Slashdot Mirror
Politics, Assassination, and Debates
Here's a really interesting story on
The New Science of Character Assassination which lists a bunch of things gore said that the media has used regularly to misrepresent him. Very worthwhile reading to help remember how the press skews things (no, I'm not an exception to the rule: but at least you guys can disagree with me below). Its not exactly about the election, but Does the US Electoral College Still Work?. Lastly for now,
the presidential debate commision is looking for feedback. I just personally wanted to note that the submissions are extremely lopsided; virtually nil for any 3rd party candidates (except a few Nader) and only a little more for Bush. We're trying to give the major candidates linkage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it!
The reference to "a body of citizens" is irrelevent except in a dictionary. Many "republics" don't bother with elections, or only go through the motions. By contrast, many monarchies hold elections -- in some cases, even for the monarch!
(I assume you got this stuff from a dictionary. You shouldn't treat Noah's children as ultimate lexical authorities -- they're records of how people do use words, not absolute arbiters of how people should use words. In point of fact, "republic" is originally just Latin for "the public thing" -- that is, the state.)
I react negatively to the word "republic" becuase the word is often used to denote a state that restricts the franchise to the "right people". (I've known many conservatives fond of saying "We're a republic, not a democracy.") In the US, this has often been done with voting fees ("poll taxes") and property requirements. There's still an element of this in our voting laws: procedures for registering and voting are full of bureaucratic nonsense. Officially this is to prevent fraud, but in practice this is a direct way of restricting the franchise. During the heyday of the civil rights movement, African Americans always seemed to run afoul of some rule or another. My favorite was the registrar who denied a black his ballot "becaus of pur spuling."
Which is not to argue against safeguards against popular whimsy. But the Electoral College is not such a safeguard. It's a half-functional relic of an ancient, irrelevent political comprimise. If the founders were alive today, they'd be the first to call for its abolition.
__________
At least Gore can explain his
I've heard Bush explain his just as well. If you are following this election through "Gore colored glasses" (a new phrase I just made up and patented) than of course it's going to look like Gore is explaining everything and Bush is just bumbling. It works the other way around also. Actually objectivly listen to what they say and propose and they are both just about on equal footing, with the only real differences being policy.
openly gay people allowed into the millitary
Anyone ask the millitary if they want this? I don't the the nations fighting force is where we should be playing social games. Isn't moral low enough yet?
Bush's responces have generally been a variation of "well, *I* don't distcriminate against anybody."
Isn't that the way is should be?
Funny, I didn't hear any sighs until TV shows increased the volume on the clips by about 500%.
I heard them during the debates, so did everyone else watching them with me. The news immediatly picked up on it. I haven't heard any of these "enhanced" clips you are talking about. My only poinnt was if you are going to somehow claim Bush was whimpering, I'm going to remind you of how childish Gore also acted.
Finkployd
I agree his policy sounds a little radical, but remember the bill will go through committees and both houses before it is final. Unless he takes the Clinton route and circumvents the process by signing executive orders, then the bill will be modified from his origional plan. Sort of an "open source" way of writing laws with many eyes looking it over and changing the radical parts.
:) It takes more than that.
I look at Bush as the only one who will even try to fix the messed up educational system in the country, since Gore is too much in the pockets of the teacher's unions to make and kind of substancial change. He will just throw more of my money around to make the class size lower. This is all well and good, but lower class size does not a good class make
Finkployd
Not at all. What is impossible with giving states automony with how they choose to teach, but holding them accountable for the results? That sounds reasonable to me.
What if I told you to write a program, I don't care what language you write it in, as long as it produced the proper results?
Finkployd
The full Washington Post article on Gore's grades can be found <a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/nw-srv/w<nobr>e<wbr></wbr></nobr> b/special/campaign2000/sr03_032700.htm"& gt; here</a>.
' "Took the inititive in the creation of the internet" is not that far off from "invented the internet". '
Right. How about "I took the initiative in the creation of the freeway." VS "I invented the freeway." Come on. It's WAY FAR OFF. It not only misrepresents Gores statement, it also makes him look like a lying fool.
As far as 'innaccurate paraphrasing' goes, why would anyone paraphrase at all in this case? For the sake of brevity? Ha.
"Gore claims to have taken the initiative on the creation of the internet."
"Gore claim to have invented the internet."
Not all that much space saved. But the second one sure makes Gore sound like a fool.
It seems clear to me that this was a deliberate distortion. To deliberately mislead the public in an effort to influence their vote IS VERY SERIOUS!
I don't usually waste my time arguing with rabid zealots, but I'll just take a moment to say that Whitewater, Travelgate, selling of access, perjury, etc. were the subjects of the (many) independent councils appointed by the Clinton Justice Department during this administration. Thank you.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
The number of bits per second was static, and it wasn't increasing; meanwhile, processing power was expanding geometrically, logarithmically, explosively - Al Gore as quoted in RollingStone.com article
Wow, Al, logarithmic growth, now there's speed.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
a) I do have a college degree (EE);
b) I have taken several electives that include social science, political analysis, etc;
c) I also know how to spell (which you seem to having some difficulty doing...).
May I suggest some basic spelling and grammar courses for you, sir? Or maybe you want to lay off the beer, and go for the coke.. it seems to be affecting your reasoning.
By 'real' candidates, I didn't mean candidates that were 'in tune' with the people. I meant candidates which the vast majority of voters will go for simply because they happen to be the representatives of the largest parties. Not to mention that even if Nader got the popular vote, the electoral college would never vote him in (yep, thats right). The electoral college can pretty much vote for whoever they want, w/o necessarily being bound by the 'will of the people' (go here for a good article explaining how things work).
So there you have it. Moderate me as a troll if you want, but the bottom line is: I am a *realist*. Only 2 candidates *really* count in this election, and that's Bush and Gore. Pick your poison, fellas....
PS - I think I'll have a Sapphire & tonic now, guy... with some lime, if you please.
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
the fact is, they're not. and likewise just b/c someone leans to the left does not make him/her a communist. i think it's amazing how the conservative republicans turned out in droves to denounce the post and cmdrtaco. i have to wonder if the same thing might happen if a post were made that was seemingly pro-bush. (although right now i can think of nothing he supports that we geeks do) getting back to the mccarthy-like tactics shown in this thread, it seems those of you doing so are guilty of the very thing this article is about: character assassination. do you people who said so seriously think rob and other dems are communists? labeling someone's ideology as extreme that is equally distant from the center of the political spectrum as your own only means you are just as extreme in your ideology. what does this mean? it means you either a) believe your ideology IS the center and is therefore the only right view to have; or b) are guilty of baseless character assasination as outlined in the article. i've observed politics for a long time and i've come to notice that the differences are indeed rooted in their extreme counterparts. notice that most dems do believe it is up to the government to set things straight. they believe literally in government by the ppl, for the ppl. that is to say theory and logic is the way to a successful government. republicans on the other hand are very passionate in their nationalism and believe that the blind faith of the ppl in their nation make it successful. that is to say it's nationalism plain and simple. that's not a bad thing either and it's no coincidence that the united states is the most prosperous nation right now and is practically in the middle of the political spectrum. in other words it take a bit of both to create a successful formula for government and furthermore despite how bad off we feel we may be in our policies, we still live in the most prosperous, free, and fair countries in the world. elements of both sides are needed for the best formula we can come up with. despite what both parties may tell you, there is no such thing as utopia no matter what policies or government you have. moderation is the key to the best solution anywhere. so in that regard, the article is right on the mark, unless one are right-wing which more often than not means that you are right and everyone else is wrong and there is no other acceptable solution. i'd also like to add that as far as the appropriateness of this article goes, in one way i don't mind because 1) it gets ppl talking, unlike some of the other usual threads; 2) no matter what you guys might say, politics is in itself a nerdy subject and a science at that (political science) so i think that it had everything to do with slashdot and it's "news for nerds" (just b/c u aren't into politics, doesn't mean i'm not); 3) it brings us into our government and makes us better informed. it's not like it's on the nightly news, this is stuff ppl rarely get to see that has firmness to it. okay i'm tired now, i'm going to sleep. nite Zzzzzzzz alfa
Yes.
why dont you consider that possible well-run social programs, funded by everyone is a good thing(TM). Dont you see how selfish your opinion sounds?
Consume people?
Consume the planet?
Punish altrusm?
(i feel like a hippie ;)
You sound like a hippie.
Nader is a proponent of the current generation of eco-terrorists. Mistakenly assuming that there is some magical precious thing about the random way that life happens to be scattered about on the earth which must be preserved at all costs.
There is no 'balance', just circumstance.
They're not 'wetlands', they're swamps. Look over the last 200 million years of earths history. 90% of the animals that have ever existed are extinct. New breeds appear. Old ones that aren't effective competitors die out. That's not criminal, it's natural selection.
Man is one of the animals.
If he decides to clearcut a forest to plant crops, good for him.
For an honest analysis of environmental concerns, see Peter Huber's book 'Hard Green'
People strive according to their motivation. They are not 'slaves' of some imaginary system. I'm a software developer, working from my home, often more than 60 hours per week. No one's forcing me to do it. The pleasure of doing productive work is what fuels my motivation.
I could have gotten a state job, say in the department of walking slowly, and live the slack life, with plenty of time for Wheel of fortune.
I still spend a lot of time with my wife and two kids. It probably has something to do with not having a television set.
Yes, there are many corrupt facets of our current government. (e.g. civil forfeiture laws that allow everything you own to be siezed, on 'suspicion' of being a drug dealer, without even being charged, let alone convicted of any crime - all in the name of the War on Drugs)
Harry Browne is much more likely to rid us of them than Ralph 'I know what's best for you' Nader
No, I mean a party that got the most votes didn't win. The Liberal Party here in BC got more votes in the last election than the NDP, but the NDP won. The Liberals won a few seats by huge margins, while the NDP squeaked out more seats with lower margins.
Sad.
The United States is not a democracy, but rather a consitutional republic.
Have you ever read the consitution of the United States? I encourage you to do so, as it's not really that long.
The constitution is a document that very specifically states what the federal government may do. Not guidelines, but a difinitive and restrictive list.
If it's not on the list, the government may not do it. End of story.
Sadly, there are many programs in existence that are in flagrant violation of it.
The government is not our mother. It is not responsible for our welfare. It's role is to protect the rights of it's citizens, to allow them to work and prosper without the coersion of violence.
Bear in mind that there is no such thing as a 'right a goods or services', but rather a right to earn them in trade.
I had prof. Urken for a class (Computers & Society) where he discussed voting methods and stuff. He's really good, but he emphasized using different voting methods (not just one) to be able to better visualize the data.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
The fact is that that this level of reporting of democrats is new, and despite the fact that the media STILL has the gloves on it smarts
Uh, yeah -- 'cause no one has printed anything mean about Clinton in the past decade. Good thing we've kept the kid gloves on...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Was this change in attitude because of Gore, or was Gore simply in the right place at the right time? No doubt, Gore used his position of influence to push the US government towards making use of technology, and towards funding of various technological initiatives, but would any other person in his position have done the same? Was he noticed because he was the Vice President? Was he simply lucky because he happened to jump on the right technology bandwagon?
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I'm definitely not saying Bush is being completely honest, but it has YET to be shown that Bush is lying as much as Gore is.
I see why you post anonymously. If told a whopper like that I wouldn't want to be held responsible for it, either.
A well-crafted lie appears unquestionable - Dama Mahaleo
Careful. Thanks to Federal harrassment laws, certain classes of people shouldn't be offended...
It is, if memory serves, still OK to make rude generalizations about, oh, people wearing flannel shirts; short people; tall people; conservatives; liberals; those making above $100k/year; and so forth. But, apparently, speech on that might possibly appear critical on the basis of gender or race (and, perhaps soon if not already, sexual orientation) is a haul-yer-rear-into-court offense...
(Grrrrrrrr. This is NOT what the 14th would seem to be about. Bother.)
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I would love to see it, I just doubt I ever will. I could see Chris Matthews, though.
It may not be the techies. I think it is just a lot of people who have no skills and are stuck in some deadend job...
1) This is liberal.
2) Character assasination is not new.
Number one. Perhaps, but is there anything in the article that is unfair or untrue? Care to do more than name-call? What's not true about the article specifically? Why does the bona-fide appearance of anything liberal provoke hostility and howling?
Number two. Agre's discussed this in some other articles. It's a tough case to make for this being new, agreed, but perhaps new watersheds are being crossed... We've had a decade or so of intense work in PR houses and think tanks to develop rhetorical patterns which are very difficult to respond to. Continuing the Gore example -- if you were him, how would you resopnd to this? To demonstrably false accusations, continuously repeated from all corners of the press. It's pretty weird, really. Put yourself in his shoes, and then ask if you feel safe in this environment yourself. I'm not whining -- I think we need to talk about these. (Agre, I think is better at the task than many of us.)
Plug: Agre's Red Rock Eater News usually focuses on computing & society issues. Highly recommended.
Great, accuse Gore of fostering administrative bloat, the put in a plug for SDI, a pork-barrel black hole which is considered a running joke among scientists. Geniuses like you make america grate.
I was talking about the redistribution of wealth. Basically, making sure everyone has an equal economic standing.
But you are right. I was just a little wound up after reading so many one-sided political stories on a site that was mainly meant for "nerdy news" (or so I thought).
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
When trying to discredit someone, you should use sources that are not discredited themselves. The link in this very story http://commo ns. somewhere.com/rre/2000/RRE.The.New.Science.of.C.ht ml is dominated by articles from the Boston Globe that are picked apart and shown to be full of false statements. What you are doing here is basically the same as using a word to define itself. Also, Op-Ed pieces are opinions, not facts, and are nothing very creidible on which to base an argument.
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
Gore doesn't lie; if you define lie appropriately.
Every time Gore tells a fact or detail, am I the only one who says "Is that really true?" This is not because of some media spin, but because I've listened and learned.
And am I the only one that notices all of the fine print everytime Gore speaks? Because when you look at all of the fine print, Gore is really saying nothing.
This is not the kind of reaction I want to have to a president. And I have this reaction because of who Gore is, not because of how the media portrays Gore.
What if I consider the "people's right to keep and bear arms" a liberty?
Not trying to start a gun control debate, just saying that both sides would love to squash liberties for political gain.
Finkployd
I've seen this system used in every university student union election I've taken part in - it's ;-)
- easy to understand for the voter: simply rank your preferences for candidate in order (ideally, including the option to re-open nominations
- fair, whether electing a for one post or many posts of equal standing: your vote is evenutally counted towards the highest option you chose that hasn't been disqualified
- a complete git to count, but voters don't have to worry about that
The thing that puzzles me is that in a modern country like America, votes are not simply added up across the population, but there's the electoral college level stuck between them and the important vote count...
Mind you, as a UK citizen, we don't directly elect the PM or the monarch, and the current government, which holds a huge majority in parliament, was elected by a minority of those who voted. But this is 'good for us' because our government is 'strong' and 'stable' and you don't get any of this namby-pamby coalition crap, apparently.
Interesting. More power to him, then.
;-)
15% poll support probably should have been something like 5%, as well. The more verbal mayhem on stage, the more interesting.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
1992 Clinton with 43% popular and 69% electoral
1912 Wilson with 41.8% popular and 82% electoral!!!!
1860 Lincoln with 39.9% popular and 59% electoral
1824 Adams with 29.8% popular and 32% electoral
The Man,
Actually IRV will appear on the ballot in as an intiative in Alaska in 2002 and Vermont and New Mexico are seriously considering IRV. In those cases very strong Green parties are helping elect Republicans in what would otherwise be heavily Democratic states. If Greens really want change they need to let Bush win Oregon and Washington with a strong turnout for Nader and cost Gore the election. Or even imagine California going to Bush because Nader gets 15% of the vote. I guarentee you residents of those states would strongly consider IRV for the 2004 election. Ditto in states where Libertarians can swing the election. John Q Public needs to be shocked by electing who he likes least. Once that happens the road to election reforms begins.
