Slashdot Mirror

first off TNC is a conservative publication.

I'm not sure what this `TNC' you refer to is, but if you are arguing that The New Republic (TNR) is a `conservative' publication, you don't even pass the laugh test. They hang way to the left of mainstream on any issue you could care to name.

we have trained and/or armed EVERY enemy we have faught since WW2.

I hope you don't expect readers of this thread to take this on assertion. Perhaps you can back this claim up with something resembling a credible cite?

al qaida would not exist if not for the cia.

Again, this is simply false, as many people, including the author of the piece I link to above, have pointed out. If you want to convince us otherwise, you'd better have a cite...

of course, repeat the party line, they attacked us because we're free, they attacked us because we're free.

What you call the `party line' here is what they themselves are saying. We are facing an enemy who talks about the `tragedy of Andalusia' (the reconquest of spain in 1492) as a motive for his attacks, and you think some minor foreign policy changes we make 600 years later are going to change his mind? Really?

and yes they are planning further attacks. you want to know how to stop them, it easy. stop giving military aid to isreal, pull out of saudi arabia(we've already started this), and now pull out of afghanistan.

First off, we seem to be on a very good track as far as preventing future attacks is concerned. Second, are you really suggesting that we should be making foreign policy decisions based not on what we believe is right but on what will appease madmen like bin Laden? Really?

boo fucking hoo 3000 people died

Ah, so now your true feelings on the matter come out. OK.

how many palestinians died in the occupation this year?

Not very many, in fact, at least according to Arafat's own numbers, which also confirm that almost all those who have died have been combatants. In the Egyptian weekly al-Ahram, a spokesman for Hamas confirms that almost all those killed were combatants. This doesn't count, of course the several dozen lynched by Arafat's own security services.

how many columbians died because of the american puppet govt.?

First off, it's Colombians, unless you are suggesting that there have been deaths at Columbia University. Second, do you have any credible cite to back up this claim? Sure seems to me like the violence in Colombia has much more to do with the vicious marxist rebels, but perhaps you can argue otherwise?

how many venezuelans almost died because of a CIA instigated coup.

Poppycock. Provide one shred of credible evidence linking the CIA to the abortive coup (or even suggesting that any significant number of people died!)

how many vietnamese nationalist died defending thier country?

Actually let's look at who was `defending' the country and who it needed defense against, shall we? You are, I hope, aware that more Vietnamese were murdered by Ho Chi Minh's government in the first three years of `peace' following the war than had died in the entire twenty-five years of fighting leading up to that point? No, the tragedy of Vietnam is not that we helped the South Vietnamese defend themselves against a brutal invader. The tragedy is that the arrogance of JFK and LBJ led them to not make a strong case for why the war was just, leading to our abandoning our allies to their fate.

how many hondurans, salvadoreans, afghans, serbs, guatamalans, grenadans, panamanians, and americans have died from the actions of the US govt?

How many? Are you arguing that the US was wrong in these conflicts? On what grounds?

Slave labour so your levi's and t-shirts are cheap started this war.

Where do you get this? Care to provide any credible cite for anything even resembling `slave labor'? Even if we accept your representation of events, are you really suggesting that al-Qaeda's beef with us is the working conditions in Levi's factories? Really?

Putting 3/4 of the human race in 3rd-world lifestyles to support our's started this war.

Sorry to disappoint you, but if much of the rest of the world is not as rich as the US, it's not because we made them poor, it's because they insist on clinging to corrupt and backwards economic systems which produce poverty wherever they are tried. We've provided a shining example to the world of how free markets lead to improved standards of living at all levels of society. If they won't follow our example, it's up to them to come up with something as good, not up to us to keep paying them off...

And the CIA school of the america's training, among many other's, some middle-eastern prince named Osama Bin Laden to help take down the soviets DEFINETLY started this war.

This absurd claim has been thoroughly discredited in, among many other places, this article in The New Republic (which is hardly a mainstream or conservative publication). Sorry to disappoint you, but your claim here is pure fiction.

