretty much the typical belief amoung self proclaimed progressives in the U.S.. Look at the posts on Slashdot.

But enough of this arguement... You still haven't answered my question. Why do "politically correct" people believe that free trade with China is bad, but that free trade with Cuba is good. I can see being against both (which I suspect is your position, but you seem to be avoiding saying your positon). And I can see being for both (which I am for).

Cheney never said anything like that and his record suggests it is unlikely he ever would.

But perhaps it's because you've unfairly maligned our C-in-C. He believes (quoting from the above URL) that global warming is "an issue that we need to take very seriously." For making such a bold claim, he deserves a doctorate in science! (Btw, I recall him not only admitting the reality that is global warming, but also admitting that it was due to anthropogenic factors. Unfortunately, I cannot find this quote.)

Oh no wait. He supported the war in Iraq.

So close...

Say what you want about Dan Quayle he at least had
a really solid plan for space exploration.
And although he had his problems ( a few, ok more than a few,this post is
about the message not the messenger:) this was the only espoused program that
would have really had a chance to "get us off this rock". He at one
point even talked about the "conversion" of 1/2 of the military budget to the
space program (who would do that now?) we need to take this
seriously, it sucks being at the bottom of a gravity
well..

Poor choice of words? Maybe, but Wired misquoted (libel!) him and put the word "Invented" in his mouth.

Actually, it is said that Dick Armey misquoted Gore. And strangely enough, our heavily biased liberal media did not correct the lies of Bush when he repeated the libel (would maybe have been an idea to stop the liar with his first "innocent" lie instead the lies to follow where people ended up dying or losing jobs). Anyway, you get what you vote for.

People get worked up about it because it was used during the 2000 election by right-wing pundits (yes, I mean *you*, Peggy Noonan) to "prove" that Al Gore was a serial liar who couldn't be trusted with the presidency.

The "funny" thing is that Bush has shown himself to be a serial liar, from Iraq to the real reason they want to "save" social security (and I can mention many more examples if anyone needs any help). Also ironic that under Bush's "leadership" the government will cut the funding of DARPA research which Gore as a younger politician played an important part to get started. Should make some of those nerds who laughed at the cheerleaders internet jokes think again.

"I took the initiative in creating the Internet"

A report by Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (the Vinton Cerf who created the Ethernet networking technology) says:

"Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development."

Gore was the major player in converting the military DarpaNet to the private sector NSFNet which is, for all practical purposes, the birth of the Internet as we know it today. That's a really big deal.

The "created the internet" quote is a partisan distortion created by Republican Dick Armey and picked up by the press because the real quote was too boring. Shame on those who ignorantly repeat it.

There is no SS crisis.

Al gore said it was only solvent until 2050 - And the Democrats savaged bush 4 years ago on it...

I know - Bush is in office so the rules have changed - Like they did when Clinton was happy to point out a Bomber Pilot fighting for our freedom in the skies of Iraq during a SOTU address..

The public has a hard enough time in most first world nations keeping the governments that are over them in check, now imagine a global bureacracy. Ever wonder why it is that so many parties are opposed to the WTO? The irony of it is that the WTO, GATT, NAFTA and other deals are opposed usually by the most rabidly capitalist groups for this very reason. It's usually the "moderates" (whatever the hell that means), "liberals" (in America) and others with no strong support of property rights that support these groups. Michael Badnarik for example, opposed our involvement in all three of those groups and probably the UN as well for those reasons.

Face it, global government exists only to serve global elites. If you think that the UN really cares about the poor and destitute, then ask why Kofi Annan and company were personally involved in the Oil for Food scandal. "Mr. America sucks because we're rich and powerful" who then turns around and dips from a food fund for poor, literally starving Iraqi children. This is the face of global government. He won't get nailed by the ICC, but private Joe Smith who shoots a civilian under questionable circumstances will be all but denied due process under the ICC.

Global government: the worst of capitalism and communism mixed together under one roof, with no accountability and ultimately no pretense of the rule of real law.

Link to debunking of lie.

