Slashdot Mirror
Dark Hearts And The Net
For more than half a century, ever since the birth of rock and roll and the rise of culture-expanding new media technologies from TV (and channel-switcher), on to cable, the Net and the Web, opportunistic political leaders have advanced the idea that the ideas and imagery spread by new technologies are dangerous to children. This idea, enthusiastically passed along by the mainstream media, has entered the American political consciousness.
Bush implied Wednesday night that the Net can, by itself, turn otherwise bright and youthful hearts dark, and even goad youth to murder -- an allegation that comes in the context of a long-standing cultural civil war. It exploits the worst fears of parents who are too often ignorant of their children's technological and cultural lives. Just that kind of claim is used to justify curbing the growing power of kids to access information and to set their own social and cultural agendas. It also gives us yet another look at how our antiquated, overwhelmed political process will deal with the Net, no matter who's elected.
It was hard to listen to comments like Bush's and not think of the dinosaurs just after the meteor hit. And to be fair, it isn't just Bush. The high point of the vice-presidential confrontation was when the Republican candidate Richard Cheney berated the Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman for softening his ferocious attacks on the "violent" culture of the young, especially movies, TV shows and videogames. Gore has repeatedly attacked TV, movies and the Net for the "cultural pollution" it's bringing to children's lives. And even before Wednesday night, Bush was demanding a wholesome "family hour" on TV every night.
This hysterical pandering has nothing to do with the reality of children's lives, or their welfare. If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools.
With perhaps a handful of holdouts, all American colleges are now wired up for the Net, one of the reasons that a whole generation of successful Web and media sites, from Yahoo to Napster to AIM and Slashdot have been created by college kids, not traditional media companies. Many of these new entrepeneurs are games and Net obsessives -- exactly the kind of bright kids who are online all the time. George Bush obviously doesn't know this.
The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity. If American schoolchildren were provided the same kind of bandwidth college students are, just imagine the kind of creative technological outpouring they might be capable of, not only in primary and secondary schools, but by the time they hit colleges and universities. Countries that are spending the money to give young children access to bandwidth -- many of the Scandinavian countries are doing this -- are seeding economic, educational and creative success, equality and prosperity.
In fact, a slew of new studies document that the young are using broadband to re-shape media and the information culture. They are the gurus, visionaries, technicians and authorities on the Information Revolution. According to the Pew center for Media Research, roughly half of American families now have Internet access. The aproximately 78 million Americans aged 21 and younger account for 28% of the population.
Lieberman likes to call himself a liberal, but he belongs to that long and glorious line of American politicians (H.L. Mencken called them "Boobus Americanus") who specialized in defining virtue and trying to ram it down everybody else's throat.
What a shame that the many real issues surrounding technology are perverted in this shamelessly exploitive way.
The biggest social, cultural and political issues in the country almost all relate to technology: How will the gene map be used, and will it be commercialized by bio-tech industries? (Yes). Will wealthy people start eliminating the retarded, emotionally disturbed and unnatractive from their birth "selection process"? (You betcha). Will the Net remain a unique and free space, or will it be forced to conform to non-virtual traditions and constraints? Will corporations be permitted to continue to grow unchecked and dominate technology in the way they now control culture, media and entertainment? Will all Americans have equal access to technologies like the Net and Web? (No.) Who will control intellectual property? (Companies like Microsoft, Sony, AOL/Time-Warner and Disney, looks like.) Who will manage new technologies from supercomuting to AI to nano-technology? (Megacorporations, apparently). If Bush or Gore talked about some of that stuff, the ratings might rocket up in a hurry.
But none of these issues will get much coverage or discussion, certainly not compared to the image of the Net turning young hearts dark and murderous. Politics like this can't possibly survive the Digital Age -- and they surely don't deserve to.
You should know by know that Katz is not interested in your "facts" and "logic".
So we got Buchanon, who's running openly racist and anti-immigration ads, Nader who's, well, Nader, and wants to protect all of us from ourselves. Bush doesn't understand the internet, but Gore thinks he invented it, probably with the help of some Chinese campaign contributions that he didn't know were illegal. I'm gonna hold my nose and pull the lever for Bush, he represents the least totalitarian idealogy. Maybe we can explain the web to him.
Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.
Not so. The electoral college pledges votes based on state-level voting. If he wins CA, he gets 100% of the CA electoral college votes.
The original idea of this was to retain powers at state level, since the founding fathers were generally against a strong federal government. Since then, the US public has fallen in true love with the idea of a strong federal government, which up until the depression had pretty much one-tenth the size and power it is now.
This *can* lead to the majority vote not electing a president, and it well might this time around, as Gore seems stronger in terms of the EC vote while they are neck-and neck in popular vote.
But let's clear up one other thing: the US is certainly not a Democracy, and never was. It's a Republic. And to clear another thing up, Democracy doesn't ensure government by the people any more than Republic. Majority rule isn't very comforting for minority viewpoints.
--
are there any decent contenders? sigh
Tell me about it. I took one of those online which canidate is right for you, and discovered I agreed with bush about 40% of the time, and gore 20%. I'm not surprized. I'm also not voting for either. But I think I have a fairly reasonable choice for senate that I'm hoping can keep the worst people off the surpreem court.
Accually though, I like voting for the loser. This way I can tell people "I didn't vote for him, and I did vote. So it must be your fault." Makes them think, and puts responsibility on their shoulders (Since most people don't vote, it is their fault for not voting for the other guy, and many who do vote voted for the guy in, I'm fairly safe accusing others of causing the problem with their vote.)
Hal Duston
hald@sound.net
I would certainly agree that there is a difference between a Cola commercial and Die Hard, and I would also concur that adults are much less likely to be influenced when making mooral decisions than trivial "cola" decisions.
However, I would also state that media can have a powerful influence on the formation of those values. Most children also have enough parent supervision so that they too can learn the difference between "cola" choices and moral choices, but many do not. In your DieHard example it would be fairly easy for children to infer that violence is an acceptable way to deal with one's "enemies." There have been several cases of small children taking handguns to school (under 8 years of age), these children almost certainly were influenced to some extent by the media. Even the worst of parents do not teach their children to shoot people the disagree with. The television, however, often portrays that very message. Of course, the media wants to blame hand guns (while at the same time using hand guns as an important part of much of their programming).
Many parents who are concerned for their children's welfare do not appreciate a media that is essentially working against us. Most of us aren't asking for much, but we are never going to get anywhere on this issue as long as the media keeps pretending that children are unaffected by the constant exposure to violence and sex. At the very least they need to acknowledge the fact that many of their customers don't appreciate their programming choices. Even if there wasn't a link between media violence and real violence the fact that so many people are upset about the issue should clue the media into the fact that something should be done. After all, we are customers too.
I am not for clearing the airwaves of things that I don't approve of. I understand that my values are not everyone's values, but it isn't asking too much to push for a little more control over what my children see.
Yes, I'm quite aware that my opionion is based upon my interpretation, both from the definition of millitia AND how the 2nd ammendment is phrased.
However you are doing the same. You are assuming what the founders meant by millitia. You are assuming that their definition is that a melitia is basically a state controlled army. I on the other hand presume it means any one capable of defending their country in the time of need. ( As was the case during the revolution )
My intent was to give a counter point to the originals poster saing that his interpretation was the CORRECT one. Honestly no one will ever REALLY know what the founders intended. (we can assume all we want but we will never know)
But to refute your point about them intending millitia to be a state controlled force:
No one took or even tried to take guns away from the people after the revolutionary war. And at that time almost EVERY one had a gun. Which leads me to believe that their definitiaon of millitia was more in the direction of my interpretation.
But again that is an opinion
Ex-Nt-User
It is interesting that you say that those that interpret the 2nd ammendment as giving them the rights to own guns as WRONG. Yet you believe that Your interpretationis obviously correct because it fits your beliefs. Open your eyes.
For every statistic you can bring up about why guns are bad. I can bring up at least one that says the opposite. But obviously MY statistics must be lies because I don't believe the same thing as you. (By you I don't mean to attack you specifically.. I'm attacking all the anti-gun people)
Let's Setup a baseline:
militia
n. Abbr. mil.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2.A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
By definition #1. the 2nd ammendment can't possibly mean that the right to own guns is restricted to the millitary, since our millitary is composed of PROFFESIONAL SOLDIERS. (Besides soldiers DO NOT OWN THEIR GUNS)
By Definition #2. This could refer to the national guard. I will give you that. BUT there WAS NO NATIONAL GUARD established by our founders. Thus it must refer to ordinary people that can help out in times of need. By this it means any citizen of the US.
By Definition #3: And I stress the whole body of physically fit civilians. Thus any civilian can and should be considered part of a millitia. Thus he has the right to own a GUN!
Now that we have established that ANY private citizen is a member of a millitia, we can see that the line the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed does in fact imply that the government can't regulate private gun ownership. Again because if by what you are saing that line refers to the militia and since anyone can be and is part of the militia that line applies to any citizen of the US.
Please don't misinterpret the meaning of millitia because this is where all the anti-gun people DO!
Needless to say I don't own a gun. I don't own one because at this time I CHOOSE not to own one. This contry is based on freedoms, and whether I believe in gun ownership or not, I believe everyone should have a CHOICE which is what anti-gun people are trying to take away!
Ex-Nt-User
well, i'm probably posting this way too late for anyone to rad this, but here goes....
unless the way they are used can be changed drastically from the way it is now, i think katz is very wrong on the necessity of computers in grade school classrooms. in fact, i would say i have a much easier time agreeing with nader's position that there shouldn't be computers at all in grade school classrooms.
before you flame me for this, think about how computers are used in grade schools. for the most part, a grade school classroom has one or two computers sitting in the back of the classroom, and at various times throughout the day, the kids take their turn on the computer to play games like the oregon trail, and carmen sandiego. granted, those are old examples, but the concept is the same. and oregon trail is still very popular (it was re-released as a new full color game recently, with a lot of new flashy stuff (i.e. using the mouse for hunting)
beyond that, every once in a while somebody else who knew computers would come in to teach the kids special things about the computers. what a waste of effort. believe me, a kid in 3rd grade does not care how to use a word processor, and a 7th grader could care less about a database (roughly the time i was introduced to each of these concepts) in fact their attempt to teach me what about databases was so braindead it took me years to figure out what was the difference between a database and a spreadsheet.
if you want your kid to play educational games, do it at home, or in the school's computer lab outside of class time. and if you want to show him how to use the web, then that's great. do it at home. can't afford a computer at home? use the library.
we shouldn't be teaching our kids computers in grade school. not everyone is going to grow up to be a programmer. those who find them interesting can learn about them on their own, but not everyone will. by trying to show all these kids how to use computers before they are ready for them, you're only going to mess them up.
computers in gradeshool classrooms, until we can vastly change how they are used, are only going to cause problems.
and yes, i am speaking more than just from my personal experiences in grade school. i've helped with setting up computers at the grade school i went to many times, and i know many grade school teachers. if you don't believe me, go visit a few gradeschools yourself and ask to look around.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
...as another person up there noted, people around the age of 18 won't vote.
You see, it's a Catch 22...politicians pander to the senior citizens, etc. because they have very large voter turnout percentages. As such, in order to get elected, you have to address their needs.
The under 21 crowd has historically had the lowest voter turnout of pretty much any group. Politicians don't care about this group because basically their vote is chump change. However, the catch is that the under 21 crowd doesn't vote because politicians don't care about them. Ugh!
This is all obvious, I'm sure, but I'd like to put forth this challenge. I'd bet the average Slashdot reader is in their 20s (I said average, not all!). As such, you likely know people in the 18-20something group. Go out there and encourage them to vote! Don't tell them who to vote for, just pester them to actually go do it.
Politicians may not care about our age group (I use 'our' broadly as I'm almost out of the apathy age group), but for once, let's send them a message that we do matter. If all of the sudden, these age groups had 50% or better voter turnout, we'd start to matter to politicians.
So do it!
Politicians don't care how 18 year olds view them, since 18 year olds barely bother to vote. So it's no surprise that these candidates would just concentrate on the older demographic, it's just good practice to go after the voters that actually vote!
-- let me burn you let me burn you let me burn you -Front 242
If he wanted to make the internet the issue, it wouldn't have been hard to make that clear, and I would have been flaming him full-on for it. The fact is, it's pundits like Katz that are trying to make everyone think the internet was the main issue on Bush's mind. It's not.
Frankly, I'm too disappointed by Katz's shameless partisanism to say any more, and I'm too irked about the mass media calling an attack upon a united states ship of war "terrorism" when by the standards of every nation on earth that is an outright act of war.
But that's WAAAAAY offtopic :-)
Geuss what, not all of us want to pay for your medical bills. If you didn't save properly in your youth and prepare for retirement, then quite frankly, fuck you. If you don't have enough money to survive thats your own damn fault and I sure as hell do not want to be forking over my money that I could be using to prevent myself from being in that same position.
Fortunately, I did save enough to buy a gun, thanks NRA! And now, since I don't have any money left for retirement, and I may freeze/starve to death this winter, I'm going to come to your house, kill you, and take all of your stuff!
You can't just turn people out into the street!
And believe it or not, socialism is not a dirty word. You already pay for someone else's medical care, that's what health insurance is all about!
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
Oooh boy.
Heart attack and cancer. What a choice...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Blame the idiots. Think globally, but mock them locally.
/following/ the worst doctorine possible. Ignorance.
The interesting thing is that as I get older I begin to realize more and more things and find them ironic. For example there was a recent study which recommended that parents be given more time off work for parenting because there were issues with 0-5yo children. When I heard the story I giggled thinking about the irony of all these social programs which dictate higher taxes which in turn dictate both parents working which leads right back to social programs to "cure" the ills of working parents! Programs which will start the cycle all over again.
To some extent I see this happening here, the candidates representing the people who just don't get it and, in turn, creating more people who just don't get it. A vicious cycle. The irony here is that both candidates are trying to prove that they have what it takes to lead by
-- Grey d'Miyu, not just another pretty color.
This is the US, it's a 2-party system.
Yes, that was the argument they used to keep people from voting Republican up until Abraham Lincoln won.
-
As a Browne voter, I have to say Nader isn't all bad:
And Hitler made the trains run on time.
And Stalin reduced overpopulation.
-
It's sad that it's going to take another 30 or 40 years before college people today get into the government.