Who the bloody hell did you think started it?

Oh gee, I don't know, maybe the band of madmen who declared war on us, our culture, and our way of life? Who killed 3,000 people in downtown Manhattan, Pennsylvania, and Washington on September 11, while trying to kill ten times that many? Who are even now planning further attacks which, if not stopped, could be much deadlier than the attacks of September 11? Ya think they might have something to do with it?

Or are you too caught up with trying to find ways to blame us for September 11? I thought you lefties were against blaming the victim?

• The US proposed the UN security council motion which led to the war in Korea -- yes, but this resolution was a response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea. Is it really your position that the war began not when the North invaded the South, but when the US got involved?
• The US started the war in Vietnam -- again, where do you get the idea that the war hadn't `started' at the point when North Vietnam sent troops into South Vietnam?
• The US definitely started the Afghanistan war -- nonsense. The US trained and funded forces which were already active.
• Public Enemy No. 1 was trained and equipped by the CIA -- this is similarly incorrect. For a good dissection of this myth, see this piece, from The New Republic (hardly a conservative or pro-Bush publication).

• Democracy: There isn't a perfect society out there. And there isn't a perfect government, but to consider America's government "the best" is far, far from the truth -- remember that `the best' is a relative statement. While we can both agree that there are things which can be approved, if you want to argue that America is not the most democratic system going, you'll have to point me to a system which is more democratic. Can you?
• State run media has the risk of being very biased, but it also has the ability, if executed correctly, to be open and free -- wow, I dare say that you're probably one of the only ones on /. who would argue in favor of the state deciding what is and isn't news. Nor do I think the examples of state media you point to back your point up very well -- this is the same BBC, after all, which has an editorial policy of not referring to Mohammad Atta as a `terrorist' because `one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' -- as if the attacks of 9/11 could be described as anything but terrorism (even OBL uses the word `terrorist', rmemeber).
• I don't know what you've been taught about the goings on in Iran, but the US aided in the destruction of a democratic movement. -- actually, as the cold war is now over, and the internal CIA documentation of this period is now available, we find that the actual history was perhaps as damning of the CIA, but decidedly less sinister than you claim. The fact is that the CIA was taken by surprise in the fifties just as we were again in the seventies. But yes, we certainly did back the Shah when the alternative was Khomeini, and I'd argue that this was the right choice.
• Saudi-Arabia: Once again, their was a huge democratic movement, this time in Saudi-Arabia in the 80's against the reigning monarchy. America aided the now reigning Price back into power -- with due respect, as much as we would both like there to be, there has not yet been a serious challenge to the Saudi government other than the islamist extremists. At any rate, Osama was still linked to Saudi Arabia well past the eighties. Again, I have no disagreement with you as to how nasty the house of Saud is, but as tempting as it is to blame the US for everything that goes wrong in the world, they're not our fault.
• Afganistan: There has been an overwhelming amount of solid proof that the US originally aided the Taliban to gain power in Afganistan. -- sorry, this `blowback' hypothesis is a myth, and was deconstructed very well in this article from The New Republic (hardly a conservative or pro-Bush publication). Long story short, we certainly did back some groups against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but even then the groups which became the Taliban were against us and the forces we backed.
• Most first world countries enjoy the same amount of freedom that the US does. -- which ones? England, with the Official Secrets Act and prior restraint on the press? France and Germany which are constantly suing to force US ISPs to take down things which are legal here? I guess I don't buy it...
• If that's the prosperity you want to be proud of, then go ahead. ... Your "prosperity" only makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer. -- actually, prosperity and growth help all levels of American society. As I've mentioned before, the bottom 20% of American society in 1990 had, earned, and consumed as much as the middle 20% did in 1950 (and yes, that is after factoring in inflation). No other system on earth has provided it's citizens that much improvement in so short a time.
• CNN: When I said CNN, I didn't mean that literally, it was just a mention of the mainstream media that American's listen to and believe, no matter what they say to you. -- I'd say we both agree on this. It's one reason that older media outlets have lost so much market share to CNN and MSNBC, which have in turn lost market share to Fox, as each generation of media was compelled to compete by offering a wider range of views than the competition. But alternative media sources (including the web) remain crucial.

