Slashdot Mirror

Having (attempted) to work through the '89-'91 recession and having lived as a kid through the '72-'74 and '81-'83 recessions I must assume these kids just aren't prepared for the eventual economic kick in the ass.

Yes, it's true that most young technology savvy kids assume that the now (supposedly) wonderful economy is somehow dependent on their brains and success, but it isn't so. Nor will technology workers be responsible when the next recession hits, these are cyclical effects more dependent on Federal Reserve policy and exchange rates than anything else.

Yes, it's true that computers have increased efficiency for most businesses by automating much office paperwork and accounting away. But these gains in efficiency will go only so far until we hit the next wall of automation. At that point I expect to see GDP growth fall back, and possibly even a recession to hit. We're well due for one soon... GET PREPARED!

And, maybe after going through this and possibly losing your house, a marriage from the stress, or some other setback, you kids might begin to understand that those with hot skills from twenty years back are no more or less intelligent than you. That you've lived young through todays market gains is more a matter of luck than a sign of (social) evolutionary success. And maybe after you've had to care for a dying parent (and seen for yourself how poor Medicare/Medicaid is for our citizens), or stepped into a city school to meet your child's frazzled out teacher because (s)he has a class size of nearly 40 pupils, or walked along one of the many bridges which are literally crumbling from lack of repairs... maybe then you'll realize that these gains are illusion for the vast majority of American citizens.

That your skills are in demand today isn't proof they will be in demand tomorrow. That you're successful today doesn't mean lean times ahead are avoided for certain. That you're healthy today doesn't mean your health will remain (in fact, given enough time it's certain to fade). PREPARE YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY! And consider the many citizens of America who had to grow up with substandard education, poor health care, and dilapidated surroundings; that could be you but for circumstance.

We used to have a reasonable social safety net for those children who, by no fault of their own, grew up poor. After the Republican 80's and Demopublican '90s, we have none of that left. I voted for Clinton in '92 for one reason: National Health Coverage. With the Democrats and Republican platforms mirror images sans abortion, I simply can't vote for either party any longer. For these reasons, this year I'm voting Ralph Nader for President.

So vote for Ralph Nader

Here in Detroit - the motor capitol - we have virtually no public transportation. Oh yeah, a monorail that travels slowly along a 3 mile loop, and some light bussing, but those are more token gestures. With a city of a population around 1 million, you would think that there would be something to help bring all the commuters in from the suburbs.

We *had* public transportation. It was bought out and dismantled by the auto industry. Bill G didn't think of his tactics on his own, he has inspiring sources that preceded him.

This is the kind of thing that Ralph Nader and the green party are trying to push by opposing the stranglehold that large corporations have on this country. Democracy and capitalism is ceding to a corporatacracy where nobody will have a vote.

Straight from their site: http://www.votenader.com/

Instead of government of, by, and for the people, we have a government of the Exxons, by the General Motors, and for the DuPonts.

My next car (I don't need another right now, and I'm ready to swap) will be at least a hybrid vehicle. Much like how I choose to Linux on a daily basis - the more users, the more developers and services will be offered.

I think the point is not that people aren't aware of the gender imbalance, but that the media don't give it the same attention. (I don't see articles bemoaning this.) The most racist and sexist industry in this country is the same one we rely on for our news and entertainment. Rather sad really. Makes me want to vote Nader and sell my TV. Ahh, on second thought I couldn't live without South Park and Nader's stances on foreign affairs put me off.

CARTMAN FOR PRESIDENT

If you dont like the corporate republic, go vote for Ralph Nader he seems to be as virulently anti corporate as you are, you two should get along nicely

in the comic book, grendel, this is exactly what happenned. i remember reading it a few years back and thinking to myself, "this could really happen!". and if you listened to ralph nader's acceptance speech this weekend, you might believe it's already happenning!

--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!

Nowhere did I claim to have created the internet, I leave such claims to Al Gore and Bill Gates.[1]

al gore never said he created the internet. he voted repeatedly in favour of continued funding for arpanet. i am sick of people getting this wrong. on the other hand, i'm voting for ralph nader.

Even if I knew that *my* vote would be the deciding vote that put Bush in the whitehouse over Gore, I'd *still* vote for Ralph Nader. The thoughts of throwing my vote away by voting for a Republicrat is just too depressing. I wanna see Ralph get more than 5% this year and put the Green Party, and more importantly it's issues, on the map.