It's incredibly frightening that the people who are in college today are someday going to be in government.
-
What the hell did you just say?
Japanians, Yugoslaves.
If I only have a choice between two fools, I take the articulate one, thank you very much.
You don't have to look quite that deep to find evidence of Bush's weak mind. How about his refences to the Japanians and YugoSLAVES? There were some equally laughable remarks just recently relating to geography, enough to evoke nothing but a snort at the mention of his name. Compared to this, Gore's claims of inventing the Internet are almost erudite.
The phrase "well-regulated" means "in proper working order", and it was in reference to the weapons, not the militia. This was written in the days of flintlocks, when a firearm was not an off-the-shelf item, but required careful and knowledgable maintenance and practice by its owner.
A citizen militia would be worthless if their weapons were ill-maintained. The intended meaning of the 2nd Amendment was, "Because the citizen militia can only function properly if the citizens are able to maintain their own firearms in good working order, government may not infringe on the citizens rights to keep and train on their own weapons.
Bear in mind that the Constitution prohibits standing armies, which destroys your interpretation.
Uh, if you're gonna vote 3rd party, vote for Browne. Nader only wants to imprison the populace in a Green/Red New-Communist state.
That is an absolute load of crap.
I happen to have very strong libertarian leanings (with a couple of minor reservations, such as their stance on anti-trust, etc.), but with spokespeople like you the libertarians don't need enemies.
If you want to do the Libertarian Party a favor, change your tone and stop spouting nonesense.
In the meantime, I will resist the gut level reaction to your comments which would sway me away from Brown and continue to weigh the "empower the individual through very small, limited, and strictly constitutional government" argument of Mr. Brown against the "reduce corporate influence and reempower the individual" argument of Nader. My decision will come in due course according to facts, not diatribe, innuendo, and most especially not as a result of the outright nonesense you are spouting.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
You can pretty easily tell whom among the responses have children and those who still are children. A protection instinct occurs with the former. That instinct may be misdirected when you don't understand a new cultural phenomena, but put yourself in the parents shoes and see where they are coming from.
United States: NATION=USA. ............3217312
. ............7764147
. ............7372984
. ..................3689533
. ..................3577632
. ............10832014
. ..........7108692
. ..........6762450
. .................3243107
. .................3321609
. .................3304890
. .................3410062
. .................3641238
. .................4076216
. .................4009414
. .................3817220
. ..........11193678
. ..........21313045
. ..........21862887
. ..........19963117
. ..........17615786
. ..........13872573
. ..........11350513
. ..........10531756
. ..........4228303
. ...........6387864
. ..........10111735
. ...........7994823
. ...........6121369
. ...........3933739
. .......3080165
AGE
Universe: Persons
Under 1 year.............................................
1 and 2 years............................................
3 and 4 years............................................
5 years............................................
6 years............................................
7 to 9 years............................................
10 and 11 years............................................
12 and 13 years............................................
14 years............................................
15 years............................................
16 years............................................
17 years............................................
18 years............................................
19 years............................................
20 years............................................
21 years............................................
22 to 24 years............................................
25 to 29 years............................................
30 to 34 years............................................
35 to 39 years............................................
40 to 44 years............................................
45 to 49 years............................................
50 to 54 years............................................
55 to 59 years............................................
60 and 61 years............................................
62 to 64 years............................................
65 to 69 years............................................
70 to 74 years............................................
75 to 79 years............................................
80 to 84 years............................................
85 years and over.............................................
In some ways, it's nice sitting back and watching the US Presidential elections. You've got your candidates, neither of whom are particularly appealing in the slightest (I had been edging for McCain, but since he dropped out, it's marginally Gore over Bush, for what seems to me to be obvious reasons).
Well, into the fray jumped Jon Katz over at slashdot.org">, with his article (though I'm more inclined to term it an op-ed) Dark Hearts And The Net.
It was nearly a good article. George Bush Jnr. apparently "implied Wednesday night that the Net can, by itself, turn otherwise bright and youthful hearts dark, and even goad youth to murder -- an allegation that comes in the context of a long-standing cultural civil war. It exploits the worst fears of parents who are too often ignorant of their children's technological and cultural lives".
Here, I agree. Yes, it's political pandering. Yes, it's appealing to the misinformed by feeding them more misinformation and relying more on people's lack of knowledge than it is on enlightenment, and in no way does it smack of a resonable, reasoned debate. But this is politics we're talking about here, so Bush is forgiven.
Katz spoils it all, though, by managing to spout the largest pile of useless bile three paragraphs later: And what a load of bollocks he's spoken. Why? What's he said?
"This hysterical pandering has nothing to do with the reality of children's lives, or their welfare. If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools."
I beg to differ, but I think anyone who's seriously interested in children wouldn't even contemplate shrieking about the paucity of decent internet access. I'd rather hope that such shrieking would be the last thign on such an interested body's mind, and that it wouldn't even be shrieking: a mere mewling I could tolerate.
Excuse me? Paucity of net access? How about educational standards? How about child abuse? How about welfare? How about illiteracy? How about employment? How about giving disaffected kids something, anything, a reason to stay in school and not to muck around? How about educating mall rats (and I may be stereotyping, but unfortunately stereotypes exist for a reason), whose knowledge of world affairs, well, doesn't exist?
Katz comments that "the sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity". No, Jon, you're completely wrong. Completely, utterly and totally.
Yes, technology can empower people. Yes it can make a difference, it can improve creativity, confidence and opportunity. But it's not the be-all and end-all, not by a long way.
Is Katz seriously insinuating that he'd rather schools spent money on internet access than textbooks? Are we to suggest that we should wire up schools whilst neglecting the fact that a startling number are attempting to drop or de-emphasise the teaching of evolution in biology classes in favour of creation science?
You can't, and shouldn't assume that throwing computers and technology at kids is going to make the world a better place, and it's rather ill though-out to say so: what kids need are teachers. They need adequate teaching facilties. They need well-stocked labs. They need teachers who know enough about the subject, and care enough about their subject to want to and to inspire their charges. Fortunately, I'm not the only one on slashdot who thinks this.
My old school has computers falling out of its ears. I was lucky. I went to a good school, we had enough money, we had good (in most parts), teachers. I was given the right chances, the right opportunities and I was pushed. This same school had computers falling out of its ears. Fibre optic backbones. A ratio of computers to pupils that puts my current university to shame. Did those resources help anyone pass exams? Did the classrooms full of PCs help anyone understand English literature? Did they directly inspire any kids to go out and do something, did they directly inspire kids to learn? Or did they simply allow kids to check their Hotmail at lunch and send emails like the following during their lessons?
At 15:56 23/05/00 +0100, you wrote:
>what do you suck?
>not what you do
Technology's just there. Like everything, it's what you do with it that counts: if you don't have the teachers to take advantage of it, where are you going to go? You'll have thirty pieces of beige-box equipment sitting being more or less abused on a daily basis, and you're not unlocking any potential anywhere. You're wasting it. These kids don't know anymore about the net because of net access. They know the latest football scores. They know what new single's at number one. They try, vainly, to look for porn, and were surprised when we came down on them like a tonne of bricks. They send idiotic, abusive emails to each other, in a new form of playground insult. Are these kids empowered because we sat them in front of a 15 inch CRT and told them to surf the net for an hour? Of course not.
People must realise that throwing technology at things doesn't make anything any better. Wiring up schools, wiring up hospitals, sharing information doesn't necessarily make anything any better unless you have better people. Technology in itself doesn't make better people, either. It can help, but you stick thirty kids down in front of your wonderful government-funded net access workstations with a horribly inept, disillusioned teacher and you have a waste of money of the highest degree.
Katz says "What a shame that the many real issues surrounding technology are perverted in this shamelessly exploitive way."
Yes, that's a shame. It's a shame that politicans are looking at the negative aspects of the internet in order to gain votes. Yes, it's a shame that politicians are capitalising on fear founded due to lack of knowledge. But it's also a shame that Katz is perpetuating the myth that many seem to share, including the politicians he so despairs of: technology doesn't help. People do.
More Katz: "The biggest social, cultural and political issues in the country almost all relate to technology: yadda yadda gene mapping, yadda yadda birth selection, intellectual property, management of new technologies from supercomuting (sic) to AI to nanotechnology."
Yes, these issues are important. Ethical considerations have to be examined. The foundation for intellectual property has to be re-examined. But before that, please look after your people. Katz is right: the internet isn't turning young hearts dark and murderous. But have you thought of what might be? Why are so many kids disaffected? Why are so many apathetic? Isn't it ironic that when adults complain about the children of this century, they complain that they're materialistically motivated, that they are so apathetic when its crass commercialism that has been drummed into their heads? Kids these days are mass-marketed into submission, and it's not as if they're "growing up" any slower.
Don't be preoccupied with technology. Work out how to use it properly, and how to teach people to use it properly before you start throwing it at everyone and expect them to intuitively know how to use it positively.
This post also appears on my blog at http://danhon.com/ec/.
http://danhon.com/
...they fail to realize that in order to get the "youth vote" they have to have some emotional investment in the youth they're attempting to persuade.
That might be true if there was such a thing as the youth vote. But youth don't vote. Or rather, they vote in insignificant numbers. The politicians know this. And since most of them lack any conscience whatsoever, they'll hammer home the issues that they think will get the best press (Slashdot not included), the most buzz, and ultimately the most votes. Regardless of whether they really believe their own spiel.
Sad to say "youth vote" continues to be an oxymoron.
- The "created the internet" is a misquote.
- I don't know about the union song story.
- The girl standing in class was based on talking to the father of the girl and a newspaper article. The quote about the equipment WAS a lie. The girl did only have to stand for one day, but because a boy gave her his desk; he had to stand. Read salon.
- Gore DID visit the flood victims; the 'lie' was that he went with a deputy, not the head of FEMA.
OTOH, Bush lies:
- He said Gore was outspending him. The opposite is true.
- He accused Gore of "fuzzy math" when Gore said that Bush was giving more in tax breaks to the top 1% of earners than he was planning to spend on defense, education and health care combined. The following day he admitted that Gore's statment was true.
- He disappeared for a year when he was in the Air National Gaurd. He's never explained that. He was allowed to 'make up' the time by serving in Colorado. He was in school at Harvard at the time.
Get facts, don't rely on one new source.
"It was me against the world, I was sure that I'd win.... but the world fought back, punished me for my sins" - Social D
Politicians are not idiots. They are smarter than most of the people on slashdot. Just because someone doesn't agree with your views, does not make them an idiot.
Well, it's all a metter of word-play I suppose. What Gore is quoted as actually saying is:
"During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
Now I don't know about you, but I could take that as meaning that he is claiming he "invented" the Internet. Sure, what he is really saying is that he was a supporter of ARPANET before it became what we know as the Internet. But come on, he DID NOT create the Internet. ARPANET was created in the late 60's, Gore didn't even graduate from Harvard until 1969 and he wasn't a member of Congress until 1976. No sir, Al Gore had nothing to do with "creating" the Internet. Now, if you want to play with words and say that the Internet didn't exist until 1994 when the web came alive, then I suppose his claim of being an early supporter has some weight. It's a pretty good stretch either way in my book.
Because of his generous claim I think he deserves to be made fun of a little.
How are those voting for "Bore" (to borrow your 1980 newsgroup flamer renaming method) voting any less blindly? How can you support a candidate that was a primary force behind the Clipper chip?
I'm voting Nader, but frankly it astounds me that anyone with a even a small degree of technical sense would vote for Gore. Just because he understands technology to some extent does NOT mean his uses of it will be all for the good!
Gore is my absolute last choice, I would write in a vote for Nixon or Carter before I'd vote Gore.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's exactly the kind of thing I've been looking for - though I'd wish they included at least Nader as well. I apologize for any mispellings, I didn't have time to proofread well.
Here's a summary of the ten issues:
Space Exploration:
Both support the space program and the ISS.
Bush - Mentions support for Mars exploration and trying to make it cheaper to get people into space.
Gore - Has a short blurb on support for space exploration and would complete the ISS.
Science Education:
Bush - Supports a number of funds to help promote math education - also supports H1B visas.
Gore - Continue connecting schools to the internet (E-Rate program), deploy AmeriCorps people to help train techers to use the Internet, and also supports H1B visas.
I guess if you don't like the H1B visa program you are out of luck this election.
National Labs:
Bush - redo security at labs, provide $20b for R&D between now and 2006. Rework military to handle information warefare.
Gore - supports current energy department initiatives to increase security. Supports General John A. Gordon in revewing national nuclear security.
International Science Projects:
Bush - small blurb about how it's a good idea, but we need to make sure of accountabliliy.
Gore - committed to helping along international science projects, like the human genome project.
Energy Policy:
Bush - reduce dependance on foreign oil, increase funding for research into alternative enegry (though without goverment interference).
Suports nuclear power, deregulation of electric and gas, R&D tax credit for energy research.
Gore - maintain tax incetives for coal, oil, gas. Pursue tax policies to support efficient use of energy. Pursue much better efficiency of light duty vehicle fleets.
Global Warming:
Bush - Rejects Koyoto Protocol on the grounds of 80% world exemption. Use market based mechanisms to reduce pollution (tax credits).
Gore - Strongly supports Koyoto Protocol and through that market based mechanisms.
Biological and Physical Sciences:
Bush - increase funding of basic research (including it research), also double budget of National Institutes of Health.
Gore - Significant increase for "Twenty-First Century Research Fund", including National Institutes of Health. Stop cuts in funding for physical research.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Bush - reduce nuclear arsenal to smallest level needed to maintain national security (probably less than StartII). Reduce as many weapons from high alert status as possible. Supports missle defense and attempt to recude availiable supply of materials need for more nuclear weapons. Does not support Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Gore - Supports limited missle defense system. Ratify Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Continue to denuclearize Russian Federation, build up anti-terrorist capabilities.
Missile Defense
Bush - Build NMD to protect US and allies overseas. Try to work with Russia to amend Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, but opt out of treaty if that doesn't work.