On a side note, I am most pleased with our debate. I truly appreciate the thought and time you've put into this. It beats the hell out of the guy that decided to call me fag ten times. Heh. Thank you.

Likewise. A reasoned debate on honest points of disagreement is always a welcome change from the run-of-the-mill flaming which often comes into these threads here. Thank you as well.

I'd like to respond to a few of the points you make here:

• "...we might find largbe bombers with large loads are capable of attacking it just as effectively s a number of smaller tactical jets." That sounds like carpet bombing to me -- does it? Carpet bombing means dropping of large quantities of bombs indiscriminately over a large area without using guidance techniques to ensure that only military targets are aimed for. We have simply not done this at any point during the current campaign.
• A B-52 would almost never be called upon to drop a single bomb within a 10-meter circle. If they are so accurate, then why did we invent cruise missiles? -- oh no, we would never invent two weapons capable of hitting the same target, would we? Please see the nando times article I linked in my previous post.
• Is 600 ... civilian deaths in Afghanistan accetpable? (Qrlx apparently did not read the article very carefully, as he suggests the discredited number `5000' as a possible number of casualties) -- I certainly welcome your suggestion for how we could eliminate al Qaeda without causing any civilian casualties at all, but back here on earth we have done our utmost to avoid such casualties, while our enemies have done their utmost to maximize them. So again, your suggestion that there is some sort of equivalence here is absurd.
• I was trying to make the point that it wasn't *just* an attack on a civilian population. It had deep symbolic significance. It was an attack on civilians, but also an attack on the perceived Excesses of the West. -- and again, you speak as if this made the attacks the equivalent of attacks on military targets of nations which have attacked us. Do you really believe this?
• I'm saying that the "dual use" standard knowingly puts civilians at risk. -- but your definition of `dual use' is `considered by others to be a symbol of our culture'. Are you really suggsting that because a madman like Osama Bin Laden considered the WTC to be a symbol of America, we were `knowingly putting civilians at risk' by letting people work there? Really?
• Maybe we would have finished the job in '91 if we actually cared about civilians -- I certainly agree that we should have, but to claim that civilians are suffering because of our actions and not because Mr. Hussein is funneling off relief money to pay for palaces and tanks is nonsense. Please see the article from The New Republic which I posted earlier in this thread.
• We are a free nation which was brutally attacked by terrorists. So we don't have to concern ourselves with civilian casualties? -- no, as I've pointed out repeatedly, we are going to great lengths (and putting our men on the ground at grave risk) to avoid civilian casualties. To pretend that because some civilians are inadvertently hit means that we should not be fighting is nonsense unless you can propose some other way to adequately defend ourselves.
• The problem with having the moral high ground is that your morals are unique to you and not really a basis for a rational foreign or military policy -- no, no they are not. That the attacks of September 11 were morally wrong is an objective fact, not a `point of view' which is open to debate, and about which all opinions are equally valid.
• Morally, Osama bin Laden is just as entitled to his belief of Death to America as I am to my belief that he should rot in a collapsed cave -- no, he is not. To pretend that the belief that America should be destroyed is morally equivalent to a belief that it should not is nonsense.
• None of that will ever convince us that the other is "right." -- the fact that this is true does not change the fact that one of us is right and the other isn't. If I couldn't convince you that two and two make four, they still would. But I notice that you put the word `right' in sneer quotes. Perhaps you believe that there is no such thing?
• I submit that ANY TIME that civilians are killed it is a horrible thing. -- while true, that doesn't make it an equally horrible thing for us to hit civilians by accident while attempting not to do so as it is for them to intentionally kill as many civilians as possible.

By the way, for more on how Saddam Hussein is diverting international aid to build palaces while his people starve, see this article from The New Republic (hardly a mainstream or conservative publication, by the way).