Boy is Al Gore gonna be pissed when he heards that microsoft is trying to steal his thunder. Those bastards!

Link 1
Link 2
Just a couple of examples.

Hillary is not that liberal, actually she is a centrist. It's people like Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh that call her liberal, heck, they even call people like Evan Bayh and John Mccain liberals, and Fox News a Liberal News Org.

Kerry gets an F from the, he sponsored and voted for many pieces of legislation that I consider illegal and on the road to totalitarianism. He voted yes on legislation to ban ALL CENTERFIRE.

Several bolt guns (centerfire) and pistols (centerfire). Don't you ever call yourself a real gun owner. You know nothing in the fight against the erosion of rights. The plan of attack by Totalitarians is to eat away at rights, registration here, pistol grip there, here there everywhere until everything is black powder, shotguns and bolts. Then they ALL get banned. I would be happy to let them have machine guns, EDs, and other things that are perceived by the public as menacing (however rarely they are used in crime doesn't seem to matter.)

Now that gun grabbing totalitarians are controlling Washington, I plant to get as much NFA/Class III gear as I can possibly amass. I would buy an M@-HB if I could, just to piss you off.

John Kerry gets an F in Civil rights because the NRA give him an F on his voting record. PERIOD. END.

John Kerry is not a sportsman or a gun lover. He is going duck hunting to gets idoits like you to actually believe he didn't vote against guns owners TIME and TIME again (whenever he actually bothered to show up and vote).

John Kerry Wants to Ban Guns in America

John Kerry's Voting Record on Second Amendment and Hunting Issues

John Kerry on Gun Control

Just for balance, the National Rifle Association, based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2002, Senator Kerry was assigned a grade of F based on a scale of A+ to a low of F. Not to be outdone, Gun Owners of America grade him F- (yes, that's a "minus" sign!).

If you can't see Kerry's lame hunting trip as a ruse, you are a complete idiot.

I'm furious with Arnold banning .50BMG guns in California, let alone with the stuns Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy have pulled against gun owners. They are the 4 most ANTI GUN senators today. This FACT supported by GOA, NRA, Voting Records, JPFO, etc. FACTS DONT LIE.

You are a horribly uniformed voter and you will lead to totalitarianism in the USA. You could never be a Libertarian with your communist views on Gestapo like agencies like the Treasury, BATF, FBI and totalitarian LEOs crushing the American people with superior force.

Get this straight, buddy, the Federalist Papers put the framers intent in perspective. READ THEM before you bleat about what the framer's intent was. YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Think of it this way, when the US was born, the weapons what people owned were identical to what the military owned. As time passed, totalitarians and federalists made it so the government can easily crush the people.

You support totalitarianism and your position is indefensible. Maybe when you are being shoved into a crematorium by an Islamo-fascist alive you'll finally realize what an ass you are.

Join the Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership!

Judging from his gun record (banning tools because of how they are used) Kerry will go full force into banning things

What record? Kerry has never voted to ban any gun, except for the Brady Bill, which is something that President Bush claims to support also.

Kerry's got the NRA against him because he supported gun show background checks, and wanted to force manufacturers to include complimentary trigger locks.

"Sure, he got short term growth that looked great for a little while, but when it crashed, it crashed hard.

Um, no, you are wrong, unless you consider the longest period of economic expansion in the history of the country to be "short term growth that looked great for a little while", wow, by lacking even basic economic knowledge, you sure do make Bush supporters look dumb.

Go back and learn some basic econimics, then we will talk.

damn it...Here is the link.

Just visit Issue s 2000 (2004)</a> and checkout how candidates voted on technology issues.

The candidates may not ask each other direct questions, but may ask rhetorical questions.

Basically, this is where one politician tries to be dramatic by saying "I pledge today that I will never X; will my opponent be willing to agree to this pledge also?"

A famous example was in the Hillary Clinton/Rick Lazio debate for Senate from New York in 2000. Rick Lazio came with a written pledge to not taken any soft money. He literally demanded that Hillary Clinton sign it right then, during the debate. She offered to "shake on it" instead.