BTW - Modern Technology makes IRV and other more 'complicated' counting methods as easy as changing your counting algorithm. It's a shame we don't use modern technology to assist our elections, after all we don't do math on a slide-rule anymore (even though I do own one for nostalgia)! (just wanted to inject some techno stuff since this is /. ) :P
I was referring to the fact that the popular vote determines the electoral vote. It isn't stated that way in the constitution.
-Nails-
Actually, a select few were exaggerations/lies. Most of them are true and in fact a matter of public record. Take the illegal campaign donations for example. The lie about his mom singing to baby Gore the "look for the union lable" song, the andio and video of Gore asking who "these guys" are (they were busts of Washington, Jefferson, etc), the "I didn't know it was a buddist temple" line, etc. This guy just took the "created the internet" (which Gore said, and is in itself a huge exaggeration) and showed how it's blown out of proportion. Well, boo-freaking-hoo. It's just a liberal reporter frustrated that his candidate doesn't have as much support as he would like, so he tried to find a scapegoat. If people were so swayed by the media, then Bush would have the poll numbers of Nader, with all the negative publicity they heap on him.
As for Bush, sure he sometimes stumbles over words, but that doesn't make one dumb. And the coke thing is completly without evidence. All I'm saying is that the same thing happens on both sides, and whining about it bacause the majority doesn't like your candidate doesn't mean it's only happening to you.
Finkployd
I suppose that there's a larger point than just what's been debunked or not (though not all of them were debunked). The whole "potatoe" debacle with Vice President Quayle wasn't his problem either, inasmuch as he used a correct, albeit archaic, way to spell potato.
:-)
The point is that in the most recent past, the inanities which have been pointed out most vociferously have been made by Republicans. It's not because they say more inane things than Democrats, but because perhaps they make better targets. I hesitate to call the media a biased entity, though it may well be, but that's the way it seems. There are plenty of Al Gore quotes that show him to be just as able to say something stupid as the next guy. I just figure it's not character assassination when we all point out that someone said something stupid, whether it's later show not to be such a big deal.
The politicians would probably be much better served thinking a bit more before they talk, and when they do say something silly that gets them teased, they do what most of us do - shrug it off.
-Jimmie
Reagan did run up the debt astronomically. And no, I don't support that. I also wouldn't have been thrilled with the Sovs taking over Europe. Tough times and all that.
I seriously doubt most of that money went to any form of military buildup, though. My understanding is that the biggest federal government expenditure in the US is Social Security?
Let's see here. Rick Lazio gets smeared by the media when he "encrouched into Mrs. Clinton's personal space". Yet when Gore charges Bush in the 3rd debate, nothing is mentioned in the press!
Actually it was mentioned many times. My theory on why it wasn't a big deal: this was a town hall setting, where both speakers were free to walk around, while the Lazio/Clinton thing happened with podiums. That, and gender did play a big role....if it had been Elizabeth Dole instead of Lazio, it would have been a footnote in the news.
(Bush by the way did a GREAT job blowing Gore's advances off).
The hell he did. All Bush proved is that he would rather do anything than answer a straight question if its the least bit sticky. Look at the first debate...when he was pressed for a straight answer on the abortion pill, he whimpered. Gore, like any other politician, does this once in a while....but not *all the time*.
Next, Bush is slammed by the media for "coccaine use" charges. Did they have an ounce (or gram) of evidence? Not one bit! Meanwhile, they all chucked over Bill Clinton's "I never inhaled" blatant lie. So, is the media biased towards liberals? Are you convinced yet?
Both Clinton and Bush gave flakey answers to drug questions, and both were made fun of in the press and the butt of late night jokes. So, just how is the media biased again?
How about the fact that the AP wire talked about Gore's lead in the polls everyday when Gore was ahead. What happened when Bush was ahead? The AP only talked about how Gore was leading in California and New York. Is the AP hoping that if people don't hear the Bush is in the lead, they will believe the AP's spin?
You must have missed the long (year and a half) period when the media coddled Bush, always referring to him as the front runner and casting a general air of inevibility about his election.
Your "biased liberal media" spend the first two years of Clinton's presidency eviscerating him for waffeling and not being able to get anything done. Then they spent another two years crucifing him over Monica. You should love the media.
It only included a subset of the "lies" that Gore is claimed to have made.
So what other terrible lies are there. Common, lets have em.
Of course Gore didn't say he came up with the idea of the internet, or actually created it himself. But equally obviously, he worded his phrase to make it seem as if his contribution was much greater than it actually was.
I don't know, his role was pretty damned big. It took more than tcp/ip and gateways to make the Internet, it took stuff like funds and backing, which Gore provided.
Absolutely true. If you don't rank a candidate under this system, your vote is never counted towards that candidate under any circumstances.
... which is an important feature I left out.
I've heard Bush repeat a thousand times that he's a "get it done" kind of guy, that he's a "compassionate conservative", and that he's someone who can bring people together, not push them apart. Those are all fine and nice things to say, but what is he going to do? That's what we care about!
The man is long on "being nice" and extremely short on specifics.
The president is not just a figurehead. Look at the veto power alone! This is an enormous responsibility. The president gets power equivalent to one-sixth of the entire senate!!!
Just because the "media" (whatever the hell that is) doesn't agree with your positions doesn't automatically make them against you. This is an open forum. Save your accusations of bias for a Republican love-in, where you can all hug and feel good about how it's you-all against the world.
Bring me some facts, post them here, and I'll read them. Quote some sources. Propose something else. Take part.
You sound like you know what you're talking about when it comes to military tempo and operational capacity. Great! We've all heard the sound bites from Bush and from Gore. Who's going to really do something about it? Bush says he's going to make the military strong. How? What's he going to spend? How is he going to spend it? You don't make the military stronger by saying "I'm going to make the military stronger." You make some specific proposals. You reference verifiable facts. You rebut your opponent's arguments.
I encourage you to do this.
The point of the article was to point out that much of the Gore lies/exaggerations are basically urban legends. If you have proof that a clone of Bush is running around with verbal dyslexia, and the real Bush is actually a verbose philosopher, lets have it.
I know, I know - I got a little worked up there. But I still find it amazing that Clinton came very close to impeachment for lying about an extramarital affair (a lie that many in both parties in Congress have told, I'm sure), but Reagan got away scot-free on amazing defense of "well, I didn't know what was going on in the White House," and went on to become one of America's best-loved X-Presidents. I only hope that 50 years of perspective will put both men in their proper place in history.
grrr... I guess I should quit before I get all het up again :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Again, there is this tendency to wear blinders. In order to really see what is going on, you have to look at the Electoral College in context.
And the context? The States funded the Federal Government before the Income Tax was adopted. In short, each State figured out who they wanted as the Chief Executive, and through the EC sent representatives of their view to Washington DC. Because the decision was by State, and not by overall popular vote, every state had a say proportional to their contribution to the coffers.
Too bad that when the 16th amendement was passed that the EC wasn't realigned as well.
Amar
Basically, if I understand correctly, Darpa created computer networking on a widescale. Sure, it wasn't called the "internet" then, but still, they accomplished something important.
An internet is made up of two or more networks connected to eachother. I can dial up a computer at a friends house, and my 4 networked computers connected to his 3 networked computers is an internet.
To borrow someone else's anology, saying the Internet as we know it today was created in the 60's is like saying Indians started todays interstate highway system by clearing some brush for trails.
The Internet as we know it today took funding and backing by the government, and Al Gore had a larger hand in this than any other public official (as another someone mentioned, even Gengrich gave Gore kudos for his role). So in a very real sense, Gore *did* help create the Internet of the late 90's and today.
So, how is your post any more relevant today than it was yesterday? Here was Phree's responce:
The fact that Philip didn't mention Quayle or Hoover in THIS ONE PARTICULAR ARTICLE has absolutely, utterly, precisely NO bearing on THIS ARTICLE'S accuracy, poignancy, or relevance. He also didn't mention that Josef Stalin murdered millions of Russians; does that mean this article can't be taken seriously? Give me a break.
Slashdot News for Democrats. Stuff that's left.
Hmm. Perhaps you should read down to the bottom of this article. No wait, never mind, I'll paste it.
Of course, the Boston Globe is managing to smear Gore even there, when they said he tried to make a joke. Now I ask you to look at the very first definition of the word joke: "Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line." This is exactly what Gore was doing - Making a joke. His intent was to evoke laughter or amusement; If you look at the second definition of the verb form from the American Heritage Dictionary (my favorite) you'll see the other thing he was doing, which was speaking in fun.
It's frightening when a junior college dropout like myself seemingly knows more about the English language than the press. Perhaps I should write political commentary; At least I know what words mean. And when I don't, I have the cranial capacity to look them up.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Having some technical know-how does me little good if the guy's overall bent (that of dramatically increasing the size of the federal government at the taxpayer's expense) is against everything I believe in.
If anything, it worries me that Gore knows what the Internet is. His next goal will be to control it and to tax it.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
The reason the press isn't covering Bush's gaffes is because they want him in office. Think of how much fun everyone will have laughing at his mistakes. It will make great headlines and all the media people will make lots of money.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Of all the things I'd use to choose against Bush, this is the least of them. What someone used to do with their life does not affect me now. In fact, it may even have provided him with valuable insight which he could use to make the world better.
Because I'm a pessimist, I don't believe that a Republican would want to make the world better. The people who once were called Republicans are now called Libertarians - They believe in a maximum of personal freedom and a minimum of government - And I do truly believe that they want to make the world a better place for all its inhabitants. But the Republicans seem to have selfish interests at heart, and a lack of respect for the seperation between church and state.
I also don't give one tenth of one shit about someone's grades in school. I had lousy grades, but I consider myself to be a pretty sharp individual. So why would I care if Gore graduated at all? I didn't.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's happened in Canada, too.
Now, whether or not this experiment has actually worked (or is worth continuing) is another question. But I am impressed with the insight into human nature that some of these early Americans showed. Unfortunately their fears continue to be confirmed two centuries later . . . despite the progress in education and information availability.
Slashdot is a collection of opinions. When someone like Sam Donaldson, Peter Jennings, et al reports on something, they are presenting themselves as unbiased reporters. That is why news shows make it clear with a disclaimer when a reporter/commentator is voicing his own opinions.
-N
Or "The American President".
Did you even read the article? Or the one yesterday that contained this link? Al Gore is credited by many of the leading lights of the technical development of the Internet as the most influential and supportive legislator in its 30-or-so-year history. The "union label" song was a joke, and was received as such by his audience.
Have you done any investigation whatsoever? Or are you content to believe the lies about Al Gore because it's easier than actually thinking about issues (which would be exactly Philip Agre's point)?
Right...
I certainly was watching the debate live when Gore repeatedly claimed, in all seriousness, that a very specific child in a very specific district was going without a desk -- and doing his best to imply that it was due to Jeb Bush denying schools vital funds.
Apparently he wasn't counting on a reporter actually doing the research and finding out that the reason the desk wasn't there -- for a day -- was that there was a shortage of space while they were moving in $100,000 worth of new lab equipment.
It's very reminiscent of how Clinton eulogized a police officer at a rally, and tearfully used the opportunity to call for a ban on "cop killer" bullets. Again, very specific details useful for reporters...
The cause of death? A traffic accident. No bullets or firearms involved, period.
That's chutzpah in the name of demagoguery.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The link for the "Does the Electoral College Still Work?" story is busted.
Jon Katz - the worlds biggest waste of time and bandwith.
I think Dan Quayle would take issue with just how "new" it is. Maybe new against Democrats.
---
This has been around since the Roman times and people were paid to do this... only recently has there been a full industry devoted to making people look like shit.
...but thanks to /. I'm finally convinced! Poor, picked on Al Gore needs my vote so he can use my tax dollars to re-invent the federal government into a bigger and better version of itself, Government 2.0 perhaps. That's certainly where I want my tax dollars going!!! Thank you, thank you /.
Couldn't follow the broken link, but no, any system where a a majority vote does not guarantee a win is broken (and yes, it has happened in US presidential elections).
It's mostly people who don't have the amount of money they want. So instead of trying harder, they just vote for the candidate who promises to take the money from "the rich, evil people" and give it to them.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it's Communism failing all over the world? And isn't the US (with it's evil capitalistics ways) the most powerful country in the world? Coincidence? Not even close.
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
The Electoral college works as prescribed in the Federalist Papers. It was a compromise to preserve a balance of power between the states and the new union. Since states create the rules by which electors are selected and how they should and can vote, it appears that the states still have a say in how the President is elected.
I do think, however , that the founding fathers envisioned electors as being more independent than they are now. Currently, 48 states prescribe that the electors vote for the candidates that win the popular vote of the state. There leaves little room for elector's excercising their concience.
Over the past 200 years, 99% of electoral votes went according to the state's popular vote. The two notable exceptions recently occured in '76 when an electory bypasseed Gerald Ford and voted for Reagan and in '88 when an elector chose Bentsen for President and Dukakis as Vice-President.
I agree his policy sounds a little radical, but remember the bill will go through committees and both houses before it is final. Unless he takes the Clinton route and circumvents the process by signing executive orders, then the bill will be modified from his origional plan. Sort of an "open source" way of writing laws with many eyes looking it over and changing the radical parts.
I don't think his plan is radical, but I do think it's based on simplistic ideas about education and learning. Ironically, because of its simplicity, it may well pass as is, may even be considered 'elegant'. That would be a sad day for quality education.
I look at Bush as the only one who will even try to fix the messed up educational system in the country, since Gore is too much in the pockets of the teacher's unions to make and kind of substancial change. He will just throw more of my money around to make the class size lower. This is all well and good, but lower class size does not a good class make :) It takes more than that.
I agree that Bush appears to be trying to fix the problem. But I would say that his ideas are simplistic and that he is incompetent. When someone tries to fix a process they know next to nothing about, when they don't even try to understand the underlying problems, you're better off not doing anything at all! Imagine asking a mechanic to fix your computer. "Hey, I can fix cars, and they're bigger than this little thing. No problem!" Chances are he'll fix it real good.
As far as Gore goes, I don't think his position is much better than Bush's. I think they are both going to make education worse.
Gores plan is a little better though. Class size is an issue, so that may help. But only because teachers aren't allowed the flexibility to change their style to suit larger classes. Too many controls, to much 'accountability' where accountability makes no sense. As a result they can't teach effectively.
For example, in a large classroom, teaching might be more effective if the teacher were free to take a fully collaborative approach. But that is hard to do if you have a strict curriculum to follow, strict 'standards' you have to meet etc. These 'high standards' hamstring the only person who knows what to do in the situation! 'High Standards' can produce low quality.
One more point regarding tests. Suppose you and I were to be tested on a subject. Out of the ten major points to remember, we both learned five of them, you learned the even points, and I learned the odd points. Now suppose the test, not being able to cover all ten points, tests us on every second point instead. Results: FP 100%, JN 0%. Even though we knew the same amount of information going in.
Tests should be used with great caution and great understanding.
I have not heard of a single candidate expressing anything more than a superficial stance on education. Doesn't education deserve an in depth analysis? Sadly, due to a poor education system, an in depth analysis from citizens is alot to ask for. Oh, a feedback loop! See how it perpetuates itself?
James.
Not at all. What is impossible with giving states automony with how they choose to teach, but holding them accountable for the results? That sounds reasonable to me.
What if I told you to write a program, I don't care what language you write it in, as long as it produced the proper results?
Good analogy. I'm no programmer, but even I can see how the results that you choose for me to accomplish would significantly influence my choice of language, style, priorities etc. How could it not?
For you to then claim that you have given me autonomy with respect to programming is ridiculous. The tools must suit the task. If you choose my task, then you are significantly influencing my choice of tools.
But education is different. There is no clear 'result', because a childs learning cannot be simplistically quantified. High test scores alone do not reflect high quality. They can just as easily reflect poor quality. It all depends on the test, the methods used to teach the students, etc.