That's exactly how I feel. (Interestingly enough, a pseudorandom friend I was talking to the other day said roughly the same thing.)

It's great to know that I'm not the only one.

Now, if 5% of voters would vote for Nader, that's 1 in 20. So, if each of them successfully bugged 19 others to look at the site... (of course, nearly 5% of those others would already be voting for Mr. Nader.)

<shameless plug>

Anyone whose curiosity is piqued should check out Adbusters (especially this page) and the Ralph Nader campaign site.

</shameless plug>

How is it that third-party candidates are viewed by the public as "throwing away your vote" when it seems like they're the only way not to throw away your vote?

Question:
Can we realistically say that the internet is making a difference in the political process? Can a basically unknown candidate like Ralph Nader get a resonable number of votes thanks to just his web site? Or are people really just going to the web sites of the candidates they hear about on television? In the closed capitalist mind space we inhabit, big monetary interests determine the range of possibilities people think are viable.

According to a recent IBM/Altavista study, even on the net the big money sites like Yahoo "basically control the flow of information". So can we really think that the net is going to suddenly bring us democracy despite the nondemocratic nature of our entire economy/political system?

Vote for Ralph Nader. Period. thanks! his web site kicks ass too.

michael

___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

We now have a nation by the corporations for the corporations, with no easy way to take it back.

If you want to give a slap in the face to the corporate interests behind George W. and the Gore-Bot 2000, you should call your local Green Party organizer right now and ask how you can get involved. Ralph Nader, the Green Presidential candidate, is committed to reducing the influence that corporations have over our public life. Consider the following items from the Concord Principles, the platform that Nader is running on:

• Second: The American people should have reasonable control over the public lands, public media airwaves, pension funds, and other societal assets which the public legally owns, rather than having these public assets controlled by a powerful few.
• Third: We need modern mechanisms so that civic power for self-government and self-reliance can correct the often converging power imbalance of Big Business and Big Government that weakens the rights of citizens.
• Seventh: Effective legal protections are needed for ethical whistleblowers who alert Americans to abuses or hazards to health and safety in the workplace, or contaminate the environment, or defraud citizens. Such conscientious workers need rights to ensure they will not be fired or demoted for speaking out within the corporations, the government, or in other bureaucracies.
• Ninth: Shareholders, who are the owners of companies, should not have their assets wasted or worker morale victimized by executives who give themselves huge salaries, bonuses, greenmail, and golden parachutes, self-perpetuating boards of directors, and a stifling of the proxy voting system to block shareholder voting reforms.

You may say that it's pointless for Nader to take on these issues, since he "can't win". Well, I would argue that someone with his name recognition and integrity can and will be a credible third party candidate; but even if Nader loses, if he pulls ten or fifteen percent of the vote, he will be heard. Remember how nobody cared about the budget deficit until Ross Perot made it his defining issue in 1992? Nader can do the same for the way corporations screw us over every day. Nader's fighting an uphill battle to get on the ballot in several important states, and you can help just by gathering a few signatures to get him there. Even if you're not the Green type, if you care at all about curbing corporate power in this country, you owe it to yourself to at least check out the man's Web site and hear what he has to say.

-- Jason A. Lefkowitz

We now have a nation by the corporations for the corporations, with no easy way to take it back.

If you want to give a slap in the face to the corporate interests behind George W. and the Gore-Bot 2000, you should call your local Green Party organizer right now and ask how you can get involved. Ralph Nader, the Green Presidential candidate, is committed to reducing the influence that corporations have over our public life. Consider the following items from the Concord Principles, the platform that Nader is running on:

• Second: The American people should have reasonable control over the public lands, public media airwaves, pension funds, and other societal assets which the public legally owns, rather than having these public assets controlled by a powerful few.
• Third: We need modern mechanisms so that civic power for self-government and self-reliance can correct the often converging power imbalance of Big Business and Big Government that weakens the rights of citizens.
• Seventh: Effective legal protections are needed for ethical whistleblowers who alert Americans to abuses or hazards to health and safety in the workplace, or contaminate the environment, or defraud citizens. Such conscientious workers need rights to ensure they will not be fired or demoted for speaking out within the corporations, the government, or in other bureaucracies.
• Ninth: Shareholders, who are the owners of companies, should not have their assets wasted or worker morale victimized by executives who give themselves huge salaries, bonuses, greenmail, and golden parachutes, self-perpetuating boards of directors, and a stifling of the proxy voting system to block shareholder voting reforms.