It's dramatic enough so that it gets mentioned on the news, and in theory it's supposed to make people think "that pledge sounds reasonable, why won't the other candidate approve it?" The danger is that the person insisting on the pledge will look like an aggressive, petty jerk.

In theory, since the rules for these debates state that the candidates can't ask each other questions, they couldn't ask them to sign a pledge anyway. They could say "I have a signed pledged here for X; I wonder if my opponent will be willing to sign the same pledge." It's technically not a question...

...comparing him to Hitler...

This is one of those myths that has been busted time and time again, but thick-headed conservatives nonetheless spew the lies and thus perpetuate them.

To make the myth more concrete, conservatives believe MoveOn.org, a 527 group clearly connected in some way with the Democratic party (yes, this is itself wrong, but talk to your Congressman about Campaign Finance Reform if you want something to be done about it) ran an ad comparing Bush to Hitler. Here's what really happened--here's the background the soundbite-obsessed Fox News anchors can't dig into because they aren't real journalists.

MoveOn.org ran a content called Bush in 30 Seconds. It was a content that allows ANYONE to submit an ad to MoveOn.org, and the ads would be showcased on the website while voting took place. The ad with the most votes would be aired by MoveOn.org.

Two of the OVER 1,500 ads compared Bush to Hitler. You can see these two ads here and here.

Now, in case we are forgetting, let me remind you of the correct interpretation of the first amendment--in order for there to be freedom of speech, there has to be freedom of speech even for ideas you don't like . Sure, most people absolutely hate even the mention of Hitler, but by censoring those people who use his image or make comparisons to him, we violate the first amendment right in all cases. There are some legal exceptions (the famous "fighting words" case among others).

That said, I am just reminding you that even these two amateur filmmakers did nothing wrong within the law, which sometimes isn't clear to people who don't truly respect constitutional rights.

The bottom line, however, is that MoveOn.org never aired these ads because people never voted them to the top. So, although you can fault these two amateur filmmakers for this film, you can't fault the democratic party, "democrats" at large, or even MoveOn.org. It would be like faulting Salon.com (or "the liberal media") if on one of their Forums I posted a message that said Bush reminds me of Hitler.

Plus, I find this somewhat ridiculous because one could easily turn this around. Conservative "figureheads" have made the same kinds of comparisons in the past. Look no further than Rush Limbaugh who, at least once, used the term "feminazis" to describe feminists, and called abortion "the modern-day holocaust." This is from his published book in 1992. I am positive that most moral theorists and philosophers would find serious problems with that equivalence claim, regardless of their standpoint on abortion. Contrast this to the two ads posted on MoveOn.org, and you find one very important distinction. The ads on MoveOn.org focus on Hitler's power in using propaganda, his military force abroad and his rhetoric saying that he is driven by God. These particular aspects of Hitler's character could be argued to be found in George W. Bush. However, the comparison is unfair because it seeks emotional manipulation and deception, in that whenever someone thinks of Hitler, one thinks immediately of the holocaust and pure evil (thus, the mental connection, whatever the intention, becomes "Bush is this evil murderous leader"). But you have to admit that Limbaugh's comparison is much worse, because he effectively says that feminists are evil, murderous people, conducting their own holocaust. A clear distinction.

But, I won't fault him for that. After all, he is just one person, one viewpoint. It's his right of speech. And that means I can't say, "because Rush Limbaugh said it, it is mainstream conservati

Outsource your local Congressman this November. Colorado just outsourced, replaced, it's 20 year Congressman, Bob Shaffer, in it's recent primary election. 20 YEARS! Yahoo!

We did it! You can too, this November.

http://outsourcecongress.com/

1) GO TO http://issues2000.org/
2) Click on your State.
3) Scroll down to IMMIGRATION. If your Congressman voted yes on mass immigration VISA bills ...
4) Vote 'em out.

The benefits of Outsourcing Congress is tremendous! :)

As much as everyone's chuckled at it, myself included, it's worth clearing up the Gore thing, especially in light of who made it to the White House instead.