To hinge a childs educational standing and a teachers paycheck on the basis of a single test is unwise and irresponsible.
Here are some references for you.
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
http://www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights/co nferences/testing98/dra fts/mcneil _valen zuela.html
The United States, a republic AND a deomcracy:
republic:
1.a. A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
1.b. A nation that has such a political order.
2.a. A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
2.b. A nation that has such a political order.
democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
That's not a problem. If the US made more than a pretense at having more than two political parties, this would be the natural state of affairs, and works fine.
What might be a problem is if you got the majority of the votes but lost the electoral college fraction. Which is certainly possible in the electoral college system, but is much less likely.
What bothers me more is that there is no prize for coming second. If you get 35% or 10% of the vote, you don't get 35% or 10% of the influence over the executive branch.
[TMB]
Yet somehow I know that Bush, Lott, Helms, and company are going to be telling me I'd better vote for them or the whole shithouse is going to burn to the ground.
I haven't heard that yet, but I have heard Gore trying to scare the elderly into voting for him. Food or medication, folks: what will it be? Right.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
You will probably only read this if you check your replys.
I have the same thoughts about Leberman as a jew, and the middle east conflicts.
But my main comment is on one of your last:
BTW, did anybody check out the fact that during a recent Gore fundraiser in New York (at Bon Jovi's house), they closed off the major traffic arteries for 45 minutes until Gore passed during rush hour?
Funny, because tomorrow (its late so I can say today) several roads and highways are being shut down for the arrival of President Clinton, who is campaining here for Hillary (I live in NY). This is normal procedure for Presidents and VPs. In 1984 Reagan came and gave a speech at my highschool. I also live in the birth place of IBM and he was here to see IBM but since it was an election year, he gave a speech too. Well they shutdown the same (if not more) highways and roads.
So please, if you are a President or VP you will have this regardless of your party.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
i wonder how it would change things if we were to repartition the states into equal-sized (square miles) parcels of land.
hmm.
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
What SPECIFICALLY was incorrect in that article?
You don't say, I'm guessing because you can't refute any of it. But it's conclusions conflict
with your beliefs, so you really WANT it to be incorrect.
Well wishing doesn't make it so.
Do your homework.
tj
They didn't ignore it. They did one worse. They continually marginalized it. Had they ignored it, Clinton would have been out on his ear. Instead they repeated the lies about how everything was a personal matter.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Yes, I read the articles. He could have correctly said he led the initiative in funding the internet, but he certainly did not 'create' it.
I think plenty about issues.. I don't like the democratic stance of more rules for more people. Things like hate crime legislation bother me. Are you any more or less murdered if you are white or black? Everyone gave bush grief over his response in the second debate regarding the death penalty when he was answering a question about 'hate crime' legislation. Something along the lines of 'we are putting them to death what more can we do to them?'. He was smiling because he so obviously won the debate point. If texas is ready to administer the appropriate punishment for the crime then obviously they do not need additional rules to further incarcerate someone based on the ability of the judge to 'read the mind' of the convicted.
(let me just add that the majority of americans, proven by polls, favor the death penalty)
The Democrats believe in equalizing the american people by taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Ask anyone in a former communist nation, government forcing equalization makes everyone except those in government equally poor.
There's some issues for you. But lets get back to the lying thing. Al Gore is a habitual liar, and lies to try to create 'an affinity the audience'. Well if he's lying about trivial things like union songs, doggie medicine, and visits to texas than what lies is he telling about the policies he'd like to put in place? Is he promising seniors a drug benefit because he plans to implement it or because he's creating 'affinity'?? Same with other issues like school aid or environmentalism. When he say's licensing firearms will not lead to confiscation are we to believe him?
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I understand the poll's working tricks, and they have been in use for both sides as long as I can remember (most likely much longer than that). I wholeheartedly agree that they may be invalid, but I can't find ANY polls that support the simply stated "fact" by the article's author that the public supports Gore's policies over Bush's.
It really doesn't matter what the people of this country think about the issues. It only matter what the media SAYS they think.
You hit tha nail on the head there. And this is what the author of the article was doing by telling as fact that the majority of American's favor Gore's policies. I was just playing devil's advocate and questioning this baseless "assumption". We may never know where America's preferences are since the election seems to be based on who is dumber and who lies more. The policies seem a secondary consideration.
Finkployd
So? How is that different from how we elect congressmen? If the majority of people in your district disagree with you, you're vote is just as "meaningless." If you are against the electoral college because electors are elected by districts instead of at-large, you should be against the House of Representatives and the Senate, for the same reason. Why use a parliamentary system for electing the Electoral College and not for the Congress? Electing by district is a choice we've made across the board, not just for the presidency.
Mathematically speaking, your vote is always irrelevant unless the election is decided by exactly one vote. It won't even let you "make your voice heard" because there will be no difference in the reports if Bush or Gore gets 50,123,456 or 50,123,457 votes. And voting for a third party doesn't help either; I'll vote for Harry Browne so maybe he'll get 1,050,442 votes instead of 1,050,441. Big deal.
It's a bit of a paradox, nobody's vote determines the election but if based on that everybody decided to stay home, the system wouldn't work. So why will I vote? The same reason I run seti@home and distributed.net clients, so that I can feel that at least in a small way I'm doing something constructive. Even though nobody would notice if I didn't, it makes me feel good.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
And Tyts doesn't even belong on the lyst!
--Joe, catching the Gyorge Carlyn ryferynce.--
Program Intellivision!
If the Electoral College is the key to the presidency, the state ballot is the key to the Electoral College.
To be included in the debates, a candidate should be on enough state ballots to conceivably win the Electoral College. Getting on state ballots indicates grass-roots support for the party in question and should be able to weed down the number of candidates that would be included.
Nobody expects the debate stage to include everyone that is running, but those that could possibly win. I think a 15% poll threshold will always rule out all but the two major parties. Using a state ballot threshold would include the major third parties without having to include an overwhelming number of candidates
Please moderate this up. The media seem to have decided that liberals are "correct" on all the issues, and their only flaws are occasional character lapses. This is obviously not the case for a large number of people. For me, Gore's deceptions and demagoguery on Social Security and tax cuts are much more of a reason to vote against him than his exaggerations about creating the Internet.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
And you come to this conclusion because you were present everytime Gore said one of the things the article is talking about, right? You didn't get a shred of your opinion because of, say, the newspapers or television, right?
No, I came to this conclusion from his own campaign-finance related scandals, and his position relative to the various scandals plauging the current administration. I don't have to listen to commentary or punditry to feel nervous about his trustworthiness.
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
Gore is no dunce. He may have had *a* bad semester, but still graduated Cum Laude from Harvard.
7 /born_again/index3.html
Regarding his Divinity School experience, maybe this explains what happened:
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/0
<BLOCKQUOTE>
"But in the midst of his second semester, in 1972, Gore dropped out of the program altogether when he went from working nights to days as a reporter at the Nashville Tennesseean. He got five Fs that semester and still owes Farley -- among others -- a paper." </BLOCKQUOTE>
And more substantiation from http://www.usembassy.ro/Elections/gore.html :
Education: Vanderbilt University School of Religion, 1971-72.
Professional: Newspaper reporter, Nashville Tennesseean, 1973-76.
"...Returning to civilian life, Gore settled in Tennessee and attended
Divinity School while working nights as a newspaper reporter with The
Tennessean in Nashville."
He didn't flunk out, he dropped out of the program, probably after the
add-drop deadline.
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
"Whores", as prostitutes are often called, have to do what they do for a living, not for fun or to get attention by males or anything. They deserve more respect that they get in our society (and no, "Pretty Woman" doesn't count).
/. posters who post merely to accumulate karma points as Karma sluts from now on.
Having said that, I move to propose we recognize
*Runs away really, really fast!*
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
I went to http://www.dictionary.com/c gi- bin/dict.pl?term=womyn and it came back with the following:
No entry found for "womyn" in the dictionary.
Suggestions:
woman
women
Woman
Women
woman
woman
Woman
woman
women
For better results, try our search tips.
Who am I insulting again?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
SDI did what it was supposed to do. It forced the Soviets to give up on the cold war. They finally figured out the US could massively outspend them, without forcing their population into food lines.
Who care it it would work technically? It did the job.
As originally chartered, the College was totally unworkable. A single vote, with the runner-up getting the VP job. That's fine when there's an obvious person everyone can get behind (old GW for the first two elections), but once the Federalist-Democrat, North-South, Industry-Agriculture, and other catfights started up, it became conspicuously absurd. The last straw was the nasty race between Jefferson and Burr -- who were supposed to be running on the same ticket. Naturally that led to some tweaking.
Hey, how many people realize that the College was a direct cause of the Civil War? In 1860, the Republicans were a brand new party, and didn't have the resources to put Electors on the ballot in every state. So they concentrated on their strong states, all of which were north of the Mason-Dixon line. But that was enough to elect Abraham Lincoln without a single southerner getting a chance to vote against him. Small wonder they decided that there was no place for them in the Union.
And here's the final absurdity. When your state chooses Bush or Gore (or Nader or Buchanan or that guy who teachs levitation), there's no guarantee that the state Electors will actually honor that choice. Oh there are legal sanctions (usually a small fine for not voting the ticket) and of course the parties try to pick the most loyal people they can. But you still see the odd wildcard voting his or her conscience instead of the ticket. This suggests some interesting possibilities, which I will not share with the more irresponsible Slashdotters!
The obvious thing is to do what most strong-executive democracies do: direct election, with a runoff if necessary. (The Vice President should be abolished, or at least elected separately. A job that exists for such blatently political purposes is as dangerous as hell.) The idea that states are sovereign entities, and thus deserve a direct role in electing the President is totally out of date. Of course, such a change would upset to many applecarts to happen anytime soon.
__________
No amendment. It is defined in Article II section 1.
The 'winner take all' is not a constitutional requirement. The states picked that one on their own.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
You know, I haven't had such a good laugh in a long time. That page is so f*cking biased it's funny. A few choice quotes:
Instead the left-wing justices would allow government to deliberately decieve workers about the solvency of a benefit plan (social security) in order to take more money
Another Beauty:
Hrmm...government restricting libertys...right to keep and bear arms...double standard, nah...
And no, I'm not voting for Dubya, he supports as many idiotic government intrusions as the Democrats. I'm voting for Harry Browne.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
I am not an apathetic voter. In fact, I encourage everyone to vote, and look down on those who don't as unpatriotic. But, the fact remains, my vote does not matter in this election? Why? Because I live in Texas, and Texas is already sending its electoral college votes to Dubya (save for a comment from Bush along the lines of 'Who needs those dumb rednecks anyway?').
The only thing my vote matters to is in the next election, and even then, it's not something democratic, but rather some political party can get money. No power. No voice. Just money.
Does that strike anyone else as horribly wrong? I can effectively say that I have no voice in government. While I can support groups that want to change the system, changing the system is going to require voting, and I'm sure there are enough people out there who have realized that their vote doesn't matter and so they don't vote at all.
So what's my vote going to go for this election? I don't know. I was thinking me. Maybe then I will get some money from the government.
Yes. I agree security for the POTU and VPOUS is very important. But, do you really think they needed to do this during rush hour so they could attend a partisan fund-raisers....a fund-raiser, BTW, given by a serious Hollywood liberal for the VP of the United States the very day AFTER Gore said he would be not be their lackey (not those terms, precisely, but close enough).
If it were an official visit to negotiate world peace or something, I wouldn't have any complaints. But, for a fund-raiser at $2,500 a head? Get real. Would I complain if he decided to do it 2:30 PM or after rush hour? No, as it doesn't really impose on the citizens he wants to represent.
Better planning on his part would have alleviated the anger and frustration of many people just wanting to get home to their families and showed he really cares about them rather than his wallet.
Interesting. How do you feel about a non-New Yorker coming in and running for senate? What qualifies her to pack her bags, come to NY, and represent you. Does she truly have a better handle on the issues or is she the best the democrats can do having exausted their supply of native democrats? Think about it.
As for Reagan coming to your HS. Was it a fund-raiser for Republicans or rally speech for all citizens at a time when he was asking businesses to increase production? Was he asking for donations or charging admission?
But, its not particularly about partisanship (although I freely admit I can't stand Gore), but about common sense. A little more planning and consideration would save a lot grief and garner support from people who might still be swing voters.
BTW, in Reagan's case, it really didn't matter cause I think there was only region that didn't give their support, the District of Columbia, because the democratic candiate was so weak.
Frankly, I don't think the democrats had a prayer having been through a percieved weak presidency and high inflation with Carter (I don't necessarily think it was all warranted, however, as Carter inherited a mess to begin with from the Nixon/Ford era).
I'm not talking about left or right biased. I'm talking about the lack of real journalism that exists today. Take the Middle East. Our papers and TV rarely if ever talk to the fact that Jews and Arabs have been fighting for thousands of years. If you read the paper, it sounds like this just happened today and that our President will actually help end the fighting.
:-)
Basically, every news cast is for the here and now. Everything revolves around ratings. I don't think it's as much as corporate corruption as it is the "dumbing down" of Americans by our schools and media. Our schools today teach that even if you have the wrong answer, as long as the answer makes you feel better, it's OK.
Just my $0.025 Canadian dollars worth
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
Would I complain if he decided to do it 2:30 PM or after rush hour?
Would you complain if a republican did it? Like a George Bush. I see complaints like this all the time, but it always goes against the person that they are against. I'm sure Reagan did do fundraisers that caused people havic in rush hour. But this is not an issue to me.
Better plainning, sure, but Ps and VPs do have tight schedules and to get something like a fundraiser out, you may have to inconvenience people.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Interesting. How do you feel about a non-New Yorker coming in and running for senate? What qualifies her to pack her bags, come to NY, and represent you. Does she truly have a better handle on the issues or is she the best the democrats can do having exausted their supply of native democrats? Think about it.
Oh I have, and in the beginning, that's all I heard. People here have grown tired of hearing the carpet bagger gig. But the race is stil primary whether or not you like Hillary. I've watched the two candidates for a while now. And I actually like what she has to say. Now if she is a good candidate to get the job done, is another story. I've listen to Lazio too, but he seems too right wing for my taste. So my answer is I'm not sure on either. All of my colleagues hate her for no apparent reason, or just because she seems to be in it for the power trip. So being the rebel, I support her (verbally). She's not a candidate that I would prefer. But I like her more than Lazio.
To go back to your original question. No, it doesn't bother me that she's from a different state. Right now our state is pretty screwed up. But that is more a local problem than a national one. We have yet to see the econonmic boom, except for the cases of employees leaving the area for better jobs in the South. Most of our government at the local level is republican, but I'm not blaming them, I voted them in. The democrates are no better. I would like to get people from outside the state to run things here. I've heard that outsiders don't know our problems. Our problems are pretty obvious, and maybe the locals don't know the solutions. An outsider might be what we need.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Yes. It would piss me off even if a Republican did it. I don't think its right for any fundraising activities of political parties to get between me, my family, or my dinner. .
I only agree with inconveniencing people for legitimate purposes such as world peace summits and such where the presense of the P or VP is crucial for the success of the mission. Fundraising doesn't qualify in my book.
RD
Plausible but false. Reputable etymological sources including the OED cite Old English man(n), Old High German and Middle Dutch man, and Old Norse mannr, among others, all derived from the Indo-European root *man-, meaning "man". The other Indo-European *man-, which means "hand", was the progenitor of Latin manus and its Romance descendents.
"Woman" comes from OE wimman, from wif + man, literally "woman-man" or "woman-person". (Holy definitional circularity, Batman!) Confusing matters further, "human" is actually from an unrelated Indo-European root *dhghem-.
Of the words you cited, only "manual" comes from the Latin manus.
spawn_of_yog_sothoth
Authoritarian hypocrite,
secret luxury house,
owned by the trial lawyers' lobby,
just another politician,
busted a union among his workers,
abuses workers,
amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it,
secrecy and stonewalling,
vindictive toward critics,
forced contributions to his college PIRG groups.