The problem with your argument is that the only reason that people are dying in Iraq, despite the huge amounts of money and aid being provided as part of the UN oil-for-food program is that Mr. Hussein is diverting the aid shipments to pay for palaces and tanks. (Note that that article is in The New Republic, which can hardly be described as a mainstream or conservative publication.)

And which international organizations promote peace anyway? The UN, which kept Pol Pot in power as part of its unwanted `peace' deal, looked the other way while it's peacekeepers sold food aid for sex in Africa and ran prostitution rings in Asia? What makes you think that international organizations have some sort of moral high ground?

Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty.

RMS would say he's not for Open Source, he's for Free Software

The model was around long before RMS, he just successfully described & codified it in the GPL

...Imagine this: You illegally download a copyrighted MP3 file, violating your terms of service contract with America Online. Without your knowledge, AOL proceeds to authorize the federal government to monitor every e-mail you send and every website you visit in order to collect evidence to prosecute you as a "computer trespasser."

Judge Kozinski --

I read your WSJ editorial online after it was posted to Slashdot (http://www.slashdot.org, "News for nerds. Stuff that matters."), and while I must say that I agree with your sentiments about workplace monitoring, your ire is perhaps indicative of why mere mortals see all government employees, and ones in dark robes especially, as disconnected from the citizenry they serve.

While your points about how inappropriate workplace monitoring is in the federal judiciary are well taken, and while I agree with them in principle, I can only shake my head and say, welcome to the real world, Your Honor.

Workplace monitoring of the sort you decry in your editorial is a fact of life for most Americans, and has been for many years. Some private-sector employers are more fanatical about it than others, but it remains extremely common that an employee checks his rights at the door. Random drug screens (even for employees who do not perform hazardous jobs like driving or operating heavy machinery), keystroke monitoring (how many keys per hour do you punch), email scanning, phone monitoring, and even log-in log-out to track your bathroom usage are common.

Frequently, signing away any rights you might have to protest such treatment is a condition of employment. Especially in light of today's slowing economy (the Dallas Morning News [ed: which requires nasty registration to see anything off the front page] last Sunday reported on a well-qualified computer professional who has taken to holding a sign at the street corner to ask for work), employees typically sign such monsterous documents simply to get a paycheck rolling in.

In addition, courts typically uphold the rights of employers to perform these kinds of searches, especially in states where employee rights are weak, such as Texas, where you can be fired for sneezing too much. (In Texas, employers can even require you to sign away your right to sue over Workman's Compensation claims, as a condition of employment. Many do, and courts uphold these waivers when employees get hurt and employers then do not pony up the money.)

Just as public school students and prisoners check their rights at the door (despite courts' protestations to the contrary in a littany of cases I could cite), employees do as well. It's been a fact of life for many years, and will continue to be so. That it's been so slow in coming to the federal judiciary is not surprising to me, if only because of the public perception that the judicial process is slow, unwieldy, and expensively out of reach of your average citizen.

[Signature omitted. Use Slashdot to contact me.]

His response is reprinted below in its entirety.

Dear Mr. [censored]:

I agree with your entirely. In fact, one of my major concerns in this matter is that if we adopt the most intrusive policy for our employees, we're more likely to approve it for others as well, when the issue arises in cases before us. Check out the attached article, as well as

http://www.tnr.com/091001/rosen091001.html

If you wish to help in this struggle, please check out

http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010831_eff_judicial_mo nitoring_alert.html [hotlink omitted because Slashdot wouldn't unscrew it.]

Sending a letter as suggested there, and copying in relevant members of congress, would be a big help.

Once again, many thanx.

Ciao. AK

I agree with your (sic) entirely. In fact, one of my major concerns in this matter is that if we adopt the most intrusive policy for our employees, we're more likely to approve it for others as well, when the issue arises in cases before us. Check out the attached article, as well as http://www.tnr.com/091001/rosen091001.html

If you wish to help in this struggle, please check out http://www.eff.org/alerts/20010831_eff_judicial_mo nitoring_alert.html

Sending a letter as suggested there, and copying in relevant members of congress, would be a big help.