Gore - Support limited NMD. Also work with Russia on adjusting Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, but will not let Russia override veto on NMD if NMD is needed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What's truly amazing is that there's been so much focus on Gore's exagerations (a politician exagerating- what a story!) and virtualy none on Bush's straight out lies about his own budget. Lies spanning _billions_ of dollars of spending differences between what he says and what his own budget says. Misrepresentations about what Social Security even is (and complete neglect of the fact that there's a huge a DEBT owed to current retirees that has to be paid somehow) Anyne who's been following Paul Krugman's opinion collumn in the New York Times should know this, but apparently most people don't read that anymore. Krugman stuff - needs a free registration to read if you haven't already.
You are absolutely correct, and had I not blown all my moderator points on a bunch of $2 karma whores yesterday, this post would be significantly higher up the page.
--
--
E_NOSIG
...unless they're tearing apart someone else's opinions. Jon, you rule. Everyone else who can't seem to find anything better to do with their day than pick at every miniscule detail of every JonKatz post, get a life. The grammar isn't perfect, but whose is? Things occasionally get misspelled, but who among us has never misspelled anything? Yes, he seems preoccupied with the youth of today, but there's a good reason for that: they're the future. This world is divided into two camps: all the control freaks currently running the government, big business, and the media, and all the rest of us who are appalled at the idea of downsizing a company just so its stock value goes up a tenth of a point, or of a program like that hideous WAVE thing (which encouraged kids to rat each other out for things like "being different" just like in Nazi Germany), or of restricting anyone's access to information that might encourage them to formulate their own opinion instead of just taking on faith whatever Society crams down their throats. I'd be willing to bet that damn near everyone who reads slashdot belongs to the second camp. Guess what, folks? That puts us all on the same team. It's us, the freedom-loving people who hate the thought of being kept under the heels of those who strive to control us, against them. Like it or not, most of you people who bitch at Jon every time he puts two words together and forms a sentence are at heart actually on the same side as he is. As I am. As we all are. You just need to realize that the reason it seems like he keeps repeating himself about things like kids and Columbine is because you haven't gotten it yet, which is self-evident from the fact that 90% of the responses to anything the man says are overwhelmingly negative.
Now to address the subject of his essay: Politicians suck. Like anyone can argue with that. I haven't voted in any election in about 15 years because I realized long ago that voting is pointless. Like it or not, we do have to put up with a 2-party system. 80% of the voters in this country will vote either Republican or Democrat no matter what. Ralph Nader? He doesn't have a chance in hell because so few people take *any* third-party candidate seriously. My own parents, god love 'em, always always always vote Republican no matter what, especially now that the Republican is someone who professes to be as Christian as they are. In their minds, all that matters is that the man says "I'm a Southern Baptist." His actual opinions and views on important things like education and freedom and how much control the government has over them don't matter whatsoever; "As long as he's a Christian, he'll do the right thing." When I remind them that Bill Clinton also professed to be a Christian during election times, their faces go all grey and clammy and suddenly the topic changes to what I want for Christmas or something. They hate Clinton with a passion, you see, and can't reconcile themselves with the fact that he fooled them by saying he was a Christian (not that they voted for him, of course, since he's a Democrat). My point is that you can't trust anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician, ever, before or after they're elected:
How many times do we have to catch them in lies before we stop believing what they say?
It's all about control, people. They'll say quite literally anything to get voted into office; whether it's true or not, and whether they intend to follow through on it or not, doesn't enter into it. We can't even tell if Bush Jr. actually believes that the net turns kids into brutal dark-hearted monsters that yearn to take out all their frustrations on the people who're mean to them; he's saying that because he thinks that's what the majority of Americans wants to hear. Everything that they say is geared towards making us more likely to vote in their favor. We're nothing but a table full of demographics to them, and whatever they think the majority of people wants to hear is what they'll spew forth; screw the minorities and their opinions. That's the biggest fault with democracy, incidentally; if 90% of the people think that the other 10% shouldn't be allowed to, say, marry each other, even though it doesn't affect that 90% in any way whatsoever at all, period, then 27,000,000 people are just out of luck. Viewing things in percentages disguises the extent of the truth. If there are 27,000,000 people who have a certain opinion, I'd have to say it's a pretty valid one no matter what the other 90% says, and that 90% has no right whatsoever to force 27,000,000 people into a way of life that they hate... and all politicians pander to this "You'll do what we say whether you like it or not" mentality because voting is also geared around what the majority wants. "Truth," "compassion," "understanding," "tolerance"... these are all concepts which escape them utterly, and so millions upon millions of people have to suffer because whatever group outnumbers them gets to dictate how they'll live their lives. That concept sickens me, and being the freedom-loving bunch of guys slashdot readers are, it probably sickens you too.
And that's all Jon is trying to do... point out to us the fact that the politicians we're presented with every few years -- the "official" ones, of course, not those third-party and fourth-party and green-party candidates who're doomed from the word go because they favor taking some control away from the government and giving it to We, the People, where it belongs, which they of course just can't allow -- are complete idiots who spout beliefs they think will be popular in an attempt to get elected. Doesn't anyone remember the Simpsons Halloween special where Kang and Kodos, the space aliens, replaced Dole and Clinton? "It doesn't matter which one of us you vote for," they said... "Either way, your planet is doomed! Doooooomed!!" Nothing could be closer to the truth... but I suppose because it was presented as humor, nobody took it seriously. I think the show's writers were being deadly serious when they wrote that episode. And everyone who watched it knew it was true, said "Boy, that's so true," especially the part about how voting for a third-party candidate was tantamount to throwing your vote away, but then went right on with their lives afterward. Nobody thinks they have any chance of changing the very foundation of the political system, so we all just put up with it, thus guaranteeing that nothing will change. A self-perpetuating system of oppression designed to keep the powerful in power. You can't even hope to run for any office unless you have millions of dollars to throw away on advertising yourself. If this were truly an equal opportunity political system, there wouldn't be any election campaign fundraisers; all politicians would be allowed a certain number of free political ads on TV and radio and newspapers and magazines and websites. That way, nobody would have an advantage simply by virtue of being wealthier than the rest of them. "Who will pay for the ads," I hear you ask. Well, who pays for public service announcements? I think political ads are just as important to the public as PSA's are and should be just as free to those who make them. Think that'll ever happen? Think those in power (who are, remember, among the wealthiest in America) will willingly give up the advantage that their wealth gives them? Think again.
Politics as a whole stinks. Politicians stink. I can count the number of good honest politicians who actually worked for the public interest (as opposed to the interests of Big Business and themselves) in the past 50 years on one hand. And as long as we all just put up with it and keep deluding ourselves into thinking that happiness and liberty and freedom and equality for all are merely one election away, that all it'll take is the right person in the White House, we might as well just glue wool to our bodies, get down on all fours, and let the shepherds bugger us until the end of time. Why do you think "equality for all" has eluded us for hundreds of years? It should be a very simple thing to accomplish; just treat everyone like you yourself would want to be treated. The quintessence of simplicity. And I think most people do that, for the most part, except when it conflicts with their religion (which is another post entirely, although you could probably replace every instance of "politics" in this post with "religion" and be close to the truth). What's stopping us as a society from just loosening up our sphincters and letting people be who they are without trying to force them into whatever ethical/moral mold is currently in vogue? I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. And now, back to the point.
Jon Katz is trying to wake you sheep up and reveal What's Really Goin' On to you. Soon as you open your eyes and break out of the social conditioning you've been subjected to all your lives, as soon as you think for yourselves instead of letting someone else do it for you, as soon as you realize the ridiculousness and idiocy that permeates all things political, as soon as you let yourselves believe that nothing is going to get any better as long as the governments of this world (yes, it isn't just the US that sucks) keep everyone under their thumbs and heels, "the healing can begin." Separately we may not have enough power to do anything about it (though I thrill to the thought of the positive changes that could be wrought on this planet if we all banded together and said "Screw you and your greed!" to those in power), but at least we don't have to keep deluding ourselves into thinking that our votes matter and we only have a choice between Republican A and Democrat B, between Kang and Kodos. Realize that saying "Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos!" isn't an excuse; we are all to blame.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Gore can't win for losing. If he makes a minor mistake he is raked over the coals as a serial exagerator. But if the press and the Bush campaign embellish the alleged Gore exagerations (btw, Gore WAS an inspiration for Love Story) then, again, that is Gore's fault.
When are people going to start holding the press and Dubya responsible for their own embellishments and exagerations?
Gore's contributions to the development of the internet were not minor. He never claimed to have been the sole inspiration, creator, etc. of the internet. But, no less an authority then Newt Gingrich has admitted that Gore WAS on the leading edge of understanding the importance of computer networks and he was the leading supporter of groundbreaking legislation that lead to the privatizing and expansion of th net.
You can try to minimize his importance in these matters, but then it is YOU who are doing the exagerating.
BTW, Gore WAS an inspiration for Love Story. He never claimed that Tipper was as well. He only quoated a newspaper article that misquoted the author as saying she was. The reporters who were there have expressed suprise that the story has been so massively distorted as it has been.
Also, Gore never claimed to have written the EITC. He claimed to have written an EXPANSION of the EITC (he did). And Gore DID work on the SPR. It was first created before he entered congress. But the funding and structure of it was not put in place until AFTER he joined.
The lies, embellishments, and exagerations about Gore's alleged lies, embellishments, and exagerations dwarf those alleged lies, embellishments and exagerations.
To today's modern corporations the dissemination of wealth shows up as a loss on their books. After all. Trickle-down economis works only so long as the corporations don't view that as a sign of them running a leaky ship.
I find it interesting that you appear to define freedom and wealth by how many possessions we can get. The freedom to buy more stuff and the freedom to live our lives as we chose are NOT the same thing.
lets see...
data points = {25.7, 26.1, 26.0, 25.9, 25.7}
Mean = 25.88
Median = 25.9
Mode = 25.7 - i find this kindof useless
Standard Deviation = 0.1788 .3576
SD*2 =
so ... + or - 2 standard deviations of the mean would be {25.5224 , 26.2376}
All values are within this range, so it would be tough to say that there is any appreciable change in graduating populations.
sigh...
tagline
... hi bingo
Dont vote for people because no one will vote for them. It severely limits your choices and options.
if people dont vote their consicense, and vote for who they feel is the best candidate, and instead vote for one of the two candidates that might "win", that, by definition assures that there will never be a new viewpoint.
politics is not an either or choice.
tagline
... hi bingo
tagline
... hi bingo
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
This clears it up, and refreshes my memory.
If what you are saying is correct (that the reps don't have to vote the way the popular vote went), and that getting the votes in the big states is what mattered, then wouldn't all a large corporate entity (or group, like the MPAA) need to do to influence (or even control!) who gets elected would be to "buy" the representatives in the states (via campaign funds or such)?
I take it that the electoral college seems to have been set up to prevent this very thing (perhaps), is it feasible that it might be failing (or has failed)?
What is really needed is some way to make voting easier (more convenient) for the working public, as well as much more stricter controls on corporate influence of candidates (so that the richest candidate can't win, and so that corps can't control via kickbacks, funding, etc - or by telling their employee's how to vote under penalty of being fired or some such).
In short, make it possible for real third party action - make it possible for normal people to get into office, level the playing field...
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
How does this work? It has been a long time since this was explained to me, and I would like a refresher.
As I understand it, the popular vote means almost nothing, with the EC being there. The question is, who elects (or how are they chosen) the people in the EC?
Finally, who becomes pres is almost irrelevant - while we sit here and discuss all of this, who would be best, blah, blah - we ignore the candidates and such regarding those seeking offices in the House and Senate - where the REAL decisions are made. Or am I off base?
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
...that when Bush speaks about there needing to be a "family hour" on TV each night, he is really saying "a Christian family hour". I would be further willing to be he has the network in mind to deliver it, as well: ABC.
Since you note that you haven't looked at network TV for a while, let me assure you the ABC has instead become the "Christian family hour - all day" channel (or so it seems every time I flip past it). There are more shows on there pandering in various ways to "Christian" morality, etc - that it makes me sick (between that and Disney ads).
LET ME DECIDE MY RELIGION, IF ANY!
Family hour - BAH!
I support the EFF - do you?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
In other words, the internet is a slum?
Every time a politician slams this virtual place in which geeks have made a home for ourselves, geeks (rightly) feel slammed. After all, a politician dissing the 'net is a politician dissing the people who choose to use it and find it a positive force in their lives.
We "netizens" have built this place, and feel a quite reasonable attachment to it therefore. We don't like being told, no matter how subtlely, that we should be ashamed of being here, or being a part of this realm.
What you seem to be missing is the emotional subtext, which is blindingly clear to the weepy masses. The logical component of his statement may be vacuous enough to be dismissed, but as an emotional appeal its dangerous.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Well, actually you can. Or homeschool, if you don't want to deal with the regulations of founding a school.
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
I'll admit, George Bush might not want to censor the Internet (it's tough to tell what his real positions and what his "look I'm a good Christian censorship fanatic" positions are), but you conservatives shouldn't keep lying about your positions. You don't believe in Liberty in general or the First Amendment in particular.
A George Bush presidency, provided the congress doesn't change, means Dick Armey, House majority leader, will be free to enact legislation. What is Armey's position on this issue?
Armey's Reflection on Values in Our Society
Henry Hyde actually tried to pass legislation on this issue right after the Columbine.
Basically, the only reason Republicans claim to be for freedom, is so they can continue to fool small 'l' libertarians into voting for them. But the only real Libertarian position they are solid on is the Second Amendment, they'd like to see an end to the rest of the Constitution.
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll be "wasting my vote" and voting against the Two Party Tyranny system.
My parents will be heartbroken, they're Republicans and have been active in politics. Don't you remember Orrin Hatch on TV banging a copy of Quake and saying how eeevil it was, right after Columbine? All they do is try to scare me, "you don't want Lieberman to get in, do you? That would be even worse" because they know they can't defend the Republican party on this issue. What's the difference between the two parties on this issue?
At least be honest about the tyranny the Republican party wants to inflict on the American people. You'll still get fascists, people living in fantasy land, and idiots to vote for your candidate. They seem to make up a significant portion of the electorate. Leave people who legitimately believe in freedom alone.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
reality that there is no consensus whatsoever among scientists that
humans have affected global temperatures. See the Petition Project,
which has been signed by something like 19,000 scientists, for
details.
Ah, petitions! That crucial piece of the scientific method.
Seriously, the signatures to the petition have been a laughing
stock on the net for months. There are no `authentication' procedures
in place: for all I know I am a signatory to this petition.
is a `greenhouse gas' (ie. increased concentrations of atmospheric
CO_2 are correlated with increased atmospheric retention of heat).