I could have pointed to the website of evidence, realchange.org but it is swamped. Nader is a phoney. He buys put options in companies he's going to sue. He funnels funds to his sister's 'non-profit' which then buys things like luxury houses, etc.
He's a major slime ball. In fact, the US's Green Party is nothing like the Euro greens. They have exceptionally weak environmental policy. They are just a club for the tired Old Left (used to be called the New Left, but that was 35 years ago.)
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
DAldredge must have read my mind!
And as far as CmdrTaco's comments go, give me a break! The media is so biased against Bush its not even funny. You liberals talk about a "right wing conspiracy", I think its more of a left wing conspiracy. Look at all of the media, they have done everything they can to make Bush look bad, even down to the leftist sitcoms the late night shows. While there are some exceptions, the above is generally true.
On top of all this, the one time that any negative (Gasp!) reports go against Gore, the liberals are the first to cry bias.
GIVE ME A BREAK!
This is the least likely of the four possible outcomes: Gore wins both, Bush wins both, Gore wins popular and Bush wins electoral, and Bush wins popular and Gore wins electoral.
.000 000 13 electoral votes apiece. That is a difference of about ten-fold, and Bush is more or less guaranteed to win the teeny states.
Why? The states that have very small populations, i.e. empty Western states, are Bush diehards. In Wyoming, the have ~300,000 people and get 3 electoral votes (2 Senators + 1 representative). In California they get 54(?) elctoral votes and have 33 million people. This means that each Wyominger gets 1/100,000 = 000 001 of an electoral vote Californians each get
What do you mean, he said no such thing?
Even in context, that looks bad. If Gore were just a slightly more clever speaker, he'd have said that he took the initiative for recreating the internet. Then this whole thing would never have happened at all. I do agree, regardless, that he does not believe that he created the internet - But he could phrased things much, much better.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The negativity against Gore is not the fault of the press. If anything, the press leans to the left.
The issue is many an American's distrust of intelligence. Or even the appearance of intelligence. People fear and feeled threatened by people who come off as smarter than them. Gore unfortunately constantly presents himself as an intellectual giant, as someone who is above it all, in his words and body language.
How many geeks here can relate? How many of us have been in a social setting with ``normal people'' and inadvertently blurted out an unnecessary correction or factoid that made everyone's eyes roll? And then from that point on you are treated differently. Everything you say must be correct and precise and you're no longer ``one of the guys''.
On the news one night, a talking head called Gore ``that kid in the back that always raises his hand with the answer'', and everybody laughed. Why is that funny? How come we don't say ``hey, there's that kid that always makes the touchdowns in football games, what an arrogant jerk''. Even though the nerd might be the nicer guy, people don't like him.
So that's what I think is working against Gore and why everything he says must be precise. Bush can mispronounce words, mangle phrases, call people assholes, and never answer questions, and people brush it off.
The reason Gore doesn't score high in the likability polls isn't because of a press conspiracy or a Republican character assassination. It's because he's annoying to many Americans.
They are both intelligent capable men and much of what the press has said about them (bungler vs. liar) is just a product of their personalities.
Disclaimer: I am a registered Democrat and always raise my hand in class. :-)
The insurance quote was from the third debate, and there was no exculpatory. It seemed just as bizarre during the debate as it seems in print.
---
Ya, and "Wag the Dog"
And "Primary Colors"
-- Ever notice that fast-burning fuse looks exactly the same as slow-burning fuse? I didn't... (Edgar Montrose)
The media is CONSERVATIVE? What exactly are you smoking? This is the media that consistantly gives financial donations to the liberal left, consistantly underplays family values, and lets Clinton-Gore float on all their irregularities?
Had the media been conservative friend, Clinton would have been impeached and Gore would have ended up next on the chopping block. Both of them would have ended up in jail for their many schemes and lies, and the newly single Hillary Clinton would've been finding some other sucker to attach herself too.
During the entire impeachment trial, these suckers allowed this group of rogues to seduce them into getting them off the hook. "It's a personal matter." It is NOT a personal matter to have "relations" with an intern in the Oval Office. "It wasn't a fundraiser." Hmmm... Show up, promise support, get check. Naw... No funds were raised there. "I had a lot of ice tea and had to go to the bathroom a lot." Do we really want a President with a bladder the size of a pin head? He'll be in the can when the hotline rings!
No, the media is not conservative. It never has been and never will be. Remember that conservative thought is considered "old school" and the media considers itself the watchdog against the "oppression" that old school thinking supposedly brings. What has finally happened though are 2 major things. The media has finally figured out that AlGore and the Dems are playing them like chumps, which they sincerely don't like. The media has also started smelling the blood in the water as more and more of Gore's campaign turns into more and more tricks.
As for Bush's intelligence vs. Gore's, I would like again to see more so called evidence before I would EVER concede that point. It has been well documented that Bush routinely made A's, B's and C's, while Gore repeatedly got C's, D's, F's, and incompletes. And Gore is the smarter one? Perhaps you're upset because the media initially tried to do just that, question Bush's intelligence, and guess what, THE PUBLIC DOESN'T CARE! They don't care if people make grammar errors. Guess what, MOST PEOPLE MAKE GRAMMAR ERRORS! They don't care because they know they can trust the man to do the right thing. They trust him to hire people that know what their doing. They trust him to protect EVERYONE's rights, not just special groups.
I am interested in the insurance - that's a Washington term quote. Got a source on that? I'd like to see what the FULL quote is... If it came from my mouth it would have been something like: "Calling Welfare insurance... That's a Washington term." Hmmm... Makes sense to me... Another case of how words don't mean the same thing to the Clinton/Gore administration.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
I'll go along with that.
But the fact that most states follow a winner-take all system directly reverses this. Small states may have more delegates per individual, but large states are likely to have more delegates per majority-voting individual. Since it votes as a block, a large state has comparatively more power.
Anyone know where to find info on how various states allocate delegates?
The tone that I have gathered over the last few weeks is that most of the Newsposters (ie CmdrTaco, John Katz, et al.) are seemingly Gore supporters. To me, this just doesn't make much sense. Why do you want to pay huge amounts of taxes to support a larger, more intrusive government? Why do you want the government to regulate everything from business to agriculture to where you live. It's called Socialism people.
After thinking about the whole situation some more I began to think that perhaps the open-source community is probably fairly liberal given their disdain for corporations. There is nothing wrong with corporations making a product and selling it and getting rich. I thought that is what America is all about. Maybe I'm not as in tune with all things Open Source as I thought, or maybe I'm wrong. Entreprenuerships not Entitlements.
I apologize in advance if I have misrepresented anyone here. Comments or Flames welcome.
acline@okstate.edu
...the media is by and large conservative, not liberal...
What country have you been living in?
It was only recently that the media started doing "against Gore" sorts of things, because, though liberal, the media has to capitalize on lies and things they can generally poke fun at. Gore's the butt of the jokes this round, that's all.
But by definition, the media must be liberal - first, because everyone in the media is out to change the world. Also, it seems that liberals get elected by telling people how terrible everything is and how it all needs to change. The media, in order to keep ratings, has to shock and infuriate, which entails telling people how terrible everything is. They both bring to people's attention the exact same thing, and so they agree on a great many things. How could they ever be conservative?
Anyone who says the media is conservative has got to be one of the most left-wing people in the entire world.
By the way, I'd rather accept grammatical errors than lies from a president. In other words, I'll accept integrity over grammatical correctness any day of any year, and my user name is grammar fascist, for crying out loud. Check your priorities, please.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
No more of that nerdy news!!!
This is what I come to this site for, left leaning political discussion that really matters!!!
YES! And no more of this stupid DMCA/UCTIA news either please! I don't care if they make owning a computer illegal as long as I know how many gigatexels the newest graphics card can handle!
And no more of this SDMI/Napster crap either, music is for those arty-fartsy trust-fund hippies! The CPU fan and the sound of a hard drive swapping is the only music a real nerd needs!
And what's with this stupid-ass "web site" crap, anyways? Slashdot should be a dial-up BBS with a bank of 8 300 baud modem lines!
And for gods sake stop running all these articles about the outside world! I live in my parents basement and subsist through delivered pizza and mail-order! I don't care about anything that happens outside! This site should cater only to me! Not to mention that I'm too stupid to turn off a little box in my slashdot preferences!!!
Maybe Rob should just change the title to Slashdot: News for whiny little bitches.
----
Dave
MicrosoftME®? No, Microsoft YOU, buddy! - my boss
- Dave
I can see the fnords!
If I remember correctly from government class, it was orginally created because those in charge of the government did not trust the common people with little or no education to be able to vote responsibly, so they implented this as a system of being able to override that.
Actually, it was set up that way because the people were never intended to elect the President, the -STATES- elect the President. You have to remember, the United States was intended to be like the European Union... seperate Nations (States) United.
Of course, it has deviated considerably from that.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
No. Look up the word 'initiative' as it pertains to the working of committees in Congress. He doesn't claim 'creatorship.' He does claim that he initiated the process of procuring funding (through congressional action) to help spawn the Internet from ARPANET. He never claimed 'creatorship.' Ever.
Let me get this straight... when he says: 'I took the initiative in creating the internet'...
There is no claim to 'creatorship'???
Hahahaha :)
I love anti-polytical correctness
Finkployd
Personally, I still like the idea that a state is a somewhat powerful political entity.
:)
If we removed the electoral college, consider this: if every state were in favor of Bush, 51-49, and California was 100% behind Gore, Gore would win - despite the fact that he had a minority in 49 states.
Yes, I know it's an extreme example of what could go wrong. But, then, people only tend to focus on the extreme examples of what goes wrong in the status quo
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
Actually, I think he said he wanted the internet to be a tax free trade zone. And while I can't vote over here, I still pay the same taxes as you guys do ... so I am all for that.
We live in the middle if these battles, and they do affect the way we live and work and play. And, with the "shrinking" of the world that the Internet is bringing upon us, it is no longer an issue limited to US audiences.
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I posted that entire essay, completely redone in HTML by me, AND with WORKING links, yesterday. Took me hours to turn that crappy text into pretty HTML. Suddenly, today, here it is on the front page of /. but all ugly and broken. But I don't care... really I don't... I'm used to being ignored by the proprietors of this site. Notice how Taco doesn't even mention anything like "UserX submitted this essay about..."? It's almost like he just came up with the entire idea himself. I don't even bother submitting interesting stories anymore because they invariably get rejected (even though they suddenly show up weeks later with credit given to someone else who submitted it weeks after I did). Guess I haven't kissed enough ass to be One Of The Cronies yet.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
but I am very intolerant (alert! P.C. blacklist word!) of emotional reactions (as yours clearly was) to factual, moral or ethical questions
Overreact much? First off, I made a glib one-liner, not a political pronouncement, so I can hardly comprehend how someone would see it as an "emotional" reaction.
Secondly, how can you be "intolerant of emotional reactions to...moral or ethical question"? What other kind of reaction should a person have to a moral or ethical issue?
You seem to be having a pretty emotional reaction of your own, there, if a one-liner can get you accusing me of supporting every hypocritical NOW statement of the past decade. No offense, but maybe holding me to a different standard than yourself (vis-a-vis emotional reactions) is why you have the common accusation of being hate-filled? You're tolerant of emotional reactions so long as they coincide exactly with yours?
Believe it or not, one doesn't have to swallow everything from the left in order to see the hypocracy on the right, or vice-versa. I laugh just as hard when NOW does a backflip trying to defend Clinton while criticizing Packwood -- the same kind of laugh that I use when i hear republicans giving out prescription drug plans instead of paying down the debt. It's funny how circumstances can change once inviolable standards of responsibility (whether it be moral or fiscal)...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
No, you've missed the point.
He 'took the initiative in creating', ok, let's look at that:
Main Entry: 2initiative
Function: noun
Date: 1793
1 : an introductory step
That's introductory, as in _first_. Seems I recall the _first_ bits of the internet were created when he was still a young lad, getting Ds and Cs in college..
It is proper to say he "took the initiative in helping grow" the internet, I'll give you that. However, no argument or your part can change the meaning of 'created'. To create something is to bring into being what _did_not_exist_ before your actions.
Main Entry: 1create
Pronunciation: krE-'At, 'krE-"
Function: verb
1 : to bring into existence
My point is, like all politicians, he's munging the truth, and taking credit where credit is not due. And he got burned for it, and will continue to.
Oh, and looks like now he's gonna lose.
Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
No I did not forget about 1993-1994. The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, but not the Senate. I'm still scared shitless about One Part Rule. One party has not controlled both the House, the Senate, and the White House for over 60 years.
---
---
"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that."
Speaking of bizarre looking sentences, here is what I meant to write: The insurance quote was from the third debate, and there was no exculpatory context. It seemed just as bizarre during the debate as it seems in print.
Republicans are still completely for personal freedom and a minimum of government...whenever it suits them. Bring up gun regulation or welfare and Republicans scream about "Big Government". But as soon as someone wants to control their own reproductive rights, smoke a joint, or play Quake, then all of the sudden the government should be involved.
-B
It doesn't have to be either Republican or Democrat. I wish people would see this.
I wish EVERYONE would see this.
It's really easy. Everybody should just vote Harry Browne (or some other 3rd party).
If you hate Gore and Bush, don't pick the one you hate "least", simply pick someone else. What happened to good old common sense?
-=-
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
On Gore:
0 08/18/000818dem_kgore.html
t ml
w /45811.htm
r .html
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2000/0
He attended private schools and graduated cum laude from Harvard University.
http://www.uwire.com/content/topnews032100001.h
According to the Post, Gore earned "one D, one C-minus, two C's, two C-pluses, and one B-minus," during his sophomore year at Harvard. His classmates remember him that year as spending a lot of time "shooting pool, watching television, eating hamburgers, and occasionally smoking marijuana."
However, his junior year, he earned a B, B-plus and A-minus in three government courses.
His strong senior thesis on the impact of television on the presidency allowed him to graduate cum laude.
On Bush
http://www.sltrib.com/1999/nov/11101999/nation_
http://www.american-politics.com/111399MacArthu
Like many Freshmen, BushBaby ended his first semester at Yale with a whopping 75 average. But he learned his lesson, and during the Spring of 1965 he put in grueling hours at the library bringing his GPA up by almost a full point -- for a an impressive 75.8!
The american politics site actually has an image of Bush's graduation transcript.
Nader's parents were Lebanese immigrants, not Congressmen or Senators. He got into and graduated from Princeton. From there he got into and graduated from Harvard Law. You can do the math on how smart that makes him - someone without connections ascending through the finest programs in the US. Or course, even then, Nader was a rabble rouser, trying to get Princeton to ban DDT because dead birds were on campus, and rallying against hot dog packaging plans. You can note both of these efforts later proved spot on accurate, although they were not necessarily supported at the time. Heck, DDT nearly wiped out bald eagles in the lower 48.
"No, I came to this conclusion from his own campaign-finance related scandals, and his position relative to the various scandals plauging the current administration. I don't have to listen to commentary or punditry to feel nervous about his trustworthiness."
And when someone else warns you that the "scandals" may be smoke and mirrors designed to make you nervous, you dismiss it out of hand, because of course, it's impossible that you might ever be deceived by the people who work someone who has billions riding on the candidate of his choice.
The simple fact is that you are unwilling to accept that someone may have tricked you. That make you double the fool.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
But CmdrTaco also says he is biased, whereas Sam Donaldson does not. AND you have a chance to respond directly to Taco in the very same space to the very same audience, which is not the case on network news.
Here's an article about how the electoral college among other things, helps prevent extremist from getting elected. Math Against Tyranny by Will Hively from Discover Magazine 11/96.
I agree, this post is not balanced. But the point of it is not the dirty tricks or lies on both sides. The point is that the media should not be taking sides. They should be reporting the facts, including when one side is misrepresenting or distorting those facts.