Once again, many thanx.

Ciao. AK

That seems a bit unjustified considering that the case is still under heavy appeal and that the government still has a long, long, long way to go before they can call this one "done".

Late last month, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously found that Microsoft had violated America's antitrust laws. In an unsigned opinion, the court held unequivocally that Microsoft was a monopolist that used its power to protect itself against nascent competition. Yet that's not the way Microsoft--and, in turn, the press--spun it. "Microsoft spared: appeals court overturns breakup order, assails trial judge," proclaimed The San Francisco Chronicle in a typical headline. "Gates wins a round in court," blared a follow-up piece in the Houston Chronicle. That spin isn't just wrong; it signals something dangerous. Much as he did after settling the government's first antitrust case with a consent decree in 1994, Bill Gates has been arguing that this latest ruling permits Microsoft to go on as if nothing had happened. That's not true. And now the Bush administration and the states need to deliver that message very clearly to Chairman Gates.

In the fall, Microsoft will launch the first versions of its vision of the future--.Net, Hailstorm, and a new version of its operating system, Windows XP. The bundling of disparate software elements into these new products makes the bundling of Windows and Internet Explorer look like child's play. This week, Microsoft freed computer manufacturers to bundle a different browser with Windows XP. But this concession does not begin to address the questions about bundling raised by the court's opinion. Microsoft has bet the company on a strategy of tying together a vast range of products into a single Microsoft platform. From authentication to instant messaging, Windows-flavored code will do it all. No doubt some of this bundling is perfectly OK under the appellate court's test. And it is possible that the bunch together could be developed consistently with the law. But, given the vast range of functions being tied to the operating system, it is impossible to believe that a fair reading of the court's opinion would not raise questions about some--perhaps much--of it. Microsoft's refusal, however, even to acknowledge the principle in the court's opinion--or to acknowledge that this principle is different from the "freedom" it has consistently espoused--forces the government's hand. Were Microsoft willing to talk honestly about the rule the court has set, then relatively simple remedies, perhaps even a fine, would be enough. But when the company insists that black is white--that its "freedom to innovate" has been unaffected by this loss--then it is hard for a government charged with enforcing the law to ask for anything less than the strongest remedy possible--including a breakup. If the company with the greatest power over the Internet's future won't even acknowledge the law, then the government must make sure it can't use its power illegally to direct that future anymore.

That seems a bit unjustified considering that the case is still under heavy appeal and that the government still has a long, long, long way to go before they can call this one "done".

Late last month, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously found that Microsoft had violated America's antitrust laws. In an unsigned opinion, the court held unequivocally that Microsoft was a monopolist that used its power to protect itself against nascent competition. Yet that's not the way Microsoft--and, in turn, the press--spun it. "Microsoft spared: appeals court overturns breakup order, assails trial judge," proclaimed The San Francisco Chronicle in a typical headline. "Gates wins a round in court," blared a follow-up piece in the Houston Chronicle. That spin isn't just wrong; it signals something dangerous. Much as he did after settling the government's first antitrust case with a consent decree in 1994, Bill Gates has been arguing that this latest ruling permits Microsoft to go on as if nothing had happened. That's not true. And now the Bush administration and the states need to deliver that message very clearly to Chairman Gates.

In the fall, Microsoft will launch the first versions of its vision of the future--.Net, Hailstorm, and a new version of its operating system, Windows XP. The bundling of disparate software elements into these new products makes the bundling of Windows and Internet Explorer look like child's play. This week, Microsoft freed computer manufacturers to bundle a different browser with Windows XP. But this concession does not begin to address the questions about bundling raised by the court's opinion. Microsoft has bet the company on a strategy of tying together a vast range of products into a single Microsoft platform. From authentication to instant messaging, Windows-flavored code will do it all. No doubt some of this bundling is perfectly OK under the appellate court's test. And it is possible that the bunch together could be developed consistently with the law. But, given the vast range of functions being tied to the operating system, it is impossible to believe that a fair reading of the court's opinion would not raise questions about some--perhaps much--of it. Microsoft's refusal, however, even to acknowledge the principle in the court's opinion--or to acknowledge that this principle is different from the "freedom" it has consistently espoused--forces the government's hand. Were Microsoft willing to talk honestly about the rule the court has set, then relatively simple remedies, perhaps even a fine, would be enough. But when the company insists that black is white--that its "freedom to innovate" has been unaffected by this loss--then it is hard for a government charged with enforcing the law to ask for anything less than the strongest remedy possible--including a breakup. If the company with the greatest power over the Internet's future won't even acknowledge the law, then the government must make sure it can't use its power illegally to direct that future anymore.