No part of the petition denies this. What apparently all of the
signatories agree to is that *in fact* this increased concentration is
beneficial to the environment and the earth's population. There is no
scientific consensus to this end, and no conscientious scientist would
agree that this claim has credibly been established.
Also the petition sponsors have in the past tried to give the
impression that they were associated with the NAS, and were in fact
rebuked by the NAS for this. The whole of the association is that
Seitz' used to be a president of the NAS.
Fair enough. There is real room for scientific controversy about
the consequences of global warming, and the environmental lobby have
hardly played fair. Let's not try to pretend, though, that this
petition is any more respectable than the tactics of the environmental
activists.
First, several recent studies have suggested that computers in schools have little or no impact on educational performance. Second, the amount of tech jobs is not dependent on how much the government spends. I could just as plausibly claim that Bush's tax cuts will give taxpayers the ability to buy more technology products, therefore increasing demand for tech workers.
Bush talks about boosting funds to fight the drug war!!!!!
So does Gore. You're not going to find any sort of rational drug policy in the major parties.
I've lived in this damned state and I can tell you some of the things he's done.
I currently live in Texas, and much appreciate not having a state income tax. And amazingly, children and old people aren't starving in the streets.
Gore/Lieberman while still not great, are technology friendly.
Excuse me? These would be the same people who brought us the CDA, the Clipper chip, Carnivore, and whose Justice Department wanted to have strong encryption completely banned.
Bush is far from ideal, but Gore and Lieberman are no better.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Short answer: yes. Trying to convince someone to buy Coke instead of Pepsi does not involve changing his moral values, and is far more likely to occur than someone watching Die Hard and deciding that maybe murdering innocent people isn't so bad after all.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
First, the reason stupid attacks like the one Bush made are feasible is that the *vast* majority of Americans, even those with access, have no real idea about the origin, operation, culture and communities that are its constituent elements. Their perceptions are based on either an AOL-astigmatism or a perverse hyper-marketed "Unleash Your Earning Income with Spam!" outlook. The natural results are good old-fashioned fear of the unknown and misrepresentation.
Second, the issues that Katz considers most crucial are *far* from what the average voter considers to be important: am I paying less taxes, am I better off, am I going to go broke taking care of my ailing parents? This doesn't mean the issues he raised are not important, but they don't have the traction of prescription drugs and social security.
It's nothing new for politicians to lump problems together in a way that makes it easy to demagogue but difficult to solve. We can remove the politicians' crutch here by eliminating the FUD and focusing on the benefits of universal access.
What's the matter, are we afraid to take Mr. Kurtz down the river? Maybe it's too fun here in the darkness...
Vulgo enim dicitur, iucundi acti labores.
I'm curious. This one statement comes up so often (usually misquoted, too - you went one step further by putting the incorrect word in all caps)... is this the worst thing that Gore-bashers have as ammunition?
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
I've never generated a 40 bit key.
I have a 1024 bit key, a 1280 bit key, a 1694 bit key and a 2048 bit key.
What are you talking about?
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
However, social criticism of web culture demonstrated recently is not as extreme as that example, although many here clearly feel as though it is. There is a need in society to occasionally slow down and ask if we are headed in the right direction.
I often wonder, as is the case with the idiotic D&D scandals, that perhaps part of this is the failure of the young to adequately communicate with their elders. People are afraid of what they don't understand or what they can't control. Communication can alleviate this fear.
I am reminded of a Stanislaw Lem story in Cyberiad where Trurl and Klapaucius (sp?) come across a society in which everybody spends all day indoors doing all commerce, learning, and socialization via computers. Production is via robotic factories. I can understand if some are afraid we are headed this way.
Fact is, both politicians and certain journalists who post regular features here might be overgeneralizing to prove a point. I presume it is our responsibility to filter accordingly.
In other words,there is some truth to what these politicians are saying about the web culture, notable exceptions notwithstanding.
Now mind you, I might be tempted to spend a lot more time indoors if our winter season lasted 5+ months, as in Scandinavia :-)
---
You were a moderator with 5 points. You should have read the moderator guidelines before you did any moderating
Excuse me? Where did you get this stuff? I've spent 15 years in Europe and no-one here thinks Bush has any grip on anything - let alone "foreign" policy. People do, of course, feel almost any European media moderator (esp a BBC attack dog journo like Jeremy Paxman) would have done a better job than the patsy chosen to "moderate" your Presidential deabtes.
/.), says Greek citizens speak "Grecian"...etc., etc., etc. - The guy's quite clearly a dolt. His trying to make fun of it is downright scary ("Ah may have mangled a syll-AH-ble or two mahself").
/. evidently sincerely hold that a vote for anyone other than Gore constitutes some registration of their independence from the US system. You have two choices, that's it. Any way US voters vote, it counts for Gore OR Bush.
The saddest thing about the whole US election process is the media and it's insistence on ranking success in the very same terms you use: who "maneuvers" best; who "wins on charm", etc. Of course these "reporters" are very well-paid and thus will benefit from any Bush regime. Of course major coporations also own the mainstream US stations/broadcast outlets. It's not 'fuzzy" at all to the rest of the world what's going on...just very sad.
It's hardly "leftist crap" to observe these things, either. Anyone with eyes and ears can see what's right in front of them: one articulate candidate who is basically consistent - whether you agree with him or not. Additionally (leaving his years-ago education aside) Gore's record bears out 99% of his statements. This is being pointed out in most of the "foreign" press.
Then there's the ONLY OTHER REAL candidate - who clearly says whatever comes into his mind, regardless of the facts and heedless of things such as basic grammtical skills.
Bush brags about putting 3 people to death when he's only frying 2, fails to remember which state he governs (check out the online Bush interview with Lehrer at pbs.org where Shrub refers to his own "little brother" as governor of Texas; it was linked on
The idea there is any "left bias" in US mainstream media is utterly ridiculous...So much so it has to be seen from outside the US to be fully appreciated. As does the sadness of the idea many on
If you think the random spouting of platitudes constitutes political "manuevering" on a world stage, you need to adjust your world view. The "furriners" expect a good bit more of a nation's chief representative.
Gore has actually been dealing with in-the-flesh politicians of many countries for years, as a Vice-President; additionally, he enjoys respect abroad. Bush most assuredly does not.
Actually, most corporations effectively concentrate wealth better than they disseminate it. Look at all the smaller businesses, companies and other corporations that get gobbled up along the way. This past decade has seen a concentration of wealth like no other, along with a widening of the gap between the economic strata. There may be more leisure time for the top brackets, but check the lower rungs, particularly of the working poor and you won't see many people taking vacations.
The young are also a bit more idealistic and impressionable. From what I've seen, they're more willing to accept a utopian ideology, despite its impracticalities or impossibilities, and even waste their time propagandizing about it, or trying to set it in motion. Particularly when there is so much disinformation being propagated by those with political agendas, be they left or right.
Ever watch a 14-yr-old trying to defend Marxist theory online? It'd be hilarious if it weren't sad due to the lack of situational awareness that demonstrates. Lack of experience can hamper judgement, apparently.
Take a few clueless chaps who have the ego and audacity to think that *they* have the one true path, give 'em readily-available information about, say, primitive explosives design, and they can do a fair bit of damage to themselves and those around them. Grandiousity and an exaggerated sense of self-importance can lead to silly, bloody plans -- regardless of source, be it ideology or simply a desire for fame.
Recall the Columbine chaps? Their plans were so ridiculous as to include hijacking a jumbo jet and crashing it into NYC -- from a couple of chaps who apparently couldn't properly detonate a propane-based explosive when other's lives (or taking of them) depended on it. Very Hollywood, that; a plan for fatally stupid imbeciles.
Critics of the 'net have a valid point in that there is much information dangerous in the hands of violent fools -- and that, therefore, parents should be careful to mind their children. Right now, many families have -- and, many would say, need -- two working parents. That more than slightly reduces the time available to spend with them, which makes it more difficult to know if an unruly teen has been contributing to Stormfront or its ilk lately. To absolve the medium completely, with fun documents like a short guide to explosives easily found (that doc revealed via Google), is a bit disingenuous.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
An up-to-date discussion of Bush's "missing in action" period
A link to lots of resources on the Bush vs National Guard issue
Marty Heidt, the investigator here, is apparently an Iowa farmer in real life. What amazes me is that virtually no member of the mainstream press seems to have bothered to look into the materials Mr. Heidt has gathered to determine whether his interpretations are tenable.
MEK
Credo quia impossibilis -- Tertullian
Forget about GW. What about Tipper and her crusade against music!!!. GW may sound like an idiot, but he's for less government, and more for private sector self-regulation. Tipper would love to regulate everything everything from your games to your tv shows.
Someone you trust is one of us.
How do you really make GWB look like an idiot?
ROTFLMAO.
You say you want a revolution?
What both extreme sides of this issue miss is that there are many, many of the old-ish guard--like me, a 40 year old high tech worker--who strive to find the middle ground. Not everything new is good, but neither is everything new bad.
Just because technology allows the exchange of kidi-porn to now be done anonymously in near real time doesn't mean the abused kids went unharmed. Just because technology makes it easy to copy CDs doesn't mean that copying other peoples' CDs isn't theft.
Being able to do something doesn't make it right. The fact that something feels good to do it doesn't mean that it is good to do. I am able to run people over with my car, but I don't. I feel good when I insult an ignorant customer service person, but it doesn't help him/her or I to do it.
Wisdom is all about knowing the difference between what one is able to do and what one should do. The process of maturing is all about learning this difference and teaching one's self to modify one's behaviour accordingly.
Sorry this reads like a sermon, but I'm not Heinlein and didactic brain candy isn't my specialty.
Bush's statements on global warming were actually much milder than the reality that there is no consensus whatsoever among scientists that humans have affected global temperatures. See the Petition Project, which has been signed by something like 19,000 scientists, for details. It asserts: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
Rather than wondering whether Bush is too stupid to understand this issue, maybe you should worry that you are too willfully ignorant to comment. Beware of getting your opinions about science from Time magazine.
Also, I'd admit Bush's response to the 'hate crimes' law should have been more explicit. But he did point out that punishing the intention as well as the crime itself was redundant. And he did not falsely assert that the Texas law (the one that did not die in committee) does not cover anti-gay hatred.
Finally, it is well-known that Gore favors the registration of firearms. He has not empahasized it because he wants to win in gun-toting Michigan and Pennsylvania. It's difficult to understand what you are saying here, but of course Gore has not favored outright universal confiscation. But many gun owners (don't forget there are 60 million or so of them) believe that registration will precede confiscation, as it did in Australia and England.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
The reason Bush doesn't worry about offending young net-literate adults is because insignificant percentages of them vote in most places. The only way to change that is to vote.
Find out who your representative is here. Scroll to the bottom of the page for a zip code lookup. I guarantee someone in that office will be able to tell you how to register to vote if you aren't currently registered.
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.
He he! I just want to say I like the meaning you read into the scare quotes (extra "'s) in the Salon article. They're supposed to indicate irony but it's funny how people, like the writer of the Salon.com article, often seem to subconsciously use them to undermine their own argument!
--
-- SIGFPE
First, I am not an American citizen and therefore it would be wrong of me to write to the campaign myself. If I had a vote it would go to Gore.
You should write to the Gore campaign and suggest that they mount a TV ad campaign to dispute the concept that Al exaggerates everything (Bush's favorite attack). If Kahn and Cerf really wrote this and really believe this, Gore should create a TV spot that begins looking like a Bush camp ad. The ad could be something like....4 seconds--Jay Leno or Letterman joking about Gore inventing the net...4 seconds--Bush ad-libbing about Gore's invention of the calculator....4 seconds--Al Gore's actual words in the origional statement....12 seconds..Kahn and Cerf state who they are and why what Gore said was correct...2 seconds...Al Gore--please listen to what I actually say and not what others say that I say......Gore for President..
Feel free to send this idea to anyone who may find it useful.
Cheers,
P
no sig.
I would have to say your arguments are sortof weak. Give me a break trying to say that tradition folk song is what Gore meant. Bah! That is pathetic, it is well known that the context he said it in was soley stating the Union Label song. Want hard evidence that he is a compulsive liar, can anyone say Buddhist Temple. No one can argue that he did not lie. He knew exactly what he was doing, Libetto Memo, Internal emails all prove this go get a clue.
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance" -Confucius
The concept of throwing away your vote is the biggest lie to ever be put upon the American People. Case in point, the current Govener of Minnesota is Jesse Ventura. Dispite the fact that the polls showed him as having very few votes he ended up taking the race.
This is not to say I agree with Ventura's views, however, it does show that youth of America, who typically don't vote, aren't taking this shit anymore. The baby boom generation sold out. The political system is based on large donations.
This election isn't going to change anything. It will either be the pot smoker who's boring and lies, or the pot smoker who's shifty and dumb. Both think it's fine to kill retards under capital punishment, both like guns. GW, who's grandfather was one of the first supporters of planned parenthood, and his father GW Sr. spent the majority of his political life as pro-choice, will pander to the religious right. Gore is of course pro-choice. There's the only difference I can see.
This year it's about matching funds. The reform party was out foxed by the religious right. Perhaps even by the Republican party if you think they were that sneaky.
As much as I dislike GW (go Nader) I have to say that his comments about the Internet where so short that it slipped by most people. Let's face it, debte number two was boring. I'd be suprised if most people were still watching after the first 45 minutes.
And when you think about it, how can you expect GW to have a concept of the internet, or computers for that matter. He's like any other "manager" who's been promoted based on the Peter principal. Computers ain't his gig.
Jon thinks they "all relate to technology". Maybe for the educated, technologically literate and technologically immersed set. But I would have said that child poverty, malnutrition, the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few and in corporations, the emergence of two working members of a household as a financial necessity, appalling educational systems in our inner cities (in particular), pollution of the air and the water, destruction of natural landscapes, increasing levels of domestic violence, the power and debt relationship between different countries of the world, the debate over abortion, racism: theses are the important issues, and they have as much to do with technology as any other part of life - not much. Whether you think that DeCSS and the DCMA are very significant issues or not (and I do), they pale in comparison to the problems, injustices and inequalities faced by millions of Americans and many more people around the world.