It is one thing for talkshows and comedians to make jokes about things like Gore's invention of the internet, but it is a completely different story if journalists report partial facts or one side of a story. It is difficult for anyone to be completely impartial, but they can do a better job than they are doing.
-N
>"during my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet"
>The problem, of course, was that Gore's claim was correct. As the
>Internet's scientific leaders attest, often heatedly, Gore recognized
>the significance of the Internet very early, and took the initiative
>in doing the political work and articulating the public vision that
>made the Internet possible.
Helped != Created.
I helped an old lady cross the street. That does not imply that I created her. Fine, Gore voted positively on bills that supported the internet, and participated in debates about it in congress. I'll accept that. I'm sure lots of senators and representatives did. None of them are claiming to have "created" it.
The fact is, Gore might have helped the internet grow, in fact everyone here has. He may have even been one of the first to see its importance. Fine.
"Created" means that but for you, something would not have existed. And the internet was doing fine, while Gore was still a kid.
It's a flat lie. This is just an attempt to say "well, it's not a lie if you look at it in this really, skewed, bias fashion".
Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
I'm sure Gore is fully capable of hiring a lawyer if he believes libel was committed. The material may be slanted, but direct claims about what he has said can be tested in a court of law should he desire.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Buchanen and Bush = say they are for freedom and responsibility (liberty and freedom require this), yet fail to follow through. I.E. Republicans "Contract with America" -- Well, where is that tax cut, smaller government, etc.
Thanks, I am voting for Harry Browne
Like many Freshmen, BushBaby ended his first semester at Yale with a whopping 75 average. But he learned his lesson, and during the Spring of 1965 he put in grueling hours at the library bringing his GPA up by almost a full point -- for a an impressive 75.8!
Well.. whoever wrote that couldn't be too bright (I know it wasn't you, but still..). If his GPA went up a full point, that's a pretty good improvement. Unless, of course, they were talking about his averages.
If slashdot is going to post articles about politcs, then replies dealing with politics SHOULD NOT be moderated down as flamebait.
Then how should they be modded down? Offtopic won't do the trick, now will it? Redundant sounds nice, though.
I can really identify with you, so much.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Our whole election process need to be revamped. The Electorial Collage is a complete joke. A candidate can pull something like 50.5% of the popular vote yet sweep the Electorial Collage. It's almost sicknening.
---
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
Will you people please friggin' EDIT submissions?
Also, it seems to me that the media is picking on whichever candidate is in the lead, in hopes of keeping the race tight and thus keeping the public glued to the media outlets.
Back when Bush originally had a commanding lead in the polls, the media picked on him regularly, and were relatively mum about Gore's glaring faults. Then when Gore jumped to a substantial lead, the media turned on him in turn, and mostly ignored Bush's glaring faults. (And interestingly, they seemed more interested in criticizing Gore's makeup and mannerisms during the debates, rather than his genuine faults).
This is nothing but a dog and pony show, more appropriate for People magazine than for informing the public.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
what a joke. /. is just as bad as some of the slanted crap I see in the newspaper.
Has anyone heard of facts? Is there anyone out here who is NOT fooled by the political lies?
Gore is no poor witto guy, he's no saint, he bends the truth to breaking, he lies flat out thru his teeth.
Just like Bush, and Nader, and Buchanan, Gore is a politian. He gets paid to look good regardless of the cost. The end justifies the means with him.
Pooor Gore... wah. If he'd stop lying I might feel sorry for him.
Fook
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
This will bring with it a much needed scrutiny of the "scrutinizers", at least much needed in my country.
Huh? What church-and-state separation are you talking about? The press is neither church nor state.
Sorry -- it's a figure of speech in journalism, the separation of the editorial side of the paper and the business side of the paper.
-Waldo
Uh, as was pointed out in the lead, what is being posted is a representation of what is being submitted. I find it far more telling that slashdotters themselves seem to be leaning toward the Democratic candidate.
I have been hearing this same argument since civics class in the early nineties. republicans are for small, limited government, democrats are for big expensive government with more services.
Why this may have been truer in the days of FDR or Goldwater, all i can see in the last 20 years is:
1. Under Reagan/Bush, the government EXPLODED in size and cost. Budget was spending more than it took in and the national debt skyrocketed exponentially, leading future generations to pay for 80's excesses.
2. Under Clinton, the government SHRANK significantly, became more efficient and modernized, the out-of-control budget was BALANCED and we now finally have the chance to pay back the debt, unthinkable 9 years ago.
So why do Democrats allow the same moldy "big government" label-- the opposite of the truth-- to be used against them?!!
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
But the "perception" you mention has a lot more to do with the way law gets made than you are giving it credit for. Also, the President's veto power, coupled with a narrow majority in Congress and with the rules of the Senate requiring a super-majority for business to move forward give President's a great deal of power. Reagan rammed much of his legislation through a strongly Democratic congress, and Clinton succesfully defanged his Republican opposition.
Presidents do get random credit or blame for economic conditions as you suggest, but they do deserve it for the legislation that takes place under their watches.
Slashdot is the wrong place to trot out the "a republic not a democracy" bit. Has the smell of elitism.
But I'm grateful for a chance to quote a joke from my favorite political TV show (bite me, Sorkin, you feelgood geek):
"We've done it that way for 350 years!"
"But is that really an argument?"
"It has been -- for 350 years!"
__________
This and this provide more background on the "facts".
C'est une monde triste qui ne prend pas le temps de savoir tout ce qu'on peut faire.
If a conservative president had done anything remotely like what Clinton has done he would have been removed from office
Correction. If a conservative president had done anything remotely like what Clinton has done, he would have resigned immediately upon being caught, instead of using the might of his office to villain-ize people just doing their jobs, like Kenneth Starr and the Congress. Clinton has no shame, and no regrets except for being caught.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Real link : Does the electoral college still work?
Education is the silver bullet.
If you've listened to them, BOTH candidates are for dramatically increasing the size of our government at the taxpayers expense, its all a matter of deciding where you want that increase to happen.
And Gore also never made any pronouncement that he wishes to tax and control the internet. In fact Bush is the one that believes that it turns our children's hearts dark and must be controlled.
I didn't torture myself with three debates to learn nothing.
I can't fault your logic, but I recall seeing a map a few weeks ago showing that Gore had an advantage in electoral votes based on states that were solidly favoring or leaning toward one candidate at the time. The advantage was something like 240-170 in Gore's favor (with the remaining 120 or so being toss-ups), despite the fact that the polls at that time showed the candidates about even in the popular vote (maybe a slight advantage for Gore at that time; I'm not sure.)
Perhaps Gore has an advantage in medium-sized states? Individually, they don't give the same bang for the buck as the small states, but there are many, many more of them.
Does anyone know a good source for state-by-state tracking info?
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
At least have the decency to put a disclaimer that you are a Gore supporter and that all articles you post about the election will reflect this. "virtually nil for any 3rd party candidates (except a few Nader) and only a little more for Bush. We're trying to give the major candidates linkage" There are TWO major candidates, Gore AND Bush. What you said there makes it sound like only Gore is a major candidate.
Thank You!!!
No more of that nerdy news!!!
This is what I come to this site for, left leaning political discussion that really matters!!!
Thanks Again!!!!!!!!!
Objective journalism died a quiet death; not surprisingly, it went unreported. For example, The Internet, where anyone can publish to the world, hasn't helped at all.
The essay was, definitely written by a Gore supporter, as he passes over the fact that many of Bush's miscues HAVE been reported in the press.
My real issue here is the pervasive negative connotation of "propaganda". Check your dictionary; propaganda is just information supporting a cause.
The origin of the word in regards to dissemination of information was from the "Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide", a division of the Catholic Church for "propagating" Christianity to new areas.
If you've ever tried to convince someone of something, you're a propagandist.
Also, as long as William Safire has a spot on the editorial page of the New York Times and David Horowitz has a column for Salon, I'm not entirely sure it's fair to say the media has a leftist bias.
If you want something that was skewed...just look at the questions that were asked during the debates. There was definately a liberal slant to most of the questions...I noticed that a lot of the questions that were asked of Bush were why don't you support some liberal program, as if not supporting liberal programs is a bad thing....
Of course, that turns out to be not quite true. This link points out the idiocy of having banned DDT.
Randall.
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
Taco has more or less admitted that the "Slashdot Elite" is voting for Gore. With that as a given, why not drop this whole topic? I'm not sure any of this has a real "nerd" slant - it's all simply pro-Democrat pap served with a variety of spoons - with Katz's being the greasiest.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
The link, from page source, is http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gthere.html?article =featbestman.html
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
I thought you just declare the assasination and the DM makes you roll an agility check or whatever he deems appropriate?
-Chris
Did you know that the presidental debates are brought to you by:
? I sure didn't.
That's disgusting.
-Waldo
More importantly, it eliminated the "lesser of two evils" argument -- if you want to vote for Browne but are worried about the election tipping to Gore (or want to vote for Nader but are worried about the election tipping to Bush), vote for your preferred candidate in the general election and the lesser of two evils in the runoff.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
No. In the event that no candidate receives the necessary electoral votes, members of the electoral college don't just get to continue voting any old way they like until somebody wins (though, in fact, they could vote any way they like, but they only get to do it once). Instead, the House delegations get to vote until somebody wins. HoR != EC.
If I remember correctly from government class, it was orginally created because those in charge of the government did not trust the common people with little or no education to be able to vote responsibly, so they implented this as a system of being able to override that. This way, the wealthy few were in charge of the rest of the nation. (see previous article with letter by Brin)
The electoral college is broken. You can win an election without getting a majority because of it. There are many proposed solutions, but this problem has been known of for years. The people in charge don't want it changed, because then they may no longer be in charge.
Personally, I think the best solution is to get rid of it. If you get the most votes in the election, you win. Period.
If that doesn't work, divide the electoral votes by congressional district, rather than state. Doesn't give California and New York so much swing anymore since it would be broken down. Or, divide the electoral votes up percentage wise among candidates in each state. (For example, Nader gets 45% of the votes in California, Gore gets 50% and, Bush gets 5%, if CA had 100 electoral votes, Nader would get 45, Gore would get 50, and Bush would get 5) This would mean that those voting for Nader or Bush in CA votes would still have meaning, and not be tossed out the window.
So get rid of it, or divide them evenly, pretty much the same result.
What?
I think it's generally acknowledged in just about every country in the world - except the US - that the US media is one of the most conservative and editorializing in the world. I moved here from Australia 5 years ago and I find it hard to believe that any sentient being can buy the line that the US media has a "liberal bias".
This election does matter for high-tech people. Gore would continue to bloat up the federal administration and increase it's effect on high-tech endeavours. Ever read what he did when 'inventing' the internet? He did not want it opened to research, much less public usage.
I've worked in a country with too much direction of high-tech research (Japan). MITI throttles all industrial research in Japan. Al Gore's minions pouring over high tech is the last thing we need here. SDI pushed forward, like Bush wants would do far more to creating high-tech jobs than any of Al Gore's programs.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
I get 174 when I add up the electoral votes of CA, NY, TX, FL, OH and PA. Since 270 are needed, the two states you can't remember are probably Ilinois and the Loisiana Territory (almost everything west of the Mississipi river). :)
See that "Preview" button?
This is rather shortsighted. Often the votes that affect you the most are local in nature. Ballot issues, local politicians, etc. By not voting you lose the ability to affect local issues.
My Weblog
Good thing /. isn't claiming to be impartial at the top of the story, either. But the article linked from the Daily Howler makes some excellent points; The Republican press is definitely printing out and out lies. There's no way to look at it other than irresponsible. Not, mind you, that the Democrat press is going to be all halos.
As an aside, examine the other comments in parallel with mine (IE, the one you're reading now), numbers 54 and 63. They both agree with comment 25 which I am replying to (which is a well-constructed piece of text if ever I have seen one) and they both contain a number of misspellings. Were I to use the tactics of the press I could liken them to Dan Quayle, and score some conversational points against them and their argument, even though it is completely irrelevant to their points.
Whoops! I just did that very thing, without actually doing so - And this is exactly what is happening to Vice President Gore. And by the way, the long, long list of things that Quayle said that were in fact completely boneheaded even when taken in context seem to justify his treatment by the press. Similarly (but only just slightly) I have very little faith in Bush's ability to chair the nation.
I do think it's ironic to call it "The New Science" when it's clearly only an extension of something that's as old as press coverage of politics. But I still find it unacceptable when grown adults who know themselves to have a broad audience of people who will treat their word as trustworthy knowingly commit acts of slander. They know what they're saying is inaccurate to the point of fabrication, but they persist. I don't exactly think that's appropriate, and this particular piece getting a hilight on a forum which contains a significant number (or even percentage!) of educated, literate voters seems right to me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Public speaking ability != intelligence. How about if we get you up on a debate platform in front of the whole world and see you smooth the words flow?
Read his policy statements. You do know how to read, right? Or does only smooth talking impress you?
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Yes, just like the Democrats loved the Independent Council law until their side started getting targeted. Suddenly, what looked great while a Republican President was sitting didn't look like such hot idea.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
The only law on the books requiring a certain method in state elections for federal office is the 1965 Voting Rights Act that requires single member districts be used to elect the US House. Numerous attempts to change this federal law have failed, most recently H.R. 1173
the media is by and large conservative
Bwahahahaha! Yeah, so is Hollywood, and the entertainment industry is so different from the news reporting industry, isn't it? Give us a break. You kinda defeat your credibility by starting off with a whopper like that one.
The "I invented the Internet" meme is a perfect example. Gore never said this
I saw the full interview. What he actually said was, "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". He made no clarification as to what he really did, and like so many other exaggerations he's made, it was said in order to way overstate his contribution to something successful. He's the only one who can be held responsible for his being misunderstood.
and taken contextually what he did say was wholly correct
Yes, and taken in the proper context, Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman."
Notice that when people like revscat mention the "creation of the Internet" problem, they only quote the misstatement of "I created the Internet". They don't quote what Al Gore actually said because they realize that readers will realize that "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" implies much the same thing. Word games and deception to cover up a deception... fascinating.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Anyone interested in the Electoral College and alternate voting and/or election methods should check out The Center for Voting and Democracy The have a lot of great information on alternative voting methods including those listed in the Discover article, but in much more detail.
This is the second shill article posted to /. in the last few days. This is IMHO unacceptable. If you're going to link to pro-democratic rants, then at least complement it with a pro-conservative one.
-spREd
.sig Karma out the wazoo, better to spend points elsewhere if this is above 2 or below 0
Instant-runoff (preferential) voting for presidential elections is indeed the right answer, as The Man says.
The exciting thing about it is that it could actually happen. For all its faults, the Electoral College has a virtue in this regard: it is a truly federal institution. Each state decides how its electors will be chosen, and can therefore be a 'laboratory' for experimenting with new electoral systems. If a few states adopt the instant runoff, they could be a model for the rest on the nation.
Of course, this will work best in states that have the popular initiative system, allowing the people to bypass the fierce opposition of the Dempublicans who control the state government.
Mocking an opponent and magnifying is faults are old, old, old techniques. It's a simple matter of good sense. Find weaknesses and exploit them. What kind of idiot doesn't take this approach?
The Republicans paint Gore as a liar. The Democrats paint Bush as uninformed and unintelligent. It looks the same to me.
The attribution of fault makes these articles funny. I highly doubt that they are pointing out Republican errors for the sake of justice. They simply turn the tables. They use the issue of deception to paint a picture of Republicans as deceptive. It is recursion! Next, someone must write an article against the Democrats because their attack on the deceptive techniques of Republicans is clearly motivated by ulterior motives to portray Republicans as schemers.
Remove your heads from your arses, Americans. It's the same thing. We live in a one horse, one method, one party system.
and BTW the only reason human drugs are more expensive then pet drugs is that they must pass much more stringent tests involving many years of trials
Nope.. They're usually the same drugs, made by the same company on the same equipment in the same factory. There is no difference between the Prozac prescribed by your doctor and the Prozac prescribed for your dog, except that the drug company charges 10 times as much for it, because you have no choice but to pay them.