So far, there are a lot of "if you aren't doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about" posts. That line of thought is completely invalid when discussing the War on (Some) Drugs. The DEA and other police agencies typically sieze the cash upon any suspicion of drug activity. If the person is arrested and acquitted, or not arrested at all, the DEA/pigs get to keep the cash. There are many documented instances available online (no link--I'm lazy), even through the rightist Cato Institute.

While I agree with you, it shouldn't surprise you that an organization like Cato should be against the drug war. It's not a left/right issue anymore; the Democrats have embraced the drug war just as heartily as the Republicans have. When was the last time you heard Gore or Gephardt or Daschle calling for legalization?

There are quite a number of Republican or conservative figures calling for an end to the drug war -- William F. Buckley, Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, Rep. Tom Cambell of California (who ran against Diane Feinstein last fall), Walter Williams (who subs on Rush Limbaugh's show fairly frequently), former Sec of State George Schultz, Milton Friedman, and others. Any conservative who claims to be in favor of capitalism -- the unrestricted exchange of goods and services between consenting persons -- but is in favor of the drug war, is a hypocrite. Many are, but a sizeable number are not.

Actually, I think that the politicians to end the drug war may be more likely to be Republicans, strictly on Nixon-to-China grounds. A liberal wanting to end the drug war, risks being tarred as a "pot-smoking sixties hippie"; a conservative runs no such risk.

And as far as asset forfeiture goes, that's another case where there are Republicans on the right side of things. Asset forfeiture is, after all, a gross violation of property rights, and for that reason you do see those Republicans who have and stand by principles acting against the forfeiture laws -- such as Rep. Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary committee (not exactly small fry) pushing through the 1999 forfeiture reform bill.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the Republicans are angels on this matter. They're not. But this is not a left/right issue anymore, although this article in the New Republic makes a good case that it's becoming an east/west issue.

. . . end of story . . really. examples you ask?

Let's start with the Jim Lehrer interview with Bush. He (George) states clearly that he favors Microsoft and what they have done for the technology movmement.

George W. Bush: I hope, though, that whatever settlement is done it won't ruin this company because this company has been a very interesting innovator, and so I hope the judge would keep in mind that this company is an important part of the technological revolution taking place in America.

yawn . . the interview then turns to Bush advisor Ralph Reed - who was on the Microsoft payroll. Bush tries to wiggle out the issue, etc. . but the damage is done there. What do we learn from this encounter? Bush likes Microsoft, would prefer to not see the company broken up, and has a close advisor who is paid by Microsoft. Brilliant.

This quote from Salon.com:

Texas governor has gone on record strongly defending the software giant against the federal suit. "What I am worried about is if this company were to be broken up, this engine of change and this engine of growth," Bush said in February. "I am not sympathetic to lawsuits. Write that down."

Next,we have this article and this one and this one (which states Bush owns sares of Microsoft . . . ugh.

Of course the deal closer is the fact the www.georgewbush.com is running Windows 2000 (According to NetCraft). Heh,heh.

ok so what is my point (i have the flu . . just hold on for a second) . . Bush clearly has postive feelings towards Microsoft. I think Aschroft does too . . in the end these two hold enough strings to probably pull the case in their favor.

I checked, and the cited words appear to be there.