Part of the problem with Gore and Bush -- and certainly with the creepy veeps -- is that they fail to realize that in order to get the "youth vote" they have to have some emotional investment in the youth they're attempting to persuade.
It's the generation gap, yes, but it strikes me these days that it's more than just a "generation" gap. Technology -- and that includes stuff like film and music -- has brought about an enormous "knowledge" gap -- or "emotion" gap -- between politicians and their young constituents.
Sure, Gore has his daughter as one of his top advisors. Okay, but that's not enough.
It doesn't take a genius to dive into Napster these days, pull up some popular music tracks -- Bush, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Kid Rock, you name it -- and realize there's a lot of "rage" out there. Rock and Roll and Rap are certainly good vehicles for expressing that rage.
For once, I'd love to hear candidate talk about music and realize that rock and roll (for example) is a verb and not a noun. It's not a *thing*. The key to rock and roll isn't the words of the songs themselves -- it's what those words are pointing and leading to.
Rock music (and film) are only cultural vehicles for deep human impulses. I mean, I'd love it if, for example, Lieberman would rail against *bad* movies instead of just the standard things like violence and sex.
I'd love it if a candidate stood up and, for once, said: "Look, instead of trying to get Hollywood (or rock and roll or whatever) to stop violence and sex, let's get them to start making *better* movies. The real danger is in the dumbing down of America. It's not of the propagation of impulses that are in our biology (i.e. sex and violence.)"
As wacky as that would sound, it would (to my mind at least) signal a kind of understanding.
It was called "Dumb and Dumber".
http://www.reelwavs.com/msdb/dumb.html
Listen up, Katz and his followers....
Gore voted to spend some tax money on the (already established) arpanet. He thinks that means he "took the initiative in creating" it!
You are in for a big surprise if he wins. Gore wants to regulate everything in sight; health care, political speech (except his own ;),
the Internet (digital divide? "accesibility"?), etc.
I'll laugh if he wins when I see the looks on your faces as he regulates the hell out of the Internet. But it will be a costly laugh.
In fact, when you actually look at the record of the debates so far, it's interesting to notice the other times the word "Internet" has been uttered.
In the first debate (3 Oct 00), the word "Internet" was used three times, all by Governor Bush:
And that's it! Neither of the vice presidential candidates mentioned the word "Internet" in their debate, and in Wednesday night's debate, the word "Internet" was only used in the instance which inspired (if that is the right word for Katz's repetitious drumming) this discussion.
So in all, four mentions of the Internet, all by Gov. Bush: once in a joke, once in a cultural criticism, and twice in useful applications of information technology.
Yours,
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
Hmmm... If 18 year-olds didn't already know that politicians in general were idiots who basically (for the most part) got to where they are by being wealthy mofos and good public speakers, then we have a problem. Anyone who didn't realize that Bush was an idiot from day one, in my opinion, needs to have their IQ knocked down a few (dozen) points. At least Gore started off with a solid game plan, and said straight out "this is where I stand, this is what I plan on doing, this is how I will do it." Bush waited until his numbers began to fall before he said or did anything besides trash talk and shovel you-know-what - and when he did form a solid plan, it seemed to be formed with Gore's plans in mind - an attempt to exploit the potential weaknesses of Gore's agenda. His talk of education is pure BS - one of the largest problems with education today is funding, where the schools cannot afford the supplies they need or enough teachers to go around - and the few teachers they do have are underpaid, making the field undesirable in most areas. Teaching is an inportant role and vital to the nation's economy both now and in the distant future, and the teachers deserve real pay. They can't even go on strike! "Expecting more" will get us nothing but dissapointment, especally in a world where money rules all. Just look at Texas - one of the worst, if not the worst, educational systems in the country. His brother, Jeb, is now the governor of Florida - my current home state - and has not done much there either, especially considering his bold claims of education reform. "education my top priority" my @$$. But, that's Jeb, not George. But, do we see a pattern here? :) (sorry for the cheap shot, please don't flame me)
I personally think that the only thing that got Bush into the elections to begin with is his father's popularity (at least among Republicans) - he simply rode George bush's coattails. On the other hand, Gore has to work against Clinton's reputation just to build his own. Bush knows this, and has attacked the Clinton administration a number of times - almost as though Gore ran it. Bush repeatedly tries to connect Gore to Clinton - which is probably the biggest weapon he has. He does it in subtle ways, but he still does it.
I'm not saying that Gore is the ideal candidate here - far from it - but I'd vote Gore just to keep Bush out of office. I wasn't originally planning to vote this year simply for lack of a truly good candidate (I think that's the major problem with the last 10 or so elections) but I will vote now, just to keep Bush out. Gore is, at least, a competent, intelligent individual, which is more than I can say about Bush. He has the potential to make a decent president.
He may not have created the Internet, but I do believe he had a role (albeit a small one) in fostering its popularity - and I'm willing to bet he understands it a heck of a lot more than Bush does. And, at least, he has a clue about education. Expectations and "testing" get nowhere, and "accountablity" has been shown in the past (and in Florida, it's called the FCAT) not to make a real difference. It becomes a case of the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
I just hope that if Bush does get elected, he doesn't waste billions on kissing the upper 1%'s asses. Put the money into the defecit and education, where it is needed most. And give the lower classes a break. They actually have to consider taxes when planning a budget - and don't have the lawyers to cut that down. The upper 1% considers it when buying new sports cars, and hire lawyers to keep it as low as possible. Do you think these people really FEEL the effects of taxation? I know low-income families do. Taxes make a difference in what they buy and when they buy it, especially major expenses.
Sorry for the long post, I have a habit of ranting.
When I first heard "Dubya"'s comment during the debate, I was as shocked at end. I knew that there would be people (here on /.) chastising him endlessly because of the remark. Firstly, I don't think he meant it exactly how it was stated, but that aside: it's not incorrect to assume that many people would not build or know how to build certain explosive devices without the wealth of information on the Net. I'm not saying that the particular case in Columbine would not have occured if the AlgoreNet (now known as the Internet) didn't exist, because those teens were obviously demented. I will say that there are some events that would not have occured if the Internet or any other medium was not present. This doesn't mean the Internet is bad or that television is bad or even that books are bad, it's just a fact that certain information presented in any form can be bad in the minds of some.
Your article started out good Katz, but degraded into pointless pandering to geeks of the internet as a panacea. The best we can do for our schools is throw money at internet connections and computers? The communication revolution presented by the internet may facilitate creative hacking, but it doesn't improve lives, people do. And, like any distribution of randomness, there will be people of immense virtue, and people of immense evil. The internet is a reflection of the real world, with all of her highs and lows in equal measure. When will you give it a rest and realize that the internet won't cure every ill known to humanity?
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
You are more than the sum of what you consume.
Desire is not an occupation.
Gore said he created the internet. Lie.
When he visited union workers while campaigning he said his mother used to sing him 'the union song' at bedtime. He was 27 when the union song was written. That also was a lie.
In the first debate he told a tear jerking story of a poor girl that had to stand during her class at school. Later the teacher said that was for one day because the room was full of new equipment they had bought. Gore's claim was once again a lie.
Gore said during the first debate in response to Bush telling how he provided aide to the flood victims in Texas that he also visited the flood victims. While it was true he was in Texas, he never went to see the victims. This claim was also proven to be a lie.
Now, both candidates have proven they don't understand the internet. So what? Given their views on the other issues and Gore's childish tendancy to lie whenever he feels it will give him brownie points, Bush is the only logical choice for me.
Character DOES matter!
_______
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925
Oh and, how about some of that "better than 20-20 vision". I'll also take photographic memory, and would it hurt to be able to run like Michael Johnson & jump like Michael Jordan?
Make my hair blonder, my skin creamier - oh my personality can suck sometimes so lets get rid of that. Gimme some of those outgoing genes so I can schmooze with the winners circle.
Man I tell you, once I get my genetic shopping list out of the way, you won't be able to recognize me!
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
>> Why should "hate crime" legislation, if it is to exist at all, "include" gays? Scripture is very clear on this. Read the book of Leviticus. Hint: "put to death" does not mean "celebrate diversity."
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I also know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Now I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
Then, Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?
A friend of mine also feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
And Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Actually its about 80 million. Also the anti-gun hysteria following Columbine actually caused the NRA's membership numbers to dramatically increase by 50%, from 3 million to 4.5 million.
I don't have the figures, but most politicians who operate on an anti-gun platform soon find it to be the demise of their campaign. There have been several examples of neck-and-neck congressional and senatorial races that had the balance dramatically tipped(for the other guy) when the candidate rolled out his/her anti-gun stance.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Well duh, Katz just HAD to say something nice about his boss...
This is another view of the world.
Understood, but Gore is still taking the credit for creating the internet. Didn't the internet exsist before Gore had anything to do with it? Yes it was military and school based, but it exsisted. I would agree if he had said something like "I helped take the initiative in opening the internet to the public..." but saying he created it is a little (lot) over blown. I'm shure he didn't do it alone either, someone had to vote on something somewhere.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet
OK, let's break this down.
During my service in the United States Congressso it was while he was employed, good for him.
I took the initiative in creating the InternetTranslation: I created the internet
how is this a factual inaccuracy? that's like saying the apple is red instead of red is the color of the apple.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
"Great, let's teach Christianity to everyone because we know it makes them a more caring, less psycho-killer person."
Well, besides the fact that is actualy dose, why do you assume he is talking only about Christianity? I am a devout heritic non-believer myself, but I can't fault him for promoting other solutions instead of regulation of the internet.
"most everything, has millions of people who will twist his words to find some meaning out of them that fits their personal idealism. "
Oh ya, speaking of twisting words, the actual quote was: "have their heart turned dark as a result of the Internet" sounds like he was blaming content more than the concept.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
"Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet. That story was started by none other then Declan McCallugh
So that video clip I saw of him SAYING he invented the internet was just CGI?? prehaps a clone? His evil twin?
Dirty Pirate Hooker
that Bush's coment was a short scare tactic, and he never actualy said the internet was responsible for killing anyone. Instead he was trying to make the point that parents need to take more responsibility for the upbringing of their children. People are scared of what they don't know, and just 'cause the nutballs in Columbine were on the internet, they imidiately attach that to the kids behavior while searching for the "real" cause, instead of asking where the parents were. The trend nowadays is away from personal reponsibility and the internet is a perfect target. Back to the original point, while he did mention the internet, he placed far more emphasis on the role parents need to take. Gore, of course, had no response.
Dirty Pirate Hooker
It's clear that the SlashDot editors are reflexively anti-Republican and anti-conservative. However, it was the Clinton administration who sponsored, signed, and defended the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court. After it was struck down, the administration, not content to leave the matter alone, put forward the Child On-line Protection Act, struck down by a federal appeals court in June 2000 as unconstitutional. Other bills have required libraries to install filtering software. Al Gore has made public statements in favor of these laws, and prominent Democrats like Ernest Hollings and Patty Murray have been co-sponsors of these sorts of internet censorship bills. As long as you're ladling out vitriol like calling people 'idiots' (translation: someone who holds an opinion differnt from mine), why not expend some of it toward the Democratic side, where it is well-deserved? Or is it that only Republicans can do wrong?
Hmmm...We get enormous amounts of things, but not leisure. Plus, do corporations, so much create wealth as just shift it?
Corporations prefer a behaved, homogenous populace. It makes it easy to plan investment and market their goods. Plus, new competition is discouraged as the market is already saturated and their are no niches to exploit.
Thank goodness their are still areas that value diversity and that the US won't soon become the stale, regular, white-bread society so ardently advocated by the Republicans!
Actually, it's a paraphrase. What he said was, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
He also claimed to have helped write the McCain/Feingold act, when, as GWB pointed out during the debate, he didn't have anything to do with it.
It's sad that Gore feels he needs to pad his resume with such transparent lies, when he was VP for eight years and a relatively important Senator before that. The reason why Gore does not spend much time talking about his real record is two-fold: 1) He has reversed his position on several issues since joining the Clinton administration, and 2) Many of the views he expressed in the past are now considered unpopular, and his advisers are telling him not to emphasize them.
As for GWB... I don't think much of his intellect, and I disagree with him on many issues. But one key difference is that while Gore has established himself as a partisan bulldog (he has probably cast more Senate tie-breaker votes than any other VP in the last Century), Bush's reputation in Texas is that he is a master coalition builder. Democrats who have worked closely with Bush all praise his willingness to listen to all sides and consider all issues before taking action.
Kennedy and Reagan shared this quality. A cabinet member who worked with both of them once pointed out that they could "walk into a room not knowing their ass from a hole in the ground, listen silently for most of the meeting, and then speak with authority on the crux of the issue."
I don't plan on voting for Bush, but I will acknowledge that we could do a lot worse.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Mod this suckah up! That's the most insightful comment I've ever seen from a Katz troll.
Almost all of his articles are about youth, misspent youth, ignored youth, trod on youth or any other kind of youth.
My personal feeling is the guy did a lot of dorking around when he was young and hasn't been able to get laid since he got out of high school. Much like the ex-jocks from my high school, the only difference between them and him is that he turned to writing crap instead of serving french-fries or pumping gasoline. Wow, is Jon Katz a closet ex-jock?
Bite my yammer.
You could vote for Harry Browne (Libertarian) or Nader (Green Party), Hagelin (Natural Law), Philips (Constitutional (religous))...potentially there are other smaller candidates in your locale.
I agree. Tipper makes me suspicious. Especially with the grandstanding around who's a Born-Again Christian and who's an Orthodox Jew.
But I hardly think GW is in favor of less government. Does he not call for more police? Does he not call for more military? Does he not insist that government continue to regulate morality (think smut, prostitution, drug use)? Will he not willingly go along with the "Ay-rabs are terrorists" line, and thereby continue to aid discrimination against Muslims (of all colors) and immigrants? Will he support a woman's right to privacy between herself and her doctor? Does he really care about racial profiling (and can you back this up with statistics that show Texas leads the nation in removing bias from the police and justice departments)? GIVE UP. The idea that any Republican wants less government interference in our private lives is total nonsense. The idea that by regulating business less that they are the patriotic protectors of Freedom is total nonsense. For hundreds of years, businesses have been the prime American concern, where freedom is at stake. The USA has enjoyed a relatively long string of freedom from government (outright) oppression and has spent most of the last century trying to balance the needs of the population with those of business. It is to the point where many political analysts see business as being more relevant than government. And I challenge you to show us one large scale example of any business doing something in the public interest when it wasn't regulated or related to tax-deductible charity.