He pitched in, and was one of the proponents of making what was once the rather 'closed' (or at least, nonprofit save for the likes of BBN) ARPANet a full public resource. What we can gather from the sweep of history is that he probably believed that, as such a resource (even one used for commerce), it should be policed to the same extent as the public airwaves (note amateur radio's longstanding restrictions against 'profanity' and the use of cryptography), and, er, the media at large -- gotta protect those kids. That was, of course, his mistake; "the Internet" of today doesn't run on limited public spectrum so much as a theoretically 'unlimited' set of private wires, and while it couldn't have been built in the form we know it without the ARPANet, the First Amendment and property rights rather, erm, 'rightly' intervened, to a greater extent than they were previously able to in the limited broadcast-media bandwidth.

If you look at his other 'initiatives,' it's obvious he's a futurist of sorts, albeit one who might not realize his 'great ideas' have often already been implemented to degrees. Of course, he was proposing more of a national art project than anything else (follow the reference chain from here, if you wish),
but his 'backing' attracted funding for a technically useful climate-monitoring mission that's now complete and awaiting a slot for launch.

[No, don't look at me... I voted Libertarian.]

Dig around the Jesse Ventura link, basically, he backed off of the death penalty once it became his decision. I would imagine there are many similar examples...

http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm

The chart on that page explicitly says "% T/O of VAP=Percent Turnout of Voting Age Population". That has nothing to do with the registered population. It's just (# of voters) / (approx. # of citizens over 18).

Interestingly enough, the percentage of registered voters who actually vote is typically much higher (around 80%+). Some info from the 2000 election.

Here and here

The taller candidate usually wins. Not that I've gone and checked the numbers myself, but it's an interesting theory that gains a lot of credence in light of this artice.

Voting and giving money are great- but I wouldn't give the money to politicians. Try to find a politician who has the slightest clue what's going on with patents, copyright, etc. You mention Howard Dean, and perhaps he's "in the know." But to support him, I'd be supporting a host of other things I find abhorrent. And try to find me other candidates who are familiar with the issues around 1-click, the Micky Mouse Protection Act, Carnivore, Direct TV lawsuits, or DeCSS.

Give your money to the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) if you want to support the right side of these kinds of issues. For other issues, you may may want to give money to CATO, the ACLU, the Friedman Foundation, or whatever nonprofit actively supports what you believe in. You can usually trust them to spend the money fighting fairly particular fights.

But almost any donation to a candidate is a donation in favor of pork-barrel spending. It doesn't matter if they're Democrats or Republicans. In addition to whatever issues a politician purports to support (and check their Voting Record to see if they even do what they say), they probably vote for massive pork-barrel spending. Almost every politician does. That's why the national debt is increasing at $1,200,000 a minute right now. (OK, the debt's increasing because taxing 30% of the GDP doesn't begin to cover the actual spending.

I also strongly agree with the other reply to this parent saying to tell other people. Although if some of these people somewhere along the line don't either vote or give money, it won't do much.

Yeah, Dean did Lessig's blog, big deal.

Before you run to vote for him, you should know his positions, most of which are not compatible with liberty.

Dean fully supports the failed War on Drugs.

Dean wants "More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War".

Dean supports a socialist command economy for medical services.

Dean even calls Bush Jr. "isolationist" in regard to his foreign policy! If Bush Jr. is an isolationist, I don't want to find out what Dean thinks is going to far in interfering with other countries soverignty. Dean says "we intend to enforce our view of the world", in regard to trade policies.

He also supports requiring sales tax collection for all sales on the Internet. He opposes all measures to reduce the size or power of the federal government through cutting taxes. He asserts that most people want to pay more taxes, because we all just love big brother that much.

Yeah, Dean might have good views on gun control, abortion, and some technology issues, but in the end, he is not really concerned with liberty, in any meaningful sense.

Yeah, Dean did Lessig's blog, big deal.

Before you run to vote for him, you should know his positions, most of which are not compatible with liberty.

Dean fully supports the failed War on Drugs.

Dean wants "More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War".

Dean supports a socialist command economy for medical services.