First off, here is the correct url:

http://www.tnr.com/magazines /11 2999/cottle112999.html

Here is the URL for the Google cache entry for the article. I don't know when the google cache was made:



The only difference I saw between the two was a minor spelling correction:

ughes's aura helps her control a media beast

-->

Hughes's aura helps her control a media beast

But you are right. This file was modified shortly after the citation on slashdot. Anyone notice any other differences between the two?

Both copies read:

Other times Hughes simply shuts down the conversation. Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. "He said, `After 1968? No.' I said, `What about before 1968?'

Did you save a copy of the allegedly modified page?

Slashdot citation: 1:10PM CST
Timestamp on the TNR file: 2:01PM CST
Your posting: 2:37 CST

Very irregular ...

Notice that the article cited in the previous message has been modified so that the cited words are no longer there.

This was the cover story. Does anybody have a printed copy of the magazine to verify the attribution?

1. BUSH LIED ON "MEET THE PRESS," 11/21/99

TIM RUSSERT: If someone came to you and said, "Governor, I'm sorry, I'm going to go public with some information." What do you do?

GOV. BUSH: If someone was willing to go public with information that was damaging, you'd have heard about it by now. You've had heard about it now. My background has been scrutinized by all kinds of reporters. Tim, we can talk about this all morning.

2. BUSH LIED TO "DALLAS MORNING NEWS," 1998

"Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, [Dallas Morning
News reporter Wayne] Slater pressed Bush about whether he had ever been
arrested. 'He said, "After 1968? No."'" New Republic

3. BUSH LIED TO CBS, 1999.

"Bush has often acknowledged past mistakes, but CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan reports that in a 1999 interview with CBS station WBZ in Boston, he denied there was any so-called smoking gun." CBS

The statement to the Dallas Morning News report in the National Review is the most damning. Remember, it wasn't the sex that Clinton was impeached for, it was the lying. This is just too close to the election for the first shoe the drop, you don't want the second shoe to drop AFTER he's the ruler of the free world do you?

Bitter? On the contrary -- for the first time since 1976 (maybe even 1956) we have two candidates who are both acceptable, if not necessarily ideal, to the vast majority of Americans. If the campaign hasn't seemed impassioned, it's because most of the electorate will be comfortable with either outcome. (And would have been with McCain or Bradley, for that matter.)

The yelling about how there is no democracy and corporations control the whole process is coming from a few leftists who can't accept the possibility that the majority of voters don't share their views and amplified by media that push cynicism and conspiracy at the expense of journalism and edification.

Look -- I voted for John McCain in the primary. I wish he had won but more people voted for Bush. People. Not one corporation cast a vote. I'm not thrilled about that outcome but I accept it as the outcome of democrarcy. I don't go off bitching about how there's some conspiracy holding down all the Real Voters who just happen to think exactly like me.

If I haven't antagonized the leftists enough yet, check out the New Republic on Nader. And you know, of course, that when a disgruntled ex-employee followed Michael Moore around with a camera, your hero had him arrested, right?

I'm wondering what people think about this article, from The New Republic:

http://www.tnr.com/061900/lessig061900. html

Briefly, Lawrence Lessig argues that the Clinton administration's
regulatory inaction during AT&T's acquisition of MediaOne will have
dire consequences for the future of the Net. Among them:

1) "Customers accessing the Internet through cable will have no guaranteed
choice of ISPs. Instead, the cable company will pick the ISP.
Rather than allow consumer choice among scores of providers offering
broadband Internet service, the cable company will permit just a few
ISPs of its own selection."

2) "... cable companies [will] design the next generation of the Internet
on the model of the old telephone system--in which the network owner,
by dint of choosing the ISP, gets to control the kind of content and
use the network will allow. "

Thoughts?

hehee... this reminds me - the new republic (a fine liberal magazine, btw!) had an article recently about leftist movements in the context of wto protests: "protest too much (meet the new new left: bold, fun, and stupid)" by franklin foer.

it's a fascinating article. it explores how, in the search of an updated self and liberation from the stereotype of crazed coffee-house revolutionaries, the contemporary left managed to liberate itself from a coherent ideology as well, and has become full of, literally, rebels without a cause. worth checking out!