You may say that it's pointless for Nader to take on these issues, since he "can't win". Well, I would argue that someone with his name recognition and integrity can and will be a credible third party candidate; but even if Nader loses, if he pulls ten or fifteen percent of the vote, he will be heard. Remember how nobody cared about the budget deficit until Ross Perot made it his defining issue in 1992? Nader can do the same for the way corporations screw us over every day. Nader's fighting an uphill battle to get on the ballot in several important states, and you can help just by gathering a few signatures to get him there. Even if you're not the Green type, if you care at all about curbing corporate power in this country, you owe it to yourself to at least check out the man's Web site and hear what he has to say.

-- Jason A. Lefkowitz

We now have a nation by the corporations for the corporations, with no easy way to take it back.

If you want to give a slap in the face to the corporate interests behind George W. and the Gore-Bot 2000, you should call your local Green Party organizer right now and ask how you can get involved. Ralph Nader, the Green Presidential candidate, is committed to reducing the influence that corporations have over our public life. Consider the following items from the Concord Principles, the platform that Nader is running on:

• Second: The American people should have reasonable control over the public lands, public media airwaves, pension funds, and other societal assets which the public legally owns, rather than having these public assets controlled by a powerful few.
• Third: We need modern mechanisms so that civic power for self-government and self-reliance can correct the often converging power imbalance of Big Business and Big Government that weakens the rights of citizens.
• Seventh: Effective legal protections are needed for ethical whistleblowers who alert Americans to abuses or hazards to health and safety in the workplace, or contaminate the environment, or defraud citizens. Such conscientious workers need rights to ensure they will not be fired or demoted for speaking out within the corporations, the government, or in other bureaucracies.
• Ninth: Shareholders, who are the owners of companies, should not have their assets wasted or worker morale victimized by executives who give themselves huge salaries, bonuses, greenmail, and golden parachutes, self-perpetuating boards of directors, and a stifling of the proxy voting system to block shareholder voting reforms.

You may say that it's pointless for Nader to take on these issues, since he "can't win". Well, I would argue that someone with his name recognition and integrity can and will be a credible third party candidate; but even if Nader loses, if he pulls ten or fifteen percent of the vote, he will be heard. Remember how nobody cared about the budget deficit until Ross Perot made it his defining issue in 1992? Nader can do the same for the way corporations screw us over every day. Nader's fighting an uphill battle to get on the ballot in several important states, and you can help just by gathering a few signatures to get him there. Even if you're not the Green type, if you care at all about curbing corporate power in this country, you owe it to yourself to at least check out the man's Web site and hear what he has to say.

-- Jason A. Lefkowitz

We now have a nation by the corporations for the corporations, with no easy way to take it back.

If you want to give a slap in the face to the corporate interests behind George W. and the Gore-Bot 2000, you should call your local Green Party organizer right now and ask how you can get involved. Ralph Nader, the Green Presidential candidate, is committed to reducing the influence that corporations have over our public life. Consider the following items from the Concord Principles, the platform that Nader is running on:

• Second: The American people should have reasonable control over the public lands, public media airwaves, pension funds, and other societal assets which the public legally owns, rather than having these public assets controlled by a powerful few.
• Third: We need modern mechanisms so that civic power for self-government and self-reliance can correct the often converging power imbalance of Big Business and Big Government that weakens the rights of citizens.
• Seventh: Effective legal protections are needed for ethical whistleblowers who alert Americans to abuses or hazards to health and safety in the workplace, or contaminate the environment, or defraud citizens. Such conscientious workers need rights to ensure they will not be fired or demoted for speaking out within the corporations, the government, or in other bureaucracies.
• Ninth: Shareholders, who are the owners of companies, should not have their assets wasted or worker morale victimized by executives who give themselves huge salaries, bonuses, greenmail, and golden parachutes, self-perpetuating boards of directors, and a stifling of the proxy voting system to block shareholder voting reforms.