I do not have a signature
Lets remember that the main objectives of Bush,
Gore, And the Media are to Get elected and keep
keep us buying more articles. So the statements
coming from these sources will tend to be
exagerated to make a point and make a profit.
I think it is very dangerous for us to talk about
something that is very important without any
metrics being applied. If we FEEL that the
net is causing harm, then we should be able
to MEASURE the effect. Perhaps the opposite
of what we FEEL is what is true! Or perhaps
the NET is causing harm. With some real data,
maybe we could find out why.
I FEEL that the principle operating influence
here is NOT agression in the lower age bracket.
The real problem is that people in the upper
age brackets feel disconnected and out of
touch with the younger generation. This
disconnect breeds fear which sells newspapers
and votes.
And GUESS WHAT! That has always been the case.
The older generation has NEVER understood the
younger generation. Rock music will turn them
all into Fiends! Amorality will rule the earth!
We will fall into the Pit and God will abandon
us!
Are you a Fiend? Or are you a victim of
your parents poor choice of leaders because
they fell for the same hard sell you are
falling for. The Fear Sell.
Sell, Sell, Sell.
As a person whose first contact with computers was at school at the age of ten, I couldn't disagree with you more. Not all parents want to buy a computer, some do but can't afford one. Everyone has to learn to use computer someday, and having seen newbies of various ages, I can guarantee you that it's better to start young.
Starting early isn't good just because learing is faster and easier, but also because it's more fun. If I hadn't had such a great teacher, I might not have become so interested in computers. Now I am studying computer science in a university, and could probably find an interesting and a well paying job in couple of weeks (days). All this thanks to a teacher who ten years ago decided that this time the class should try writing an essay with MSWrite (vi might have been to hard for a ten-year old *g*) instead of writing it on paper by hand.
--
If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools.
American schools face far greater crises than the availability of decent workstations and fat pipes. The shortage of skilled, motivated, and inspiring teachers springs immediately to mind. Granted it's been a couple of years since high school, but I do seem to remember some of the things that were wrong with my school. It didn't matter that only a few of us could waste time BBSing in the back of the chem lab. The problem was the overabundance of teachers named "coach".
Computer skills training, access on online resources, and enhanced colaboration through the net may compliment efforts to improve our schools. But these are not a complete fix for a system in crisis. And in a year in which vouchers are touted as the solution to all educational problems, anyone who cares a whit about children has a lot more to worry about.
Wait... you mean you still haven't joined the ACLU?
Some demographers do argue that Gen Y (those born between 1976 and 96, although definition differ) is larger than the Boomers when you include immigrants. But the fact is that it depends on how you define each generation, and nobody agrees. Do you do it by birth date, in 20 year increments? By a common unifying experience (depression, technology, war)? Or by the peaks and troughs in birth cycles?
As of this year, the twenty-year generations are sized as follows (according to this page at the Census dept):
0-20: 78.5m
21-40: 78.3m
41-60: 73.2M
The first roughly aligns with Gen Y, the last roughly with the Boomers. That's the point Katz is trying to make, I think
Let me get this straight.. you are seriously suggesting that a politician is better than another politician because one politician is alledged to have lied?
Wow.
---------------------------
'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
Personally, I think this sort of stuff (i.e. "Your kids do stuff, and you get the shaft for it") is absolutely insane. I say this from personal experience.
I had pretty good parents. They weren't neglecting or abusive, they did their best to teach me what was right and wrong, etc., but of course, I *DID* do things that they warned me against, things that were indeed out of their control. I don't think that my parents should be held responsible if I go off and do something illegal. All this sort of mentality will promote is even more irresponsible behavior from children, who will begin to realise that buck will be passed onto someone else, so to speak. They won't need to be worried about their actions if someone else will be taking the heat for them.
And of course, not every delinquent child has, at its roots, horrible parents. Many do. Many do not. To steam ahead and punish all parents for the actions of their children is simply irresponsible, and this sort of precedent can be abused insanely: teachers held responsible for some punk who doesn't show up to class getting lousy grades and dropping out, the USPS held accountable when one of their employees snaps and starts shooting, the United States Armed Forces blamed when one deranged soldier rapes a girl off in some foreign land, etc.
To blame parents entirely for the failings of their children, as I see it, is just another instance of finger-pointing and searching for an easy way out.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
If the average lifespan is 75 years, then the age range of 21 and under IS 28% of the average person's lifespan. And actually, since lifespan increases with each generation, then assuming that we replace as many people as die, the number of people alive in the first 28% of the average lifespan should exceed 28% to reflect the growing lifespan. If should exceed it by even more if we're actually have a population boom in the current 0-21-ers.
So.. uhh... what was your point about people under 21 making up 28% of the population?
11*43+456^2
Yes... It was a jab at Gore. Let me give you my view. Bush wants to cut funding for technology and education. The man preaches about the importance of education, however, he wants to stop a $120 million investment to merge technology with education. This would put internet into many schools and give computers to many schools that would otherwise not be able to afford them. Anyone who is pro-technology and knows the issues can clearly see that your pocketbook is more protected by Gore than Bush. More technology, more jobs for techies.
Bush also is against abortion and is pro-christian right wing, pro prayer, and wants to shove his values on America. You may not want your games censored, however, I don't want religion rammed down my throat. I may believe in the bible just like the next guy but who say's I want Bush Christianity becoming the state religion. This is where McCain would have gotten my vote over Gore even... He was a republican for economic freedom and nothing more.
Abortion is nobody elses business except the mother in question. Prohibition of any kind on a moral basis has not worked and will never work - look at the 18th ammendment and the fiasco that followed. Bush talks about boosting funds to fight the drug war!!!!! Here is a man who wants to fight a war that will NEVER end and wants to cut funding to education. How bout cutting funding to the drug war and funneling that money into education so that children can be better taught the woes of drug use. It will take a cultural change for people to stop abusing harmful substances - not force, not govt, not laws, not even jailtime.
Btw, I live in TX and I can tell you that prisons here are filling up with non-violent offenders faster than you can blink . Tougher drug laws are putting non-violent offenders in jail and when that happens some rapist/murderer/child molester gets let out early on parole. The majority of Americans are delighted by his "hometown" goodness and "charm". Well, he is a hard-headed hypocrite. I've lived in this damned state and I can tell you some of the things he's done. You may well know that Texas takes the lead in the US for the number of executions. Bush might have given one reprieve and that is all. A man who's possible innocence was in question was not given a second chance to prove this. Bush reacted saying Texas has "adequately answered innocence or guilt" in this death penalty case. After the execution, it was determined that the man might have well been innocent from DNA evidence.
I'll end my rant here. Most of you who are Computer/IT professionals please consider what Al Gore really meant with his now infamous words - He helped the internet along with government funding. Gore/Lieberman while still not great, are technology friendly. Sure the democrats have censorship issues, but bush/cheney and party, technologically and culturally illiterate, will take America one giant step backwards.
"Excuse me? These would be the same people who brought us the CDA, the Clipper chip, Carnivore, and whose Justice Department wanted to have strong encryption completely banned."
Actually you have a good point here. I know many peoples opinions differ and I'm simply saying one is the lesser of the evils. I know they are both evil and I agree that Bush is far from ideal. Both parties suck in reality and I wish that a third-party candidate would gain enough popular votes to make the government consider the issues at stake.
I don't think browsing the web is any more harmful than watching tv or reading a book. What is harmful is the startling notion that Americans have developed that children should have all the rights and privileges of adults.
What are we doing when we as parents by expensive equipment and then give it to children to play with unsupervised? I don't just mean computers, but all of the big ticket items that used to be clearly for adults only; automobiles, stock portfolios, telephones, you get the idea. How many sixteen year old children do you know that not only have access to these things, but also have these things for their own personal use. To me, this is the source of insanity. It's like unlocking the safety on a primed fire arm and handing it to a chimp. Here ChimChim, go nuts.
Children have no place using, much less owning, such things without training and supervision. If you as the parent don't have time to provide that supervision, then hire someone who can provide the proper guidance for the desired tool. If you can't do that, then educate yourself so you can educate your child. If this is still not feasible, then too bad. Do without. It will probably help reduce your irresponsible amount of debt.
Is Bush the sharpest pencil in the box? Nope. However, he's right on this one. Go take a look at the science out there...our global temperature may be warming up, but nowhere near even the most conservative GW theoretical predictions. Has anyone ever bothered to think about the fact that we're coming out of the coolest period, geologically-speaking, since the last Ice Age?
--
-- Geof F. Morris
Say huh? Now, there are some of us who do fun things whilst in college--hell, I've been working on sports ezines since I was in high school--but when does access necessarily equal "creativity, confidence, and opportunity"? Perhaps you mean that such access can foster these things, but access can only foster creativity and opportunity--confidence comes from within. And all three of these things can be provided by that one unit that everyone wants to forget: the family.
Anyway, how is this a sad political truth? I understand some of the points in your piece, Katz, but are you reading this or having someone else do so?/P
--
-- Geof F. Morris
Two articles on this subject in two days. What has you so scared? I think that once you have some children, you'll begin to see why some people are concerned with what they're exposed to. There are some horrific crimes being committed by children these days (a child of 5 thrown to his death from a high window by two other children because he wasn't willing to steal for them; a girl of 12 clubbing an elderly neighbor to death just because she wanted to see what it was like to kill someone; Columbine), and it's natural to wonder what might be behind it. And I don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing to examine all possible causes, including the net, violent games, violent movies and television, etc. I don't advocate indiscriminate banning of any of these, but a thoughtful process of study to determine their real effects would be smart. We've come to the justifiable conclusion that trying to keep alcohol and tobacco away from children is a good idea, and it's entirely possible that it might also be a good idea in the case of other things as well. Simply dismissing the notion out of hand is not going to improve the situation. Let's try to do something that might actually make sense.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
We've been given intelligence and the ability to manipulate our own genetic code for a reason and for us not to take advantage of this would be sheer folly. When we can do so much for ourselves and the world, why is it that so many people seem willing to wallow in their own crapulance?
In order for us to acheive our manifest destiny in the far future, we need to continually improve both ourselves and our abilities. We're coming to a real watershed now, a point where we can radically change the mode of our existance and ensure that we don't go the way of the dinosaurs. Anyone arguing against genetic engineering is arguing against both progress and humanity, and is a danger to all of us.
Thankfully it is only in countries where irrationality is prevalent that these anti-genetic engineering sentiments are prevaling. Whilst America may have it's problems with corporate ethics, the one thing that can be said for the free market is that it encourages innovation, and when it comes to technologies like this, we need that innovation for the future of the race.
So it's a matter of balancing short-term and long-term gain. Which should be more important is obvious, but the issue isn't as clear cut as Jon would have you think.
Yes, the chicken-hypnotizing internet-inventing "I harvested the tobacco" "watched my $RELATIVE die of lung cancer" "who is this person" (referring to a Thomas Jefferson bust) condescending-voiced tree.
"Gore, Gore, Gore of the Jungle, watch out he's a tree!" (bum da dum)
Posted with Mozilla M18 WinNT
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
So WHAT!!! The percentage of 18 yo's that vote is SOOOO miniscule it won't amount to squat.
Personally, I would LOVE to see more people my age and younger(18-25 yo) voting. It would be fantastic. I think it would really shake things up in the government to get some of those "good-ol-boys" out of there and put some fresh blood in there. BUT, this will not happen. It is hard enough to get them (18 yo's) out of bed to take a job, off their collective lazy ass (mostly referring to "Uh-mer-can" kids) to do anything, go to college, focus on doing "something" with their lives etc. etc. etc.
Greatoak.
PS. There is a certain amount of sarcasm injected into what I am saying but it is also IMHO.
If you look at this& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; lt;/a> site at the US Census you can do a query and see that the number of 18 year olds was less during the baby boom years than it is now. Not that unusual. The baby boomers have 18 year olds now, and the average family has more children than parents. Here are stats for the years 1963-68 and 1999-2000 just as an example.
You should fact check before you call somebody an idiot... or just call him an idiot without using statistics as an excuse.
-N
Let's look at it closely:
- Only two of those three Byrd killers will receive the death penalty. But worse, many legal analysts think Bush's callous statement about putting the killers to death will actually help them on appeal, because as the chief law enforcement officer Bush showed serious bias in public.
- Bush's statements on global warming shows a serious misunderstanding of the issue... or else he's in the pocket of the oil industry. Hmmmm... I wonder which one it is... naaaa, he's too stupid to actually understand.
- Re: the hate crimes legislation which died in committe... well, turns out he enacted a hate crimes law which excludes gays and didn't want to admit as such. DUHHHHH...
- And what about his "we'll enforce the gun laws" tripe? Uh huh, Gore plans on enacting federal licensing? Who's the "exaggerator"????
This whole campaign makes me sick Gore's too. Screw them both.Why do you bother with gaming on Li
This has to be one of the most liberally biased articles I've ever read posted here. If you don't like Bush how about coming up with something substantial instead of trying to peg him with this crap. Not only was in a very minor comment in the debate but most politicians have this misconception. Regardless, I'd rather have a president with this misconception than one who thinks he created the internet. Tell me which is the deeper misunderstanding of the reality of techno-culture. But hey, if you want a tree hugging liberal that has changed positions more times than Jenna Jameson to inflate the national government then vote gore in 2000.
Whenever the issue of violence or sexual content in the media comes up there is always a wave of people that trumpet how "harmless" these things are, and how little they affect the viewers. What I don't understand is that if the media is so powerless to affect the state of mind of their audience then why do companies pay them so much money for their advertisements?
Are they seriously trying to tell me that the 30 minutes of sex and violence in a television show has no affect on the viewers, but the 30 second commercial for a soft drink has a big enough affect on these same people to be worth thousands of dollars? Clearly it has to be one way or the other. Either the media has little affect (and the advertisers are getting ripped off) or it has a huge affect and the media is simply being disingenuous.
But that violence is already in human nature. Most of the manifestations are in the form of flaming. Rarely does it reach real life, but it does happen. What's scary about it to older people is that they really don't understand it, and they don't understand or see all the overwhelming good the Internet is doing, and how miniscule a part of it all that this real violence actually is.