Dean even calls Bush Jr. "isolationist" in regard to his foreign policy! If Bush Jr. is an isolationist, I don't want to find out what Dean thinks is going to far in interfering with other countries soverignty. Dean says "we intend to enforce our view of the world", in regard to trade policies.

He also supports requiring sales tax collection for all sales on the Internet. He opposes all measures to reduce the size or power of the federal government through cutting taxes. He asserts that most people want to pay more taxes, because we all just love big brother that much.

Yeah, Dean might have good views on gun control, abortion, and some technology issues, but in the end, he is not really concerned with liberty, in any meaningful sense.

Yeah, Dean did Lessig's blog, big deal.

Before you run to vote for him, you should know his positions, most of which are not compatible with liberty.

Dean fully supports the failed War on Drugs.

Dean wants "More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War".

Dean supports a socialist command economy for medical services.

Dean even calls Bush Jr. "isolationist" in regard to his foreign policy! If Bush Jr. is an isolationist, I don't want to find out what Dean thinks is going to far in interfering with other countries soverignty. Dean says "we intend to enforce our view of the world", in regard to trade policies.

He also supports requiring sales tax collection for all sales on the Internet. He opposes all measures to reduce the size or power of the federal government through cutting taxes. He asserts that most people want to pay more taxes, because we all just love big brother that much.

Yeah, Dean might have good views on gun control, abortion, and some technology issues, but in the end, he is not really concerned with liberty, in any meaningful sense.

Yeah, Dean did Lessig's blog, big deal.

Before you run to vote for him, you should know his positions, most of which are not compatible with liberty.

Dean fully supports the failed War on Drugs.

Dean wants "More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War".

Dean supports a socialist command economy for medical services.

Dean even calls Bush Jr. "isolationist" in regard to his foreign policy! If Bush Jr. is an isolationist, I don't want to find out what Dean thinks is going to far in interfering with other countries soverignty. Dean says "we intend to enforce our view of the world", in regard to trade policies.

He also supports requiring sales tax collection for all sales on the Internet. He opposes all measures to reduce the size or power of the federal government through cutting taxes. He asserts that most people want to pay more taxes, because we all just love big brother that much.

Yeah, Dean might have good views on gun control, abortion, and some technology issues, but in the end, he is not really concerned with liberty, in any meaningful sense.

"I never had sex with that woman"

Just a quick note -- Nader does want to take your guns away, in similar proportion to the Democrats.

That the drug laws, many of which I criticize, violate the Commerce Clause, is goofy, unless you place yourself above sixty years of Supreme Court law. (Literally 60 years -- see Wickard.) The Commerce Clause is what the courts say it is, according to the Constitution.

Trivially, the Dems didn't originate the antiterrorism laws, though they did acquiesce in them.

It's common knowledge that building and owning a house is associated with homosexuality. As a devout Christian, I think it's my duty to explain to my fellow Slashdot readers the implications of this article.

You probably think I'm a fundamentalist Christian. But I'm not. I actually consider myself to be a forward-thinking bleeding-heart liberal. It's my opinion that, when Darwin invented Linux, it was the best thing that could happen to computers. While many Christians see Darwin as an enemy to the religion, I see him as the future.

You may be wondering what I am here to tell you. I'm here to say that homosexuality is not OK. And you shouldn't buy this book. You're probably saying to yourself, "But this book was written by a man and his wife." It looks like that at first glance, but here's a real picture of "Elaine".

Copyright © 2001 Michael D. Crawford. Permission is granted to reproduce this document provided it is copied verbatim, in its entirety and that this copyright statement is preserved.

I just feel the need to write right now. Something has gone terribly wrong with the country I was raised to love. The good things that America stands for are being trampled into the dirt by those charged with the burden of protecting them.

I was raised to be a patriotic American. I grew up a military brat - my father was a proud officer of the United States Navy, who served in the Vietnam War. When I was young, I was always told that my father was fighting to preserve the freedoms that were guaranteed us by the United States Constitution.