You may say that it's pointless for Nader to take on these issues, since he "can't win". Well, I would argue that someone with his name recognition and integrity can and will be a credible third party candidate; but even if Nader loses, if he pulls ten or fifteen percent of the vote, he will be heard. Remember how nobody cared about the budget deficit until Ross Perot made it his defining issue in 1992? Nader can do the same for the way corporations screw us over every day. Nader's fighting an uphill battle to get on the ballot in several important states, and you can help just by gathering a few signatures to get him there. Even if you're not the Green type, if you care at all about curbing corporate power in this country, you owe it to yourself to at least check out the man's Web site and hear what he has to say.

-- Jason A. Lefkowitz

We now have a nation by the corporations for the corporations, with no easy way to take it back.

If you want to give a slap in the face to the corporate interests behind George W. and the Gore-Bot 2000, you should call your local Green Party organizer right now and ask how you can get involved. Ralph Nader, the Green Presidential candidate, is committed to reducing the influence that corporations have over our public life. Consider the following items from the Concord Principles, the platform that Nader is running on:

• Second: The American people should have reasonable control over the public lands, public media airwaves, pension funds, and other societal assets which the public legally owns, rather than having these public assets controlled by a powerful few.
• Third: We need modern mechanisms so that civic power for self-government and self-reliance can correct the often converging power imbalance of Big Business and Big Government that weakens the rights of citizens.
• Seventh: Effective legal protections are needed for ethical whistleblowers who alert Americans to abuses or hazards to health and safety in the workplace, or contaminate the environment, or defraud citizens. Such conscientious workers need rights to ensure they will not be fired or demoted for speaking out within the corporations, the government, or in other bureaucracies.
• Ninth: Shareholders, who are the owners of companies, should not have their assets wasted or worker morale victimized by executives who give themselves huge salaries, bonuses, greenmail, and golden parachutes, self-perpetuating boards of directors, and a stifling of the proxy voting system to block shareholder voting reforms.

You may say that it's pointless for Nader to take on these issues, since he "can't win". Well, I would argue that someone with his name recognition and integrity can and will be a credible third party candidate; but even if Nader loses, if he pulls ten or fifteen percent of the vote, he will be heard. Remember how nobody cared about the budget deficit until Ross Perot made it his defining issue in 1992? Nader can do the same for the way corporations screw us over every day. Nader's fighting an uphill battle to get on the ballot in several important states, and you can help just by gathering a few signatures to get him there. Even if you're not the Green type, if you care at all about curbing corporate power in this country, you owe it to yourself to at least check out the man's Web site and hear what he has to say.

-- Jason A. Lefkowitz

Why not try somone truly different, Ralph Nader is a champion of the little guy, and as far as I can tell, gets his jollies by breaking his foot off in corporate americas collective ass. Judge for yourself here

• After having grown up with guns I support gun rights; I think its correct to interpret the 4th amendment to presume a "right to bear arms" for all citizens. I would NOT support a registration and tracking system under federal management. However, I DO support federal regulation which would force gun manufacturers to include first gun locks, and then phase in new technologies which would only allow a owner to fire the weapon (and which would keep a record of all firings).
  
• I support the McCain/Fiengold campaign finance reform and consider the notion that money is speech ludicrous. Frankly, I think the federal government should pay out money for candidates' advertising time in proportion to a party's previous election returns. Hell, I would support tossing our dual party system for a radical restructering; say either proportional representation, or a binding "none of the above" option on the ballot.
  
• I support STRONG environmental laws, even to double or tripple our gas and energy taxes. Frankly, the US abuses cheap energy to the detrement of the world over -- we'd better learn to deal with limited energy availability and back serious research into new energy (say Fusion, Wind, Photovoltic, and GeoThermal, or our society is fucked).
  
• I support abolishing the NSA and CIA immediately; on moral reasons alone. Those two organizations have committed heinous crimes the world over; the CIA is primarily responsible for most of the drugs imported in this country. See: Whiteout by Cockburn and St. Clair for a detailed expose on CIA (and pre CIA OSS) drug crimes since WWII. Why do you think we continue this fruitless drug war? Because our policicians didn't learn from Prohibition? DUH... because it funds mercenaries's weapons (manufactuered here in the US I might add), coups placing murderous thugs into political power, et all the world over. Don't want that on a line item in the yearly National budget? Let them import drugs! That's what a secret government does to a democracy... while we maintain one of the largest prison populations in the world.
  