There are cases of Internet induced violence. One incident in Texas that George W. may have on his mind involved a meeting by e-mail and an eventual murder. In another case from Oregon I'm sure you all know about, it has been documented that Kip Kinkle was downloading lots of weaponry and satanic related material on the Internet.
Blaming the Internet is wrong, of course. The problem is ourselves. The Internet is just a very efficient communications medium. And the important thing is that we need to keep it all in perspective; the Internet is bringing far more value to our lives, our economy, and our society, than it is bringing these few problems. If we can find ways to addresses these problems without harming the good, then I'm for that.
You can find the stats on car deaths per year. Those exceed the Internet deaths per year. But we don't doubt the value of having cars. We are not proposing to ban cars (well, most of us aren't). The Internet is nowhere near as bad as cars in terms of the negative, and in fact it may well help reduce the negative of cars by its very being.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
"Mr." Katz:
If I may quote?:The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity.
Might I be the first to ask how you come to that conclusion? To me, such a claim seems to be pure lunacy, equivalent to saying that "access to paint and canvas equals Rembrandt-level talent" or "access to a football equals multi-million dollar contracts with the New York Giants." Perhaps we should begin converting "Katz-isms" into general lines of code... "access_to_broadband == confidence" would equate to true... or perhaps you are merely wishing this were a true statement, giving us "access_to_broadband = confidence" instead.
Just because there are good things on the 'net doesn't mean that there aren't bad things as well, Jon. There are "dark" things out there, things that most people would regard as hideous: child pornography, snuff flicks, etc. Does access to these sorts of things equate to creativity?
I don't think any candidate is correct in blaming Columbine, etc. on the 'net (poor parenting would be on the top of my "Blame List"...) but I also do not think that "unlimited access to the 'net for all" equates to virtuous ends by default.
The Internet is simply another way to access information, just like a public library. We all have access to libraries, Jon, but I know plenty of people who I wouldn't place in the creative, confident or opportunistic categories.
Unless you were attempting to be ironic and illustrate the opposite position of most politicians ("access to the net == a corrupting force capable of swaying young minds to bloodshed" vs. "accesss to the net == a shaping force capable of manufacturing miniature DaVincis from average children"), I believe you have failed. Examine your own articles for Irony and Consistency, along with the almighty Logic before hitting that Submit button in the future, mmmkay?
-------------
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
So that video clip I saw of him SAYING he invented the internet was just CGI??
See? He invented the Common Gateway Interface too!
--
--
E_NOSIG
I've been reading Katz for a long time. I've always thought he was a bit of a blowhard, and definitely an "idiot" who doesn't really grok much about the community or the Net. A wannabe who rather dramatically doesn't fit in with the group of geeks he claims to revere.
/..
I haven't said anything because, well, he hasn't been worth it, but the irony here of Katz slamming Bush for not getting it is just too much. Worse, it is a knee jerk attempt to excite the least thoughful elements of
The Internet has the capacity to be a bad place. This, like so many other communities, is merely a reflection of the world outside, except without transaction costs. No long travel times to get to the red light district. No easy parental supervision to keep kids from getting to the back alleys of the Internet. The vast majority of the Internet, like the rest of the world, is a great, creative, positive environment - no doubt.
However, to believe that the Net is ONLY a creative, positive place is naive, perhaps even "stupid." Yes, Bush misspoke when he said that Columbine was because of time spent on the Internet. Not because it was necessarily wrong, but because he did not more carefully qualify. I'm sure the two individuals spent a great deal of time on the Net. This was largely because Bush doesn't fully understand. But Gore definitely doesn't understand any better, and even if he says he does, do you really believe him? He's just better at BS.
Yes, the real issue is parenting, and yes the only real response is parenting on the Internet, not filters, not censorship. But most parents are scared of the Internet, because they don't know how to parent in the brave new world. Yes Bush was wrong to use FUD against the Internet to reach all those incompetent baby boomers (obviously the geek BBers are excepted). Still, we should acknowledge that we do permit strange communities to form. That we do see bitter and unhappy teens dwelling on the wrong issues, off in a corner by themselves.
Whether that corner is the dark end of the lunch room in high school, or a dark little IRC channel, it is the same thing. Yes people need to reach out, and brighten those corners. Parents and administrators should do it in the lunch room by addressing the very real flaws of the high school community dynamic. But we shouldn't be so shallow or naive as to believe that that dark little IRC channel doesn't bear consequences.
Now John "Polly Anna" Katz is trying to play demagogue to tens of thousands of people who grok the Net a thousand times better than he. He grabs the easy issues, and trolls responses from people who should have better things to do, and for that, perhaps, we should thank him. But the pathetic politics of a non-geek don't play well.
If you want to focus on that comment, don't forget what Gore said. Didn't the Al and Tipper (the censor herself) reference, and concerns about violence send a chill down your spine? I'll admit I was angry when I heard Bush's comment, but I just got cold when I heard Gore's response. Do the math. We have a lot of work to do either way!
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes "Who Keeps the Keepers Themselves" ~ Juvenal
Look at Nader and Browne, hell look at Buchanan. Dont be deceived into thinking that you only have one choice.
Its kindof like saying that there is choice in the MS operating system... THeres Win98, NT4.0, W2K enterprise, advanced, data, personal, WinCE... See there are a lot of options... but they all suck.
take a stand, vote for someone other than Gore or Bush. And no, it isnt wasting your vote.
tagline
... hi bingo
Stuff Nader said about some of the patent issues that have been discussed on Slashdot.
When I read this, it at least makes me think he has managed to get himself informed on some of the issues.
I know he's not great on a lot of other issues, but America could (and indeed will) do a lot worse.At least he reasons, as opposed to jabbering emotionally loaded nonsense at us.
Of course, to me, all that stuff is Big Government stepping all over people, and I'm sure to Nader its Big Corporations controlling the government. Still, at least he's thinking.
This doesn't mean I plan on voting for him or otherwise endorsing him, but it is nice to read something coherent and rational.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
In fact, a slew of new studies document that the young are using broadband to re-shape media and the information culture. They are the gurus, visionaries, technicians and authorities on the Information Revolution.
That's BS. While there have been a notable group of high school and college students who have become successful through starting web sites (e.g. Slashdot), there's very little reason to trot out terms like "guru" and "visionary."
In the Open Source world, for example, there's much enthusiasm and idealism among young programmers, but there's also an obvious lack of software engineering principles and experience. Witness that almost no open source projects have regression test suites, save some of the old projects like gcc. And it's hard to apply to the term "visionary," to people who are mostly trying to write software that's like something available for Windows. Is Gnome visionary? Star Office? Any of the half dozen clones of Breakout announced daily at linuxgames.com?
nah, they already found out... but now there is no longer a shred of doubt. it all reminds me of rock'n'roll, which was supposedly bad... Oh no! I heard Jerry Lee Lewis! Now I'm gonna marry my 13yr old cousin and shoot an innocent bystander while I'm beating my wife..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
One thing I find very displeasing, is how politicians and the media (more so the media I think) blame the troubles of todays youth on guns, rock and roll, the internet, etc. Its not these things that turn children into violent maniacs...its the fact that nobody is paying attention to them while they grow up.
In most families, both parents work. Usually they put their children into day care by the time they are toddlers. If both parents are working and come home at the end of the day tired, are they really going to want to listen to their children's questions or ask them how their day was? No, instead they put them in front of the t.v. or a video game console. As much as we all like t.v. and video games, this isn't something that young children need to be imersed in. There's plenty of time for that later.
I guess to make my point, I'd like to reference the columbine incident. The media has blamed everything from guns to the ineternet on this tragedy (I didn't follow it all that closely so I'm not 100% sure). But isn't anyone going to blame the parents? I mean, from what I heard, the children had the weapons and stuff like that in their own homes! Even papers talking about it...Doesn't anyone pay attention to their children or take responsibility for what their children do?
The blame needs to be put on bad parenting...not the internet or television. Someone needs to be there when a child sees a cartoon kill another cartoon on t.v. and remind them that killing isn't acceptable, what they're seeing is "make believe." Expand childrens minds with television and the internet. The information is very powerful if used correctly so why don't we use it properly to teach children what's right from what's wrong. Obviously some children these days don't know the difference. Perhaps we should spend more time pointing out that parenting is a problem these days and that we need to guide people towards being better parents for their children.
Neither Bush nor Gore should be debating about the internet filling the heads of today's youth with bad ideas and thoughts. They should be debating about how today's parents aren't teaching their children the values and morals that our parent's parent's had as children. Yeah, there was murder and what not back then, but nothing like we have today.
The other 1/3 are voting for Shrub are those who want Andy Griffith in the White House so they don't have to look at the boring, intelligent, responsible Al Gore on their TV screens.
So, in other words, you want a president who has the horribly flawed idea that it is the governments responsibility to pay for your retirement. You want a president who thinks that its the United States' job to play the part of world police force. You want a president who supports socialized medicine. Lets me say that again, SOCIALIZED medicine. As in socialism. You think socialism is a neat idea?
Geuss what, not all of us want to pay for your medical bills. If you didn't save properly in your youth and prepare for retirement, then quite frankly, fuck you. If you don't have enough money to survive thats your own damn fault and I sure as hell do not want to be forking over my money that I could be using to prevent myself from being in that same position.
It all has to do with consequences. If you don't take responsibility for you actions, why should I have to pick up the slack? Don't get the wrong impression, I do care about my fellow man, and I don't mind supporting them when they need help, but that doesn't mean that I want to pay for someones entire lifestyle. It's your respoonsibility to make sure that you can support yourself when you retire, not the governments, and not mine either.
Of course it isn't "the Internet" or "video games" or whatever that "cause" kids, or anyone else for that matter, to go out and start shooting people. The fact of the matter is that we in America live in a violent culture. Our nation was created through blood, expanded through blood, and defended through blood. We use violence to acheive all sorts of goals: from stopping genocide in the former Yugoslavia to protesting the WTO in Seattle. That's not to say we're unique. Violence exists everywhere. Violence is simply a part of human nature and history. And of course, violence exists in the jungles of Asia and the plains of Africa, where television and the Internet simply don't exist, or haven't reached in large amounts, so obviously television, games, music, etc. don't *cause* our cultural mindset in regards to violence, they reflect it.
It's when politicians and activists turn violence into an excuse to start legislating what people can and cannot watch on television, play on their computers, etc., that we have a problem. Playing Doom or downloading the Anarchist's Cookbook are, of course, harmless acts. Millions upon millions of people each day do these things without a second thought, and exhibit absolutely no violent tendencies.
Politicians, though, love using the actions of a few to justify their own bias, or at least those of the lobbyist who's promising votes or money, and then try to project that bias onto the many. We all know the Internet is not innately harmful, and we all know video games don't cause killing. I think that, for the most part, the politicians know this too. Calling G.W. Bush "stupid" for blaming the Internet for violence is wrong. G.W. Bush is extremely smart for doing that. The stupid ones are the people who will vote for him because of such a bold-faced lie. And these people are just looking for an easy way out, a "simple solution" to a problem that they simply don't know how to solve. It's so much easier to point the finger at Quake and say, "Video-games made him do it!!!" than it is to point at society at large.
I guess the "Golden Rule" in this case, is that if someone is unstable enough to think that the Flak Cannon or Redeemer in Unreal Tournament is an accurate portrayal of real life, and is then inspired to go off and kill someone, or that the Internet is simply a repository for bomb-making instructions, then said person is pretty messed up in the head to begin with.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
Ah, so that makes you an expert on Texas politics.
and I see what a mess IT is. G. Dubya has been missing in action here since early in the year.
If you knew anything about Texas politics, you'd know that the position of Governor in Texas doesn't really do all that much. By law. The Lt. Governor position has much more power.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
That's boldly inaccurate, therefore your entire premise is flawed. This is the second article on here today that misstates what Governor Bush said, so allow me to post the question and his answer in context.
From the 2nd Presidential Debate 10-11-2000
MR. LEHRER: Back to the question about the differences on gun control. What are they, Governor, from your point of view, between you and the vice president?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I'm not for photo licensing. But let me say something about Columbine.
MR. LEHRER: All right.
GOV. BUSH: And, listen, we've got gun laws. He says we ought to have gun-free schools. Everybody believes that. I'm sure every state in the unions got them. You can't carry a gun into a school. And there ought to be a consequence when you do carry a gun into a school.
But Columbine spoke to a larger issue, and it's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line, we've begun to disrespect life, where a child can walk in and can have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet, and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life. So gun laws are important, no question about it.
But so is loving children and, you know, character education classes, and faith-based programs being a part of after-school programs. Somebody -- some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, "We love you." And so there's a -- this is a society that -- of ours has got to do a better job of teaching children right from wrong.
And we can enforce law. But there seems to be a lot of preoccupation on -- not necessarily in this debate, but just in general, on law. But there's a larger law: Love your neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself -- and that's where our society must head if we're going to be a peaceful and prosperous society.
BUSH is practically exculpating the internet! He is saying that it's our culture/society (kids being neglected by parents, no respect for REAL human lives not 64 bit ones etc..) that causes violence, and something has gone wrong WHEN a "heart can turn dark" from video games, internet use etc...
Your censors in this election sit on the LEFT side of the aisle. If you are truly concerned about censorship and the First Amendment, you should familiarize yourself with Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman. Conservatives "Conserve" the Constitution, Liberals treat it like a thread.
If the people turning 18 are just now finding out that politicians are idiots, the world has much to fear.
Spotteddog
. there used to be a sig here.....
gore has been long touting his invention of the internet..
Al Gore never claimed to invent the Internet. That story was started by none other then Declan McCallugh (of LiViD defamation fame and in no small part responsible for inciting the persecution of DeCSS and css-auth developers).
For the story debunking the myth that Al Gore claimed to have invent the internet see this ; Salon story.
Caveat: I am voting for either Ralph Nader or Harry Brown (currently leaning toward Mr. Brown). If you oppose Gore (or Bush) that is fine, but be sure you do so for factual reasons, not myths propogated by yellow journalists.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Great post Jon.
I hadn't decided who to vote for yet, but that post really sent the message home and I'm definitely going to vote for Gore now.