In the first grade, I attended a school run by the U.S. Navy in Gaeta, Italy, where my father was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Springfield. Each day when we started school we sang patriotic songs and said the Pledge of Allegiance. We were told that America stood for freedom and democracy and justice.

I loved America for what it stood for.

I was told that things like political persecution, detainment without trial, and beating of prisoners were things that happened in other countries, that they would never happen in America. I was told that we fought the American Revolution and wrote the Constitution specifically to ensure such things would never again happen in America.

But today I see the ugly face of repression rising in America. And it is brought to you by the United States Government.

I am not proud to be an American today. I understand well why people in many other countries hate America. I love America, but I despise what it is rapidly becoming.

Something must be done about this.

There are many things that move me to write this, but what moved to me write this right now is that a member of a registered political party was singled out for harassment, first by American Airlines and then by the United States National Guard because of the opinions she holds.

Nancy Oden, one of the U.S. Green Party's top officials, was traveling to a Green Party national meeting from her hometown airport in Bangor, Maine. She had published a statement that calls for Universal Health Care, limitations on free trade, and a stop to the bombing of Afghanistan.

When she got to the American Airlines ticket counter she was told that there was a record in AA's computer indicating that she should be searched anytime she tried to fly.

During the search, she tried to help the security agent with a stuck zipper. The agent grabbed her arm and she pulled it away. The National Guard instructed the airline not to let her fly. The airline told all the other airlines not to let her fly. She was unable to attend the Green Party meeting.

So an official of a registered political party in the supposedly democratic United States was prevented from participating in the political process because her name had been recorded in a computer as someone who should be treated with suspicion.

I fear what America has become.

Also upsetting to me is the recent decision of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons to allow eavesdropping on attorney-client conversations as well as opening of their mail. Read the ACLU press release opposing this.

From the Washington Post article U.S. Will Monitor Calls to Lawyers:

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft approved the eavesdropping rule on an emergency basis last week, without the usual waiting period for public comment. It went into effect immediately, permitting the government to monitor conversations and intercept mail between people in custody and their attorneys for up to a year at a time.

The right to a vigorous legal defense is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It is one of the bulwarks that comes between official repression and those who are repressed, underprivileged, despised, outcast, or working for legitimate political change. You can read about the guarantee of legal representation in our Constitution:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I don't have a URL to link you to ( mail me one), but I read that among the hundreds of "suspects" and "material witnesses" rounded up in the days after September 11, many were held without charge and some were beaten by their jailers. Also some were held without being given access to attorneys or their families. I thought that could not happen here...

The recently signed USA PATRIOT act is an assault on our civil liberties the likes of which have not been seen in decades.

Read the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Analysis of USA PATRIOT Act, which largely discusses the law's impact on online activities - did you know that the government can now spy on the key words you search for at search engines like Google and AltaVista? Because computer cracking is now considered terrorism, searching for exploitz can result in your lengthy imprisonment.

The truth is the first victim of war.

Shortly after the September 11th attacks, President Bush said something to the effect that the reason the U.S. was attacked was because the terrorists hated our freedom, and that we must fight the terrorists in order to preserve it.

But Osama bin Laden does not care either way about our freedom. He has made it very clear why he hates the U.S., and none of this has been acknowledged by any official statements that I have heard. What bin Laden objects to are the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the land of the holy city of Mecca, U.S. support for Israel's repression of the Palestinians, and the continued U.S. bombing of Iraq. More than anything, he feels that the presence of U.S. troops in the Islamic Holy Land is a sacrilege.

Whatever your position is on bin Laden's objections to the U.S., you must agree that it is wrong for our President to lie to us. Get informed, and work to understand the complexities behind the enmity between the Islamic and Western world. It's not as simple as our government would have us believe.

You might be interested to know what the Pentagon is doing to improve the United States' image in the Islamic world. Well, I'll tell you. It has taken out a $400,000 contract with Madison Avenue public relations firm The Rendon Group in an effort to help it "orient to the challenge of communication to a wide range of groups around the world". In addition, former advertising executive Charlotte Beers has been apointed to the post of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, a position she qualifies for because of her previous work promoting such products as Head & Shoulders shampoo.