• This is why I support legalizing drugs and prostitution... actually one of the basic tennents of "Libertarianism", though I only support the personal rights end of that philosophy, not the radical "anti-government" side of that populist movement. Personally, when government is open I don't think it's too bad. I'd rather have the government laying roads and bridges than a private corporation... hmmmh, I'd argue that if it's a good or service required by the entire population (education, health care, public infrastructure) then I think the government and public money is the best mechanism whereby to provide the service. We don't need "proprietary" roads, bridges, schools, or health care... in fact our current HMO disaster suggests otherwise. No?
  
• Finally, I strongly support free speech even when I'm abhored by the vileness spewed by some activists... I can't support a racist's arguments, but I must support his right to say such crap. Once (s)he steps over the line and interfere's with another's rights... well, support strong anti violence laws -- even the death penalty for repeat murderers. Nobody should argue that the death penalty is cheaper than life in prison... but to execute a known serial killer certainly makes me feel a little bit safer. Not for punishment, but execution for public safety -- nothing more.

"wait for a political figure to emerge from the Net generation and define corporatism as the major problem its become."

There's no need to wait. While not of the "Net generation" there is a political candidate who "gets it" and has been fighting the forces of corporatism for more than thirty years. Supporting Ralph Nader should be seriously considered by anyone for whom this is an issue.

Voting for third parties is ofted dismissed as wasting a vote. But what's more of a waste, throwing your vote away toward the major parties (which will never change anything) or making your vote heard, even if that candidate doesn't win?

Look at the web site, read his platform and issues, get involved.

"wait for a political figure to emerge from the Net generation and define corporatism as the major problem its become."

There's no need to wait. While not of the "Net generation" there is a political candidate who "gets it" and has been fighting the forces of corporatism for more than thirty years. Supporting Ralph Nader should be seriously considered by anyone for whom this is an issue.

Voting for third parties is ofted dismissed as wasting a vote. But what's more of a waste, throwing your vote away toward the major parties (which will never change anything) or making your vote heard, even if that candidate doesn't win?

Look at the web site, read his platform and issues, get involved.

I think there's too much concern on the web with form over content. Slashdot is a prime example, this is not the optimal form, but nevertheless they provide enough entertaining, timely, and relevant content that they have tons and tons of ridiculously loyal readers. This is because, of course, the best content is the sum of the users themselves, which /. achieves perfectly.
And I think orange is ugly, so I don't dig zeldman's site. It's just too bright

Here's some content for ya, if you care about your feedom at all, vote for Ralph Nader!
And is he really a great web designer? He has a broken link right on the front page... http://www.zeldman.com/orson.html is what the "if movies had been websites" points to. And the mozilla link is broken too.

What we need is a daily page done by an AI personality, now that'll be cool



___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

Why vote republicrat when you can vote for Ralph Nader. The last person in Washington with any balls left.

Democrat? No.
Republican? Not me.

I'm voting for Neal.

What about Ralph Nader? He's a consumer advocate / progressive, and he will protect our freedoms while guaranteeing Americans their rights while at work and when buying. Sure, he may have killed the Corvair, but it's a small price to pay for a great Presidential hopeful.

I think freedom (with respect to software and otherwise) is a big thing for Ralph Nader (he pushed for punishment of MS for anticompetitive practices). He also seems to have a proven track record of supporting the little guy as well as being a good speaker and an informed, intelligent individual. I am sure he would be in my corner more than he would be in some lobbyists' pocket.

Check it out:
http://www.votenader.com/

Also if he gets >5%, then the Green Party becomes an officially organized party and gets federal funding.

Slashdot could work to change this... in a big way. If we unite as a force of change, it may be possible to introduce some diversity into the presidential race. Slashdot as a whole should endorse a candidate (decided by the slashdot poll), which everyone on Slashdot will work to get elected. Obviously we would become one of those special interest groups, but one which is composed of individuals who all have a say in the collective policies that we support.

Slashdot polls on all the major issues, and with our sheer numbers, we would be able to influence the campaign platform of our selected candidate. I put forward the name of Ralph Nader only because he happens to be the candidate that I support, but it could just as easily be David McReynolds, or anyone, other than Bush or Gore.

The best way to determine who your views are most in line with is at the Presidential Candidate Selector: http://www.selectsmart.com/PRESIDENT/

Ralph Nader is here, and David McReynolds is here