.sig: Now legally binding!
There seems to be a lot of discussion about the media's portrayal of the candidate's in the election. Those whose candidates are slanted against are always the most sensitive to it of course.
But here's the thing that bothers me. This election is close... VERY close. And it's entirely possible that the media slant could actually determine the winner of the election. Does that sound like like too much power? Where's the democracy in that? Certainly publications that are tradionally rooted to the left or to the right would be expected to continue so during the election. But what about the powerhouses like CNN, USA Today, The NY Times, and Fox? They have the power to sway millions of votes simply by how they report things like the debates. Should they have this kind of power? What could be done to stop it from happening? Should anything be done? Shouldn't they be held accountable if they are going to choose our President for us?
I am far more likely to believe Gore's campaign promises than Bush's. At least Gore can point to things he's done that have actually improved things. Prescription drugs, you say? How about pharmaceutical price gouging hearings that Gore conducted in 1978? Education? Co-sponsored the bill creating the Department of Education. Environment? Do you really need me to run down the list?
What, on the other hand, can Bush really point to? Texas schoolchildren are performing better on Texas's own tests (not national tests, BTW). Big deal. Give school administrators an ultimatum like "Your students had better perform well on this ONE test or you'll lose funding" and of course they'll start teaching to the test (a test which, incidentally, ignores important subjects like history and geography). Can he point to any objective performance indicator?
Or how about something like "We've executed more people in Texas during my term than every other state in the U.S. in the time since the Supreme Court began allowing capital punishment again combined"? Who needs due process? Who needs competent counsel? Who needs appropriate judicial review?
Just because a majority belives in it, doesn't make it right or justified. A majority of Americans used to think "separate but equal" was just fine, and a majority was opposed to American involvement in WWII before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And let's not forget, a majority of Americans think Microsoft produces quality software!
And, oh the poor, unfortunate rich! How dare we have awful things like the inheritance tax that inhibit them from becoming a perpetual aristocracy? What are we thinking, using their tax money to keep people from dying of hunger, exposure, and disease! God forbid the government should exhibit a social conscience!
I do not believe that Al Gore is a liar, and I do believe that he is sincere about Social Security, Medicare, school aid, the environment, and many other issues. However, I do not believe that Bush is sincere about anything. Except that he wants to be President.
Right...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
I don't think that the electoral college as it exists right now is the best of solutions. Does anyone know if there was an actual ammendment that structured things the way they are now?
I kind of feel that we should go back to the original electoral college as it is layed out in the constitution. Or at least some way so that the only people who vote are educated and informed.
-Nails-
Don't worry! Bush has a plan to export our surplus internet freedom to China! (mp3)
I can't imagine why anyone who enjoys Slashdot would think GW Bush would make an OK president.
blessings,
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
It's suddenly dawning on you that the media does this? Welcome to political reality. Once the media gets its teeth on a vision of a politician, that's his/her image forever. Any reinforcement is noted, while contrary evidence is ignored. Gerald Ford was probably one of the most athletic Presidents, yet a couple of missteps and he bacame known as a stumblebum. Dan Quayle did a bad intro of himself to the press and forever after he was tarred with the brush of being a complete moron. Bush is now seen as a word-slurring dimwit frat-boy, contradictory evidence notwithstanding. Gore is just geting his turn in the barrel. I think what bugs you is that it's now happening to a candidate you favor.
Hmmm... It seems like he was saying what I was. That insurance from the government isn't insurance. That what was really important was "Are people getting health care?" Not "Are people insured?"
I'd need to re-read it though, but in the context, coming after the diatribe by Gore about 15% not being insured, it appears to be saying that the folks from Washington are using insurance as a word in a different way than the rest of the US does. And I think from the context of that debate, he's right. Gore appears to be saying that we have to get 100% of the people "insured" and that we'll do this with government programs. But somehow that won't nationalize the health industry.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
It seems as though I must be watching another dimension of the media.
This doesn't happen regularly on CNN at all. Fox News is another story, and maybe that other dimension I referred to. But Fox News programming doesn't usually include the references that the Character Assassination (blam blam) points I read through.
Well, back I go to that other dimension -- at least slashdot exists there too.
Building web history -- bit by bit.
An interesting piece - clearly slanted toward Gore of course, but one that raises some interesting questions. There was a similar article recently in Salon that made much the same argument: that so many of Gore's "exaggerations" are things that either misreported or misrepresented by his opponents, who have been taken by the media pretty much at their word. From that standpoint, Gore's mea culpa in the second debate may have hurt him even more than it helped.
That said, how important an issue is this? Is it more important, for example, than Bush's propensity to make embarrassing verbal gaffes?
The point is that when we focus on "character" as an issue in politics, we lose sight of that which is more important - where the candidates stand on issues of public policy and what agenda they will pursue when elected to office.
Didn't our nation learn an important lesson not too long ago with the Lewinsky scandal? Yes, what Clinton did was disgusting and wrong, but was it important enough to push virtually every other public policy issue out of the limelight for more than a year? Doesn't the the plight of the 40 million Americans without health insurance, for example, maybe have a little more significance than what one American was doing with his intern in the Oval Office?
Nixon's "dirty tricks" were at best a crude precursor to the sophisticated media manipulation practiced by today's political handlers (Nixon's hatred for the press prevented him from realizing it could be his most powerful tool).
The media's current obsession with "character" is most directly a product of the 1988 Presidential race. Following the Gary Hart scandal in the primary season (the first time that an American politician's sex life had an impact on a campaign), Republican strategist Lee Atwater spent the last month of the campaign barraging Duakais with everything from Willie Horton to his wife's mental health. Instead of defending his stand on substantive issues, Dukakis had to defend his stand on flag-burning and his membership in the ACLU.
In the 12 years since, we've had to deal with everything from Clarence Thomas to O.J. Simpson to Monica Lewinsky - all scandals which have tied up our national attention in lieu of more substantive issues. Part of this focus can be attributed to the rise of 24-hour news networks that find "sensational" stories a great way to attract viewers and advertising revenue. The rise of Internet news venues have forced more traditional outlets to report news more quickly, without going through the same level of rigorous fact-checking required in the past. These factors, among others, have contributed to a culture of instant political gratification, where politicians are treated more like celebrities (and celebrities more like politicians).
In this kind of environment, stories like the one that Gore is a chronic exaggerator can spread very easily and quickly. Bush's camp needs only to fan the flames a little; the media will do the rest on their own. Yes, Gore has been known to stretch the truth from time to time, and for that matter, so has Bush. But if you look closely enough, you can find falsehoods in just about any statement.
Character assassination of political figures is nothing new - it goes back as far as recorded history. What is new is the speed at which highly sophisticated attacks can travel in the era of electronic media.
If you find this sort of thing interesting I recommend a couple of books. The first is Daniel Boorstin's "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America", which predicted all of this in the early '60s. The second is Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" which came out in the mid-'80s and talks about the demise of public discourse. The third is Neil Gabler's recent book "Life: The Movie", which expands on Postman's thesis and puts it in historical context.
Uh, if you're going to post this, why not post something balanced, or at least post something comparable about the dirty tricks of the other side? Both major parties constantly participate in this kind of crap. The Republicans are harping on Gore's misstatements, the Dems are harping on Bush's misstatements. It's been going on for a long time, and both sides are guilty. How long did we have to hear about Qualye's "potatoe"?
"On student testing: Bush wants to allow the states to set mandatory student testing and raise state standards for graduation. Gore believes that schools that do not meet state guidelines on student failure rates should see a reduction in federal aid"
Hmmm, two different questions, which put a POSITIVE twist on Bush. (Notice the words "raise" and "standards" associated with Bush and the words "failure" and "reduction" associated with Gore.)
"On sale of technology to China: Bush believes we should not sell military high technology to China. Gore believes we should establish trade relations with China, including selling military technology."
So what is Bush's stance on general trade realations with China? The poll left that out, so how am I to make a direct comparison?
"On funding for education: Bush-Cheney say we need more accountability and standards for teachers, students, and administration. Gore-Lieberman say we need smaller classes, more money, and bigger and better-equipped schools."
Again, two DIFFERENT questions. The poll forgets to mention that Gore is ALSO for student and teacher testing and accountability. Where is the direct comparison on their stances?
Basically, these polls are being worded so as to shift the answers in a certain direction. They leave out critical pieces of information and end up comparing apples to oranges in the two "opposing" viewpoints.
It really doesn't matter what the people of this country think about the issues. It only matter what the media SAYS they think.
----
Lyell Haynes
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
There's a movement throughout the US, called Greens for Gore, mentioned in this Seattle Post-Intelligencer article, that's advising undecided Green Party members living in swing states to wait until near the end of Election Day before voting. "If the last minute exit or public opinion polls in your state show Gore or Bush clearly projected to win, then vote Nader. If it is too close or undecided at that point, then vote for Al Gore," the group's Web site says.
Naturally, they won't give a link to the web site, because that would encourage people to vote strategically to get Ralph Nader more than 5 percent of the national vote by voting for Nader in states where the vote is being won by Bush and Gore in states where it's close. But it just happens to be at this web site.
Let the sleeper awaken!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Note the website uses invisible gifs to track you on the web site, and is owned by efn.org and hosted by echozone.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdgift.htm
Have you sent any extra money as detailed in the link above???
Here in the United States we vote for candidates, not for parties. In other countries the voters vote for a party. It isn't done that way in the United States.
Ahem.
/. are complaining, rather loudly, that Taco, Hemos, and the gang are running stories that are pro-Gore.
It seems that the conservatives on
Interestingly, the "pro-Gore" article run today is more "anti-anti-Gore," but that's beside the point.
The point is that Taco tells us I just personally wanted to note that the submissions are extremely lopsided; virtually nil for any 3rd party candidates (except a few Nader) and only a little more for Bush. We're trying to give the major candidates linkage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it!, and the reaction has been to complain about how sneaky Taco is for not posting Bush articles.
It's a frigging BBS, fellas. He can't post articles that you don't submit. Furthermore -- just as a disclaimer before you start submitting -- he can't post articles that aren't interesting and don't have some smidgen of integrity.
Taco makes mistakes a lot. Like when he tells us that an article questions the functionality of the Electoral College, when it's really question the functionality of a plurality-wins popular vote system in the primary and November elections. But by God, man, his heart's in the right place, and he's trying to pull for you.
Well, there goes my karma. I'll see you on the other side, where my user name will be T. Nivek.
--Kevin
To compare someone who shamelessly secudes the typical Slashdot moderator with a poor womyn who is forced to allow males to degrade her in order to get enough money to eat because of the bias inherent in the US's patriarchal heirarchy is insensitive to womyn.
If there is any justice in the world, the sisters would prevent you from ever releasing your hormonal urges.
Right, completely unbiased reporting.
By the way. Since Texas is one of the worst states when it comes to environmental damage, it better be the fastest improving state.
Further, Bush lied about the level of uninsured steadily decreasing in the state of Texas. Not true. Still steadily increasing.
I'm sure you didn't mean to be biased, since character is such an issue for you, why is it that a coke-head drunkard is okay with you? Not that he told the truth about that. He just decided to ignore the question.
Some of you people seem to think your republican leaders are saints. I've got news for you. They are also crooked as hell.
And why should a presidential candiates character NOT play into the election?? Gore is proven to be a habitual liar. He doesn't even lie about important things, but rather, about every day things just to make himself look cool. If he lies about the unimportant stuff, who can really say he is being completely honest in his campaign?
I'm definitely not saying Bush is being completely honest, but it has YET to be shown that Bush is lying as much as Gore is.
Character matters! Character defines who you are. If you are a horrible rotten person, that SHOULD affect the voters opinion of you. To display the TRUE character of someone is not character assasination. It's part of being well-informed.
Some of you should go read Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. One of the more interesting aspects of this book is that the 'Speaker' honestly spoke about the dead individuals life, be it good or bad. No hidden things simply because they are not 'desireable' or 'bad'. That's the way life should be. Less hypocricy and more truth and honesty.
-AC
Many places around the earth are tinder ready to blow. A few weeks ago the Father showed me a pile of tinder. As you all know tinder is the first step when kindling a fire. He showed the tinder, then the kindling next to it, then the heart of the fire, the log-sized pieces, later explaining the log-sized pieces to be the nations of the world. He showed that the tinder will blow but that there was ONE thing and ONE THING ONLY that would prevent widescale destruction, loss of life, natural disasters of major proportion, breakdowns economically and world-wide open warfare, before we are prepared.
We must elect George W. Bush and Dick Cheney into position to have the power to face what is coming. If we do this, our borders could become Goshen, where Jesus is not rejected in the highest seat of the nation, and the blessing we would have from Him would protect us. In other words, these men are of God's choosing. I can't emphasize this enough. The Father said that they both ask Jesus Christ for guidance, help and direction. If we reject them, as we have already begun to openly reject Jesus, in this nation under God, we will no longer BE under God, for He will withdraw His once freely given protection. The church is largely blamed for the fact that we face this imminent danger, for all the reasons the Father has been giving, but as always, the Holy Spirit is rejected, warnings from prophets ignored.
So now I tell you, events in the world will be recognizable as tribulation. All is not set. Place the men of God's choosing into the seat of the United States and the Father promises to protect us as Goshen. The two men, Governor Bush and Secretary Cheney, have humility, which pleases the Father. If we do this, then all that might catch fire is the tinder. He showed me last night that the tinder could be pushed away from the kindling, giving the White House time, so we might position our people to handle this clashing of nations!
This November, vote with your hearts and with the Holy Spirit! Vote Bush!
Amen!
http://www.truechristiansunite.com Home of the 1st TRUE Christian AI -- Hal!!!
--
Come on...
That's it! The moderators are on crack!!!
Now, I am truly saddened. Every so often I read the kind of misguided propoganda as touted in "The New Science of Character Assassination" and realize that supposedly intelligent people believe it.
/. linking to this sort of so-called information, proclaiming it as gospel, and then taking the time to say "We're tying to give the major candidates linkgage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it".
/. to provide me with up-to-date information on a variety of subjects. Sometimes, I take the time to post. Other times I don't because I have nothing meaningful to contribute.
What's worse is seing
What consititutes a "good" source? From the ramblings of CmdrTaco, it would seem that only links to put Gore in a good light and Bush (or Republicans in general) in a bad light are "good".
So much for objective coverage.
I look to
But, when such an important decision is pending such as the election of a new president, I find myself disgusted by the liberal and leftist views expressed by the primary moderators of this forum.
A conservative by choice, I and many other "conservatives" don't necessarily think the ideals of the democrats are necessarily bad or evil. We are not all right-wingers or bible thumpers, believe it or not.
I'm conservative by choice yet support a woman's right to choose. But, as a working member of society who has bills to pay and children to feed, I don't believe in the high cost of government that would result if Gore's "vision" is implemented. I want the ability to use it to provide a better future for my family.
I believe that we need to clean up the environment.
I believe we need new, renewable, energy sources.
I'm a Gulf War veteran and a former naval officer. I left service BECAUSE of the downsizing of the military under Clinton's watch and the subsequent demoralizatoin. Yes, congress ( a republican one) has had much to do with this.
The cold-war was over, efforts needed to be done to bolster or economy. They did at the expense of the miltary. The military OP-tempo is 400% that of what it was both before and immediately after the Gulf War. Navy ships that were four months at sea and one year in port were now 6 in/ 6 out. That is not smarter utilization of our fleet, its stupidity.
But, truth be told, the President has very little to do with the economy other than perception. Rather, it is congress and the senate that make the laws (actually bills). The president only signs them into the law. The more the president signs the more he takes credit for. If the economy goes well and grows, he looks like a savior. If it goes bad, we remove him from office.