Thanks for letting me know that Bush was an idiot, I hadn't noticed. In fact, I guess I was just trying to make an educated decision based on their proposed policies as well as their character and experience...Geesh, I guess that was silly wasn't it! Oh well, luckily I saw your post in time!
Please keep posting more stories like that one. It was well thought out, researched, and --most importantly-- it was very fair and unbiased.
Keep up the great work!
www.niceFire.com
www.niceFire.com
Funnier than a speeding bullet
Let's see. In the most recent debate, Bush claimed that the three men convicted in the dragging death of James Bird were all given the death penalty and were going to die for their crime. Actually, only two were given the death penalty. One was sentenced to life in prison.
... There are significant questions as to whether Gov. Bush actually fulfilled his service obligation in the Air National Guard. Nobody in the unit he was supposed to be attached to in Alabama can seem to remember him. Army paperwork shows no record of Bush ever reporting for duty in Alabama.
So was Bush lying, stretching the truth, or as I suspect, he just didn't really know, because he's not all that aware of what is actually happening in his home state and relies on his "advisors" to tell him?
And just so it's clear that this is not the only incident of Bush stretching the truth
Then there is education reform in Texas, which Bush is claiming so much responsibility for. Education reform in Texas actually got started two Governers ago, when Mark White (Democrat) was Governer of Texas. It continued under Ann Richards (Democrat) and has, to be fair continued under Governer Bush. But for Bush to claim any real responsibility for education reform in Texas is at best a stretch.
Want me to go on? How about Bush's much touted "tax cut" in Texas, giving "some of the surplus back to the people". Well, I live in Texas and let me tell you how it really worked. It is true that the State property tax rate was cut. When that happened, all of the counties, cities, college districts, school boards, and other taxing districts that rely on state funding immediately had to raise their property tax rates to compensate for the decreased funding they would receive from the state. Net effect - my total property taxes (and those of everyone in my city that I have spoken to) have actually increased. Nice tax cut.
Then there is the "Compationate Conservative" thing. How compationate is it for the state of Texas to have the second highest percentage of uninsured people in the nation? Particularly when the majority of those without insurance are Latino children (who Bush otherwise acts so fond of). How compationate is it that Bush actively tried to limit the access that children in Texas had to the new federal CHIP program that provides affordable insurance to children of low income families?
Bush is a liar too (aren't all politicians). He's just not called on it much.
The problem is that even if everyone in America voted for Ralph Nader, he still wouldn't be made president because the Electoral college wouldn't permit it. In my opinion, the college is the biggest obstacle to third party success on the national stage. As far as I know there have been two cases of a candidate winning the popular vote, but losing the office b/c of the college. Am I the only one who thinks this is not Democratic? Well, it only goes to show that this country is not a Democracy, but a government of the people not by the people. The "intellectual elite" has faded away into the "mainstream popular" and a whole multitude of voices is not being heard. Ah well...enough ranting.
>in the past 20 years, we have been nowhere near the record of Americans turning 18
Thought that too. And besides, even if it were true, it means very little. The current crop of 18-yr-old voters are hardly the most poitically aware and active bunch in the last 20 years. I might go as far to say that they are probably the least likely bunch since the late 60's to actually be aware, much less participate in the presidential election. That's too bad, and I hope I'm wrong about that.
Katz's drift that alienating the young net-savvy voters by insulting their intelligence by painting the net as a chasm of evil seems somewhat moot. Is there really a chance that large numbers of the 18 20 23&1/2 doom/quake/napster crowd is going to vote for him anyway?
I doubt it. Are there hordes of registered voters in the 36-52 demographic with young kids that are scared to death their child might be the next Klebold and are waiting to hear which candidate "understands" how evil this internet thing is and is going to do something about keeping this bugaboo from corrupting their kid.
GW isn't going to be swept into office by swaying young voters and he knows this. If he were to stand up there and demonstrate a real understanding of the internet to the extent that Jon Katz would hail him as a true revolutionary political candidate, he would lose votes from that majoruty of registered voters that are afraid of the internet because they don't understand it and don't want to.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
If you're going to get informed on the platforms, you might as well get informed on the decisions that really matter.
UBU
First of all, I know the definition of the word "stupid". Shrub is stupid.
Shrub thinks that muggin' and smirkin' and actin' like Andy Griffith will get him into the White House. Shrub thinks that calling facts and figures "fuzzy math" and mangling the English language will ensure him the "common people" vote. Shrub thinks that "being relaxed" in a debate makes him the winner of such, and many stupid media types are going along with that nonsense.
Of course, perhaps the American people are becoming more stupid. A lot of people seem to think that it doesn't matter who occupies the White House, that life will go on just the same. A lot of people like to put down smart people, call them "geeks", "nerds" or "dorks", thinking none of them have common sense or at least any sociability. A lot of people think it's OK to be stupid and not even try to understand any of the world around us.
Obviously, 2/3 of Shrub's support is coming from staunch conservatives who support Republican policies in a knee-jerk fashion. You know, these are the Christian right types who want moral control over your lives and the pseudo-Libertarians who simultaneously want to "give you more personal control by reducing what the government does for you." That's not to mention that if government stopped doing a lot of the things it does, our personal lives would have a lot less freedom of time.
The other 1/3 are voting for Shrub are those who want Andy Griffith in the White House so they don't have to look at the boring, intelligent, responsible Al Gore on their TV screens.
If the American people vote in Shrub, they'll get what they deserve. A stupid President for stupid people.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
This prompted me to go to http://www.bush2000.com/contact.asp ; and submit the following...
I have no doubt that this will turn the tide in the election.
---
Now, you can cut that up like a lawyer, but to anybody whole is familiar with the English language, Gore was taking a granule of truth and exaggerating it out of proportion.
He was overemphesizing his congressional record, in which he actively supported and promoted the creation of the internet. He in no way claimed or implied that he invented the internet, any more than Jed Bush's statements that he was instrumental in creating Florida's voucher program imply that he invented the notion of vouchers or was the first to implement them. At worst he was guilty of exaggerating his congressional record, nothing more.
They have diametrically opposing views of the role of government. They could not be more contrary! Their only similarity is that neither one has the remotest chance of being elected. Your simultaneous interest in both these candidates says a lot about your political knowledge.
No, it says nothing about my political knowledge. What is says is two things:
* The individual is being marginalized in favor of large special interest and corporate influence in government, and both candidates offer a solution
* I remain undecided on whether the best approach is government regulation of industry (which can and does work quite well in some instances) or very, very small government and corresponding freedom (both for individuals and corporations) that implies.
Why am I undecided? Because freedom for corporations often translates directly into less freedom for individuals (e.g. up until a few years ago people with medical conditions were effectively locked into their jobs because they would lose medical insurance if they went to another employer with a pre-existing condition. Later regulation which decreased the freedom and discretion of the insurance industry had a direct and immediate effect in enhancing the freedom of the individual. One may make sophist arguments such as "people were free to leave and aren't entitled to basic medical anyway, so they shouldn't complain" but the reality was, if your life depended on medical care and you would lose it if you changed jobs or were fired, you had the freedom any prisoner or slave has ever had: comply or die). The Libertarians make some compelling arguments, but they also gloss over a number of important and very complex details.
As with nearly everything in life, the ideal situation will probably end up being somewhere in the middle, though probably more in the libertarian direction than the Green direction (hence my leaning toward Brown).
I will say this, however. Your inflexibility in considering two differing points of view on a number of complex issues says a great deal about the openness of your mind, and the simplicity with which you appear to view the political world.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
So him saying that this is the largest demographic group is correct. It's what happens when the previous largest generation's kids grow up. Baby Boomers kids are graduating high-school, and there are a whole lot of them.
Oh - and to all you people who are voting for "lesser evil" or whatever, please take a stand and consider voting for someone beside the two big parties - and no, its not wasting your vote.
tagline
... hi bingo
. . . there are more Americans turning 18 than ever before,
and they now know that at least one presidential candidate is an idiot.
- JonKatz
Ahem, in the past 20 years, we have been nowhere near the record of Americans turning 18. That event occured when the peak of the babyboom generation turned 18 in the 70's (or was that the late 60's?) and the current number of 18yr olds pales in comparison.
Umm, wanna expand on that idiot part Jon?
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
While our democracy may have failed a bit, the candidates do, through extensive focus group testing, try to represent the people. Bush wouldn't say a word without his advisors telling him which demographic we're talking to.
So let's get it straight who Bush was talking to. Bush was talking to the Million Mom March. Bush was talking to the same Mom's who needed Microsoft's Digital Diva to explain to them how to send their email messages from their "cyberspace address" out over the "information superhighway".
He was talking to all the people who watched a high school full of children being led out by SWAT teams, the people who read newspapers and read about those two kid's obsession with the internet.
He was representing the great swath of Americans who just don't get it
My point is, don't blame Bush. Bush, as a C student, is uniuqely qualified to represent the vast and growing idiot demographic in America.
Blame the idiots. Think globally, but mock them locally.
-just a thought.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
I hope I'm not the only person in the USA who is bothered by the status of the government. Not neccisarly their "injustices to Americans" or the widespread corruption that you see on the news, but the fact that we're listening to a bunch of 50, 60 year old people who probably don't know what modem stands for. It's sad that it's going to take another 30 or 40 years before college people today get into the government. Sometimes I wonder if it will even happen in my lifetime.
Will the Net remain a unique and free space, or will it be forced to conform to non-virtual traditions and constraints?
Let's look at this logically. Eventually, someone who is elected to an important position is going to be very pro-freedom-of-information. If we elect someone today who is either against it, or the topic isn't on their priority list, then they are going to let monopoly companies decide what happens to freedom of speech online. What happens when we elect the person who is very pro-freedom of speech? It's going to be a lot of backtracking, might as well get someone who understands the issue now.
But most important, we can't do shit unless we vote. It's free, it's quick, and it's the easiest way to change the world. Register.
Gore: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
Now, you can cut that up like a lawyer, but to anybody whole is familiar with the English language, Gore was taking a granule of truth and exaggerating it out of proportion. That is another way of saying he lied. It would not be so noteworthy if he didn't do it every week, like claiming he and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story, claiming to have written the Earned Income Tax Cut law and worked on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while in Congress (both were created before he entered Congress), like claiming to have helped write candidate Hubert Humphrey's convention speech in 1968 (he didn't) ... And the list goes on.
A good compiliation of some of Gore's most egregious lies are here. You are an apologist for a compulsive liar.
Now, what is equally amazing to me is how you could be having difficulty choosing between Browne and Nader. They have diametrically opposing views of the role of government. They could not be more contrary! Their only similarity is that neither one has the remotest chance of being elected. Your simultaneous interest in both these candidates says a lot about your political knowledge.
"When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood."
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
I thought it was rather funny =]
NightHawk
Tyranny =Gov. choosing how much power to give the People.
Anyone who cared one whit about children would never equate anything to related to computers with their general welfare. If you care about kids and their schools, talk about class size, books, inspirational and loving teachers, safety from violence, interesting curricula, engaging and nurturing environments, respect from adults and children; computers are just about at the bottom of the list of what any informed educator sees as making a difference in children's experience of school. Many trendy and ill-informed people see them as a remedy for all kinds of things, but to my knowledge, no research into the area has ever suggested that computers aid learning or the educational experience to anything like the degree that the things I mention above do.
Since the public in general doesn't understand much about the Internet it is an easy target. Rock and roll isn't much of a target anymore because it is mainstream, people have moved on to rap music. The same logic can be applied to women voting, alcohol, printing presses, etc. If its new, someone will attack it despite the enormous good that might come of it, Politicians are just capitalizing on the sensationalism that the media can stir up over things like the Columbine shootings. Once the media brands the Internet as contributing to some tragedy it is very hard to convince people (who don't know much about it) that that idea is ludicrous.
Politicians are particularly skilled at this type of spin. Examples abound: Vote against a gun control measure and you might be branded 'pro-crime', vote to cut some sprending out of a bloated federal program and you could be branded 'anti-education' or be accused of wanting to throw old people out into the streets.
Society is, by and large, ignorant of what the internet is and what it can do for them. They assume its only purpose, other than IMing your friends on AOL, is evil. Politicians are just trying to ride wave into office. Unfortunately, these are the guys who make the laws.
Icebox
If every student can't have their own at their desk, they are nothing more than toys for the few that have the opportunity to use them. The rest can only view from a distance; the majority can't interact. Couple that with the fact that there's just not enough room in a classroom for thirty or more of these boxes, and the immediate conclusion that computers in school, if they are there at all, should be in a lab. In this day and age of portable classrooms, what facility has the space to spare to set up a sporadically-used computer lab, and pay for the staff to operate it?
Secondly, computers are distractions. In a classroom they take even more time away from the real reason students are there-- to learn. No, not everything in school is fun. Some of it may, to the kids, not seem neccessary. But lack of fundamentals is one of the things that's killing this country. I can't tell you how often I find illiterate high-school students. They read like third graders! Why? Certainly not because they don't have computers in the classroom.
Computers in the classroom-- ya might as well call an arcade a "classroom." Don't give me platitudes about how they'll be able to research projects on the Web. With very limited exceptions, it just doesn't happen. What does happen? Games. Note-passing. Oggling naked women. Software piracy (in high school we called it "off-site archival preservation"). Generally, those things that in the past were not allowed in the classroom.
Information on the 'net is uncatagorized and unorganized. Students can hardly write these days, do you really think they'll be able to distill terabytes of noise and glean the kilobytes of needed data? Even if they could get to the stuff they need, much of it is on the 'net as advertisements. I am often frustrated to find that information that would be available printed and bound in the library is only on the web in the form of an abstract and order form. Not particularly useful for school-age researchers. I end up hiking to the library anyway. At least their card catalogs are focused, and don't contain millions of porn links disguised as what I want.
Americans have missed the boat on what education means. Education is not job skills. True education make one a better person. It builds character. Education creates wisdom. If kids today get out of school knowing little more than where the power switch is and how to run a small set of software applications, we have done a grave disservice to not only them, but to ourselves. We will have weakend the fabric of this country's society.
How about we get back to teaching what kids need to know to get through life. Reading is important for numerous reasons. Math lets them describe their world in measurable ways. Literature helps them understand their feelings, and express themselves to others. History tells them how we got here, and generally points to where we're going. Science teaches critical thinking. These are what schools need, not computers. Ignore these, and we'll get a society that won't even know how to build a computer!
Jeff