Read about it in Propaganda Wars.

Well, its comforting to know that we'll be winning friends in Central Asia by showing professionally produced TV commercials depicting friendly Americans in between the news reports of mutilated and starving Afghani children.

If you, like myself, feel that something is wrong with America these days, or with whatever country you find yourself in, speak out about it.

In this troubled times, speaking openly to inform others of injustice or to protest may result in a backlash against you from government officials or others. Please read this speech on the importance of speaking your mind. Have courage - it is only by having the courage to speak and to work against injustice that we can prevent it from getting a lot worse.

Among the ways you can speak out

• Participate in online communities
• Send email to people you know
• Write web pages like this one and post the URL around
• Write letters to the editors of your local newspapers
• Staple leaflets to bulletin boards in your community
• Pass out leaflets in public places
• Call in to talk radio shows

Secondly, participate in what we have left of the democratic process. Our government has at least the appearance of having been elected, and the easiest way to make a change is to vote out the ones who have brought this upon us.

• Volunteer for political candidates you believe in
• Get a bunch of voter registration cards and stand in a public place to register voters
• Donate money to political candidates and parties who respect civil liberties
• Vote
• Write letters to your elected representatives. While you can send email, Congress gets so much spam that they pretty much ignore email these days. Instead, you can find your Congressperson's postal address at www.congress.org - write them a paper letter.

Use encryption to protect your privacy. Please read my page Why You Should Use Encryption as well as my letter Protect Your Rights with Encryption.

You can get encryption software for free - you can use either Pretty Good Privacy or The GNU Privacy Guard. Both offer excellent, military strength protection of your data, and the source code to each is freely available so that programmers are able to inspect it for security defects and back doors.

Teach the people you correspond with to use encryption.

Teach people who work for political change to use encryption. If you don't think political candidates and their staff need to use encryption, you're too young to remember Nixon's Plumbers getting caught breaking into the Watergate Hotel to wiretap the Democratic National Committe.

Join organizations that work to protect civil liberties. Among these are:

• The American Civil Liberties Union - Join Here
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation - Join Here - the EFF works to protect our civil liberties in the online world, including working to ensure that the work of computer programmers is protected as free speech under the First Amendment, thereby ensuring you access to software that guards your security and privacy.
• The Center for Democracy and Technology - Get Involved - working "to promote democratic values and constitutional liberties in the digital age"
• The Electronic Privacy Information Center - Donate Here - "established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.

One might think, and one certainly hopes, that the ultimate safeguard against these threats to our civil liberties lies with the Supreme Court of the United States. But I am not so certain myself. The Supreme Court has ruled against the dictates of law and the Constitution during other troubled periods in our nation's history.

And we should remember that the current President received a minority of the popular vote and was only declared to have a majority of the Electoral Vote after an obviously politically motivated ruling by the Supreme Court, a decision that has few pretenses of being based on the rule of law. Even had all the ballots been counted, enough Black Florida citizens were prevented from going to the polls that the election would clearly have gone for Gore had they been allowed to exercise their right to vote.

As said in the dissenting opinion by Justices Stevens, Ginsberg and Breyer in Bush v. Gore (note - this is an Adobe Acrobat document):

What must underlie petitioners' (nb. - George W. Bush') entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

We must work together to restore the rule of law in our country - or we shall surely suffer for it. If you do not agree that Fascism can arise in the United States, take heed of the fact that Adolf Hitler was elected as the leader of his country too.

November 12, 2001

Too bad that, in most cases, companies don't clean themselves up; they convince local government to establish c o r p o r a t e 'wealthfare' programs that force the public's tax money to foot the bill for whatever maintenance and equipment is needed to reach standards set by environmental regulations.

`(4) COMPETITOR CONSIDERATION PROHIBITED- In making the
determinations specified in paragraph (1) or (2), the
Commission shall not consider whether the public interest,
convenience, and necessity might be served by the grant of a
license to a person other than the renewal applicant.'.