The president is a figure head. He/she is supposed to represent the ideals of America and be presidential. Character plays a big part here. So, do you want a habitual "Bender of the truth" or a straight shooter (pun intended).
Do you want Hollywood dictating the policy of the country or the people? Do you want judges dictating social policy rather than enforcing law?
Do we want to vote for somebody simply because of their particular stand on abortion (BTW, check the facts, Gore IS NOT "pro-choice". In the past, he has said otherwise. He just changes his views depending upon whatever the populists say he should represent).
Yes, these are big statements. This is a big election. You may not agree with my views nor I yours. But, get the facts before voting. The answers may suprise you. If you are a journalist, report fairly. To say the media is pro-democrate, look at CNN.com. The have extensive coverage of Gore in the "Democracy in America" section. Little, if any information regarding Bush. The polls are two days old as they were following the previous debate. Why? Because the public said Bush won... a view contrary to theirs.
What would I like to see? How about a one bill/one law law that prevents "riders". Each bill should be voted on its merit and not on what is attached. Too much good legislation has been defeated because of the current system.
RD
I think the U.S. should consider altering the election scheme to have a preliminary election where all parties are considered equal, and only the top two popular vote getters get to run in a final (again determined by POPULAR vote) election. This could be fit into a single year's time and would be immensely more fair.
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
If you value your personal freedoms, be afraid, be very very afraid. The Republicans that control Congress don't care about personal liberty and will do almost anything in the name of "law & order". Bush has already said that he'll "work with Congress", meaning that he'll cave and not be able to stand up (not that he'd want to).
-Poiu
---
---
"Don't anthropomorphize computers. They hate that."
Is there any chance that the voting methods in this country can be changed? The Borda count seems like a pretty good idea (though you do need to know your candidates). At least that way, most people at least get a candidate that they don't absolutely despise (hopefully, it's somebody that most people are at least neutral about, and maybe somewhat positive about).
Anyway, I'm curious -- does anyone know exactly where it has been defined that we need to vote the way we do? For the Presidential race in particular, are the voting methods defined in the states, at the federal level, or is it a combination? Can a state just go say, ``we're going to use Approval or Borda voting''?
--
Ski-U-Mah!
You know, I just finished reading the tripe served up in this article about Character Assassination. It was laugh out loud funny! 4 stars out of 5. Oh wait, this guy was serious???
Someone in the IS department of UCLA, a noted liberal university in a noted liberal state, writes an article about character assassination praising Gore for not lying? Pardon me while I chuckle.
Further, he posts several of the lies, with LINKS TO ARTICLES! Oh My! Of course, the articles are to a left leaning Washington comedian. Not excessively proven to my satisfaction. Then, he insists on trying to assassinate the character of George Bush and company! What a laugh!
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Read that article on character assassination, folks. It's one of the most hypocritical pieces I've ever read.
If you read the piece, it attempts to do a very thorough job of accusing Bush and the Republicans of attacking Gore with no evidence, and even has links to back these arguments up.
Then, though, it immediately launches into exactly what it accused the Republicans of doing, only this time against Bush. No evidence to back up its claims whatsoever. As though it's bad when the Republicans do it, but not when Democrats do.
Just some food for thought.
----------
I also don't give one tenth of one shit about someone's grades in school. I had lousy grades, but I consider myself to be a pretty sharp individual. So why would I care if Gore graduated at all? I didn't.
First of all, I would claim it is obvious you want someone reasonably intelligent in the White House.
Grades can be a good predictor of someone's intelligence. If someone went to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, and got good grades, you would be assured he was intelligent. If someone went to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, and was a C student, you can be pretty sure that person either did not care about grades, or was not highly intelligent. In any case, the person was not highly attentive to his coursework. Anyone with the background of Bush or Gore was easily capable of being a B student if he applied himself. A C student was simply overmatched at the Ivy League, or didn't give a shit about academics. I am not certain I want either of those in the White House.
Besides, what is the assurance that someone who did poorly in school, poorly in industry, was bailed out by Daddy time and time again, and drank his life away for forty years, would not just turn and collapse at some inopportune moment ? Come on, I've known alcoholics, and sometimes they just go back on the bottle. Is that really what you want when some terrorist drives plastic explosives into an american destroyer in Yemen ? Sorry general, but the president is drunk again. We are trying hard to sober him up right now. We'll get back to you.
For those of you who said that Taco was showing his Dem bias, read his post again. What he said was that the comments regarding the electoral college on that survey site was notably pro-Gore, with very few postings toward Bush or any third-party candidate. His own views weren't very much on display and I'd not necessarily pigeonhole his views quite yet. And a second note here, too. Why is it called "character assasination" when you use the inane things a candidate says to illustrate his inanity? It ain't assasination if the target shoots himself and you stand there and point it out. -Jimmie
I would? Maybe YOU would. Personally, I believe no such thing. I've known plenty of students who got great grades in school, but took long periods of time to understand things I was explaining to them while people who were passing by on the street stopped by to have a conversation with me about, or got knocked up/knocked someone up because they didn't use protection, et cetera. These people are good at studying and passing tests, and following a formula to solve a problem, but there is no formula for being the "leader" of the "greatest nation in the free world".
This much is true. I didn't give a shit about my grades when I was in college, and as a result did very poorly. But because I didn't care about my grades doesn't mean I wouldn't care about my country should I find myself being sworn into the office of the President. Why would it mean anything in Bush's case?
Why not, in the latter case? Sure, if he really was overmatched in his school, that's a problem. I want the president to be smart. But I care about a lot of things, and it's perhaps unfortunate that school wasn't one of them - But only in terms of my salary if I went to work for some company which cared about such things.
And sometimes people who have never really been into booze go on the bottle, too. If you believe in personal freedom and privacy, then you shouldn't believe that it makes one bit of difference whether he was a boozer in his past, or not. If his Father really did have to save his biscuits repeatedly in the past, though, that worries me. I want a President who can stand on his own merits.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's broken, it's biased and characters get shot.
...could you take it ?:-)
:-)
Slashdot is not a news wire. It picks stories from the wires and throws them into the arena so that you can have fun beating them up.
How should journalists have integrity if their employment is dependent on TV ratings exclusively?
Just imagine slashdot managers' income were dependent on getting enough of your esteemed clickage and wise contributions.
Who would end up as a karma whore ? Mr. Katz would need to tell you what you want to hear, always
If you really want to know how the EC is valued, I suggest CmdrTaco makes a two-week internship at a Washington Bureau of a foreign news wire service right now and listens carefully to the curses of foreign correspondents trying to figure it out.
I'll bet you, he will be glad returning to his slashdot headquarters and be very, very happy with the "well behaved slashdotter's contributions" to an "unbiased intellectual discussion" about politics and elections and media's influence.
My suspicion is that Americans love their broken electorial system, because usually they have a lot of fun making a mess out of it, making a lot of money with it, spending a lot of money on it, and getting some days off to organize a lot of "million something marches" to "lift up the ones" who occasionally feel cheated by it.
Don't worry, even if I think your system cries out to the sky of being unfair, I really love the American people for how they handle their own mess, very courageously, bravely and with a lot of wit.
I mean it and I love slashdot - you guys make me smile.
me - Jin Lehrer, Charlie Rose, NYT fan and happy slashdot reader, _the only_ screwed news outlet for the neutrality challenged, curious mind.
If someone went to Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, and got good grades, you would be assured he was intelligent.
/.
Perhaps. You're just as likely to get someone who communicated like this:
How are auditory stimuli influenced by contextual cues such as other stimuli ?
Good point. But in considering communication one should consider one's target audience. My brief home page is certainly not written for
Our educational system serves more to enforce the division of social classes than it does to help humanity. Which is why people with degrees are so insistent that they are smarter than everyone else, and always are the first to defend the status quo.
No one was discussing the issue of intelligence for someone without a degree. Record in school cannot be used as an indication of intelligence for someone that did not attend school, obviously. But it can be used to compare people who went through similar educational experiences at similar times in life, like Bush, Gore, and Nader. At least one of those did well as an undergraduate, and it wasn't Bush or Gore.
If I'm elected to office I will propose an amendment to delete the letter "C" and only use the letter "K". It is more comunist sounding and I think it would make for a better AmeriKa.
How the electors are selected and divided is a state-by-state issue. Campaign to get a ballot question in your state that would, if approved, divide electors in proportion to popular vote. That would solve the whole problem right there.
The Electoral College pretty much means that your vote is meaningless if the majority of the people in your state disagree with you. Because of this a number of people don't vote because they do not feel that their vote really counts. I live in Georgia, a decidely conservative state politically. I tend to lean towards the more liberal side and would vote for the Libertarian Party if thought it would make any bit of difference. But I already know that it will not.
And really it is not worth my time to travel to the polls and vote when I know that even if I decide to take, in my opinion, the lesser of the two evils. it still won't matter because a majority of my neighbors are going to vote the republican party line.
Its really quite depressing that the land of the free where we take such pride in allowing our citizens to vote for who they choose. Has such a system that a lot of people are just not going to vote because they feel disillusioned by our system of voting.
If you don't like what Rob is doing, take the code and start you own, right wing, news service. It you are right, and actually provide a better product, you'll eat Rob's lunch. On the other hand, maybe your news service will wither and die. Ain't competition wonderful?
If you stomp off in a huff anonymously, can anyone tell you left?
The first lady should be elected separately from the president.
Almost certainly Barbara Bush would have been re-elected as first lady in 1994. Think she could have kept Bill Clinton in line?
CC
Is it really too much to believe that every great once in a while the liberal left, otherwise known as the United States media, could take a break from bashing anything even remotely conservative, to actually report the lies and scandals of the current administration? If a conservative president had done anything remotely like what Clinton has done he would have been removed from office. Lying multiple times under oath, accepting illegal campaign contributions, hiding/shredding evidence that had already been subpoened, and that's just the beginning. If Gore wants to be a mangler of the truth and a law breaker, he certainly has learned from the best.
"Chances of RHIC-induced Armageddon are exceedingly rare, but... you never know." - MIT Physicist Bob Jaffe
Attention Moderators:
;) see .sig
I have just posted the following question in the Ask the Presidential Candidates post from a few days ago.:
"Would you be willing to change the present 'plurality' voting system in America? Some voting theorists find that the present 'Pluralist' system has many faults. Would you consider a system such as 'Borda Count' or 'Approval Voting' that many consider to be more fair and democratic?"
After I posted it I realized I should have said "that some consider" so as to be less leading. But the point is this: I feel this is a great question to ask of the Candidates. Rob/Taco: Feel free to change my question as I indicated - as i said, it may be a little biased.
Moderators please go here and mod this question up so it can be asked of the candidates.
Convinced your democracy is being sold to Corporate Interests? I certainly am - do the world a favour America! Tell your friends/neighbours/coworkers:
I am of the opinon that people in such influential positions(Read:Slashdot) need to keep their political opinons to themselves... PERIOD.
/. has been waaay to overt with its ability to influence others.
/. going there.
/. until the elections are over.
/. if I dont like it crap. I am just making an observation and stating my opinon and how it makes me feel, right or wrong its only MY opinon
Seems extreme yes?
Here is the deal.
How often have you heard Dan Quayle pipe up and say, *cough* ahem and I think Gore should win.
You never see anything that overt.. EVER.
Maybe through the expression of your personal opinons on ISSUES people can tell but I think
Granted we all think for ourselves its moderately to highly offensive to see
You know I can name some seriously high profile media people whom even talk and write books, but you never once hear them on public radio or what not outright state their political preference. They keep it clean and they discuss issues at length and by the end you can see where they lie, but at least they go to the trouble to explain their opinons. This causes people who think to do just that and think about what they are looking at.
Granted this is a huge discussion in and of itself, the stuff that makes it to the headlines is offensive.
Really I have been tempted to just turn of
: Oh and please dont give me any of that I think im a martyr or I should just leave
Jeremy
I have a Java applet that models the electoral college at http://www.jump.net/~jnhtx/ec/ec.html.
This is obvious character assassination! We know that Gore was good in school because his friends say he was, right?
Randall.
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
There ought to be a +1, Sarcastic...
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Was passed. It was called the "Line Item Veto"... but was ruled unconstitutional as soon as President Clinton tried to use it.
yours,
yours,
kbs
So he misphrased it. Here's what he did do:
Introducing legislation is often known (in Congress-ese) as 'taking the initiative.'
Heck, Bush is probably still anxiously waiting to meet the leader of Fredonia. I live in the state he supposedly "leads." If the rest of the nation knew just how little real power is in the hands of a Texas governor, they'd understand why he was good enough for that job, and not nearly qualified enough for a real job.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Oh Puhleeeeeeze. The "Character" article is a cheezy, obviously left-wing, spin-doctored, joke. Frankly I'm surprised Taco included a link to it. It's not journalism or news - it's propaganda.
Let us consider the New York Times story in detail. Written by Alison Mitchell, it describes Al Gore's abject apology for two trivial and much-exaggerated errors in the first debate as "the culmination of a skillful and sustained 18-month campaign by Republicans to portray the vice president as flawed and untrustworthy".
Seriously - Mr. Gore doesn't need a shred of help from Republicans to appear any more flawed and untrustworthy than he already appears.
They call me the working man. I guess that's what I am.
- Eric Cartman
Hello, we techies aren't a bunch of pot-smoking save the earth hippies!
God, you'd think we were all RMSs. I know techies to be more equally divided politically, perhaps more libertarians, like myself.
Here we see some balance to Bush's mistakes of grammar, (Mid-western oriented) pronunciation, and nonsensical quotes.
As you can see, there are a bunch of illogical, absurd, and funny statements which make it clear why he may have failed vanderbilt and considers coddled journalistic... anyway...
http://www.copie.com/politics/goreisms. htm
-Ben
Note: I have switched my vote to Gore. After all, he did take the initiative in creating the internet.
if the electoral college still works or not, because the url is broken ^^;;
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Dang! He didn't say that it wasn't the same chemical! He said that it must pass through a much more stringent (years long) regulatory process. This costs money.
What he left out was that the price of human drugs must also include a much higher fee for potential liabilities. Remember silicon implants? The evidence is conclusive that they never harmed a single person, yet the lawsuits were enough to bankrupt not one but two giant companies.
Presumably you couldn't do this today, since people would figure out pretty quickly what was up. (Imagine if the "democratic" candidate for Pres. was Bill Bradley in the Northeast, and Gore elsewhere? Or if the Republican were McCain in the NE and Bush elsewhere?) But I thought it was an interesting idea.
Note, also, that the intent of the EC was also in part to force the winning candidate to have appeal which subsumed geographic lines -- if you went by a straight popular vote, overwhelming majorities in only a few states could decide the election.
Seriously, the hypochondriac attack in particular just reeks. He doesn't like dogs. So the fuck what?! That reminds me of the commercial where the guy didn't get elected because he didn't like cheese. Are these the things that are really important to running a country? Of course he's pro-lawyer: lawyers perform lawsuits, and lawsuits are our weapon for getting back at corporations who fuck us over. The only thing that really rubs me the wrong way is the union busting, and even then, it's just an accusation. Further, I'm sure any of the candidates would've done the same.
If you recall, during the Reagan/Bush administration, the buildup was to make the military strong (I quote the 600 ship Navy and SDI).
Oh, yeah, that's right... the rest of the government shrank during that administration, it was just the military that grew. I don't know what I was thinking.
The percieved strength of our military forced the Soviet Union to overextend themselves. Eventually, communism in the SU failed and the "wall came tumbling down".
Yeah, I read all about this in one of Rush's books (so you know it's true). It's fascinating how we can just build a couple more ships and an entire nation just... poof! Collapses! It's amazing to me that no one ever thought of it until Reagan. Boy, if Eisenhower knew it was that easy, he'd sure be red in the face. So what I wanna know is, when does this effect go to work on France?
Gore can not claim (with any level of truthfullness) that he was even there during the beginning.
As he never said anything of the kind, whats the problem?
At least Gore can point to things he's done that have actually improved things. Prescription drugs, you say? How about pharmaceutical price gouging hearings that Gore conducted in 1978? Education? Co-sponsored the bill creating the Department of Education. Environment? Do you really need me to run down the list?
Thats funny, most of what I heard from Gore is how prescription drug prices are too expensive, how the school system is falling apart, and how 'big oil' is taking advantage of american citizens. Obviously on the first two he's done nothing to improve the situation because they are still problems. The last one is thanks to his environmental agenda, as the Clinton/Gore administration have actively worked to lower domestic oil exploration and refining, thus increasing US dependency on forign oil. Not only does this 'feel good' environmental policy increase our worldwide vulnerability but it also takes land away from otherwise innocent american citizens. How many ranchers / farmers / landowners have been kicked off their land or restricted in it's use because of all the new 'federally protected' land the government has usurped? Plenty.
What are we thinking, using their tax money to keep people from dying of hunger, exposure, and disease! God forbid the government should exhibit a social conscience!
Do you see a person on the street and think that you have more right to their money then they have? After all either they or their relatives worked hard and/or smart to earn that money. You did nothing to deserve that money.. How is it that you (or anyone else for that matter) have more of a right to it than the person who busted their ass earning it? Instead of the democrat solution of 'throwing money at the problem' perhaps we should instead get to the root of why people are homeless, out of work, or whatever.
How far of a strech is it that if the government should have a 'social conscience' about protecting poor people that it should also use that same conscience to protect childeren from internet pornography, or protect US citizens from crypto-weilding terrorists? Not far. The constiution does not outline providing for the less fortunate of society for good reason.. It's a slippery slope to go from providing a helping hand to ruling with an iron fist in the name of protecting it's citizenry.
I do not believe that Al Gore is a liar
I suppose if you believe hard enough in santa no amount of proving the thermodynamic imposibility of delivering presents to everyone in the world will change your mind either.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
but the situation could be even worse (though arguably more unlikely) in a straight popular vote. that is, by pulling huge majorities in a geographically limited area, a candidate could capture the presidency while completely ignoring the concerns of a large chunk of the country. the electoral college system isn't perfect, but it does manage to strike a minimal balance between representation by geography and representation by population.
I never thought Gore claimed credit for the technical work involved in the invention of the internet. I was just surprised he said he had anything to do with it's beginning, since it was invented in the 40's.
There were several important stages in the development of the internet--the latest of which is the web--but Gore can not claim (with any level of truthfullness) that he was even there during the beginning.
I'm sure it'll get a good laugh.
***
I must protest the Commission's decision to exclude Ralph Nader and other third party candidates from the debate process. While it is understandable that the Commission must exclude candidates who have no viable opportunity to be elected in order to facilitate a discussion, the Commission's criteria were grossly prejudiced.
The federal government has already established criteria to determine whether or not a particular party or candidate is "viable" in order to qualify for matching federal funds. The Reform Party matched those criteria in the 1992 and 1996 elections, yet their platform was not represented in the debates. While I personally disagree with the Reform party's position and candidate(s) (pick one), by excluding a candidate and party that has already proven itself to be interesting to a signifigant percentage of the American electorate, the Commission only confirms the suspicion of a growing number of Americans that the two-party system has "rigged" the election process to exclude any differing opinions.
For that matter, simply because the Commission describes itself as bipartisan does not mean it is non-partisan. In fact, the exclusion of the Reform and Green party candidates actually amplifies the suspicion that the Commission's true goal was to capitulate to the wishes of the two major political parties to exclude the views of a signifigant number of Americans who wish to support a third candidate, or at least get the issues represented by those parties discussed in the debates.
The exclusion of Ralph Nader from the debate in Boston was shameful and disgusting. The very idea that an "open" electoral debate can be excluded to any one American citizen based upon their political party affiliation is a disgusting and revolting show of partisanship and censorship. Mr. Nader was not disruptive, nor did he wish to speak, but merely to attend, with a ticket in hand. The exclusionary practice exhibited by the Commission has merely solidified the opinion of this person that the Commission has failed in its primary duty to represent the interests of the American people. This is exactly the reasons why the League of Women Voters declined to sponsor further presidential debates after the 1992 election: the requirements of the two primary parties to engineer a show rather than a debate of issues among a wide spectrum of viewpoints.
In the future, if the Commission truly wishes to be viewed as a non-partisan representative of the American people's wish to here candidates discuss issues that matter to Americans, it needs to stand up to the pedantic demands of the Democratic and Republican parties to engineer rules that inheriently restrict the free expression of ideas and issues in a public forum. The Commission also needs to adopt the rules of the FEC in determining "viable" candidates, matching those candidates who qualify for federal matching funds to invited attendees. And finally, the Commission needs to cease excluding attendees who cause no disruptions, or else step aside as a sponsor of the American election process.
Thank you.
Charles Anthe
Somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints...
A friend of mine does biological research for CSIRO in Australia. He pointed out that the problem with DDT is that it doesn't bio-degrade. It stays in the form DDT or, if it does break down, it breaks down to some nasty chemicals.
If I recall correctly, once in your body, DDT doesn't leave. It gets stored in your fat.
I don't care how safe anyone claims it to be. Let's stick to pesticides that actually break down to innocuous substances.
maybe I'm a little bitter right now from the *definite* pro-gore slant of the previous slashdot articles (not just David Brin's screed either)...
Before everyone starts complaining about how Bush is assasinating Gore, keep in mind that Character assasination is performed by both sides, not just the GOP. The Gore compagin has been assasinating Bush's character since last year. How did they do this you might ask?
Bush's college/graduate school record is much better than Gore's. In fact, Gore never graduated from Vanderbilt.
The following Op-Ed appeared in the Boston Globe on september 7th. Before flaming this post (or the opposite), please take the time to read it.
Op-Ed
GORE'S DUBIOUS SCHOOL RECORD
JENNIFER C. BRACERAS
JENNIFER C. BRACERAS Jennifer C. Braceras is an attorney and research fellow at Harvard Law School. Her column appears regularly in the Globe.
When will the liberal media stop treating left-wing ideology as a
proxy for intelligence? For months the press has questioned the
intellect of Republican candidate George W. Bush, while describing Al
Gore as "serious," "intellectual" - even "wonkish."
The basis for the media's unfair attacks on Bush's intelligence is his
30-year-old Yale College transcript (purloined last fall and published by The New Yorker). Yet The Washington Post's subsequent revelation of Gore's
unimpressive academic record has done little to alter the media's false
portrayal of Gore as "the smartest kid in the class." It is a record
that is worth reviewing, if only to debunk the myth of Gore as a serious
student.
Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's,
including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science
course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard,"
the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester
recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate
school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing
short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity
School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al
Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the
course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a
degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from
Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and
received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from
Harvard).
But whereas the liberal press has described Bush's college days as
a time of misspent youth, media accounts of Gore's undergraduate
years are grossly fawning. (The New York Times: "As Mr. Bush was
frolicking around Yale, a young man named Al Gore was studying at
Harvard"; "Harvard nurtured the part of [Gore] that is in love with
the world of ideas." The New Republic: "At Harvard, Gore set himself
formidable intellectual challenges.")
And then there is the laughable October issue of Psychology Today.
As part of a cover story20 entitled, "Gore and Bush on the Couch," the
magazine reports the results of a spurious "analysis" of 10 of the
candidates speeches and/or interviews. The authors claim that the
study "verifies" the popular stereotype that "Bush is not as deep a
thinker as Gore."
Two pages later, readers will be shocked - shocked! - to learn
that the magazine's (no doubt scientific) study of the candidates'
facial gestures reveals that Gore is the "more serious, constrained,
controlled, weighty, ponderous, [and] dominant of the two
candidates." More ponderous, perhaps . . . but, please, spare me the pop
psychology.
Biased reporters, however, are not the only ones to blame. Indeed,
the vice president himself has cultivated this genius persona (one of
many). Thus, he did not correct PBS News anchor Gwen Ifill when she
referred to him as a graduate of Vanderbilt Law School. Even more
significant was the line in Gore's convention acceptance speech in
which he stated, "I know my own imperfections. I know that sometimes
people say I'm too serious, that I talk too much substance and
policy." Poor Al, he's just too smart for the job.
Of course, the stereotyping of conservative candidates as dumb and
liberal candidates as "brilliant" is nothing new. During the 1950s,
the media lionized Democrat Adlai Stevenson as an intellectual,
while ridiculing Republican Dwight Eisenhower as an ineffectual
simpleton. Back the n, the members of the press knew full well that
Stevenson attended Harvard Law School and, yet, had not received a
degree. But the media gave Stevenson a pass. (Sound familiar?) Had
resourceful journalists investigated, they might have learned (as we
now know from Stevenson's biographer John Bartlow Martin) that
Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold had hidden Stevenson's transcript
in a locked cabinet in his office. What was he hiding? Stevenson, the
so-called "thinking man's candidate," had, in fact, flunked out of Harvard Law.
In the end, neither intellect nor academic performance is an
especially importan criterion by which to judge our presidents.
Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman were no scholars, but they rank amon g
the best presidents in our country's history. And what about many
liberals' favorite president - Franklin Roosevelt? Social, popular,
and famously unserious as an undergraduate at Harvard, FDR had an
undistinguished academic record. Yet, later in life, Roosevelt's
charisma and his ability to persuade, compromise, and lead helped him
to become a "reformer with results."
This election is not an I.Q. test; it is about which candidate has
better judgment. And that is why, despite the media's love affair
with the celluloid image of Al Gore the policy-wonk, it is the
affable, authentic, and sensible Bush who would make the better
leader.
9/7/00 BOSTONG A15
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
Boy this is so incorrect it is scary. To say every person who voted for Perot would have chosen to vote for Bush is wrong. I voted for Perot and would have voted for Clinton over Bush. Now, this does not dismiss you very valid point though. I believe the primary system strips us of the better candidates. Instead, I believe we should have a National Primary in March of the election year with the top four candidates (regardless of party) being the official candidates who will then have a 100% public financed campaign. Then we have run-off elections until a clear absolute 50.1+% of the electorate vote for one candidate. This isn't fully fleshed out as it has been an idea I just came up with last week after feeling like I got ripped off because I never had a chance to vote for either McCain or Bradley. 3% of the nation selected Bush and Gore (this is an unproven percentage and should not be taken as a literal factual number...it is meant to emphasize the fact that a low number of the electorate actually choose the two front runners).
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
The article about the assassination of Gore's character is interesting and, maybe, informational. It's too bad that the author seems to suggest that there's a conspiracy of all of the major media outlets to trash Gore.
This is the same media that was merciless in their redicule of Quayle and undaunting in their portrayal of Bush the Younger as a lightweight, just to name two simple counter-examples.
Instead of a conspiracy theory, how about a meme theory. People seem to get these ideas into their heads and just run with them. Reporters and editors provisionally qualify as people. They ought to be working to disprove and debunk these memes where possible, but instead they get looped into accepting and supporting the dominant memes.
Have the Republicans labored to create and further this meme (Gore is a liar)? Probably.
Is there a conspiracy among the media to trash Gore and help Bush? Unlikely.
Here's a REALLY nerdy comment for you: The "man" in "woman," as in "human" and "manual" derives from the Latin manus for "hand." I may be female, but I DO have hands... Words referring specifically to "male" virtues of old usually have a "vir" root to them, like virile, virtue, and virgin. Fergodssakes, PLEASE stop massacring the language(s) until you know what the fx you're talking about.
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
Since the powers that be in slashdot seem a little left wing. Here is a right wing site analyzing the election.
real clear politics
My Weblog
Seems that nobody remembers Harry Browne, the Libertarian party candidate, who has unbelievably managed to stick to the issues.
Nader's entire career has been an attempt to assassinate whoever is in power. He's made all his political capital through the failures of others. He insists that big corporations are the problem with America without compellingly proving that there is a problem with America.
The Republicans and Democrats have been tearing at each other for quite some time. Fact is that there isn't much difference between the two. One supports gun control, the other wants to reduce abortions. That's about it. Yes, I know there's a large difference in their budgets, but that gets passed through congress, and they'll only be able to change the percentages a bit.
So, what's left? Character assassination. If they truly had anything new or anything different, they'd be able to say, 'look at this issue', but instead, they are reduced to ribbing each other. It's pathetic, really.
(Shameless plug) Harry Browne and the libertarians have a platform that is neither radical nor new; it is what the constitution originally was intended to do. Jefferson is the origination of the Libertarian philosophy; he wrote the constitution. Although this isn't new, it does get back to the idea of only fixing problems where they actually exist and allowing the greatest personal freedom otherwise, which is what allows the giant strides in technology this country has seen. (/Shameless plug)
A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither. - Thomas Jefferson
On July 8th, 1947, witnesses claim a spaceship with five aliens aboard crashed on a sheep and cattle ranch outside Roswell, NM, an incident reportedly covered by the military.
On March 31st, 1948, almost exactly nine months after that day, Al Gore was born.
That clears up a lot of things.
When the fog of creeping middle age parts from time to time, I find humor where I once took righteous offense, and see a veritable 3-ring circus where I once trembled over the State of the World. It amazes me now how otherwise reasonable and intelligent /. readers of all political bents can be turned into the most strident, flame-spurting martyrs at the drop of a hat. Next visit I'll wear galoshes to keep from slipping in the blood of all the gored oxen. Peace.
All your belongings are base to us.
Uh huh. And when Dan Quayle, admittedly not the most articulate politician ever but a competent and reasonably thoughtful Senator, was universally described in the media as a drooling moron, was that a right-wing plot also? When fabricated story after story, like "I enjoyed visiting Latin America. I wish I spoke Latin." was presented as fact, where was Philip Agre?
The problem here is the Jay Leno / David Letterman mentality of repeating anything as long as it continues to get a laugh. It's unfunny when they do it and shameful when journalists do it.
No, J. Edgar Hoover was not gay or a transvestite. A single filmmaker quoted a single source who claims to have once seen a picture of Hoover in a dress. Where's Philip Agre on that one?
---------
"Journalists seem to go to political events with headlines constructed in their heads, and delight in writing stories that coincidentally corroborate these headlines." I'm probably horribly misquoting this; but I heard it on NPR, and I think it provides quite an insight on why we see newsarticles with the particular biases (on BOTH sides).
yours,
yours,
kbs
This site is stuffed with opinions. Do you think the "Slashdot Elite" is agnostic about Internet filters in libraries or the DMCA? Of course not, they have opinions and aren't too shy about them.
Just because their opinion runs counter to yours on this issue, don't whine about it. Instead, login, and block all of the election coverage in your profile, or suffer through the fact that not everyone agrees with you.
Under the electoral college, (plus winner-take-all), system the exact same votes cast by the exact same voters can easily have different outcomes were the boundaries of states drawn differently. The map of the states as it actually exists constitutes a kind of accidental gerrymander. It is hard to see how accidents of geography playing a role in choosing our highest elected officials can be a good thing.
Let us consider whether the winner-take-all component is a positive or negative aspect of the system.
If it is good then its effect could be magnified by replacing the existing states with a few large regions, such as New England, Atlantic, South, Midwest, Southeast, Rocky Mountain and Pacific. These would cast, as a block, the electoral votes previously owned by the states within their regions - enhancing the winner-take-all effect.
If it is bad, however, we could slice at least the bigger states into smaller parts, for example, New York into New Youk City, Long Island and Upstate. Each part would get to cast, as a block, a portion of the electoral votes previously cast by the state. This reduces the winner-take-all effect.
But in each case we could go farther: If winner-take-all is good, we combine the whole country into ONE region with ALL the electoral votes going to the candidate with the most voter votes. If winner-take-all is bad we reduce its influence to zero by drawing an electoral district around each voter. Then the majority in the district, (neccessarily 1 to nothing), determines who gets the one electoral vote for the district.
Therefore, if winner-take-all is good and should be maximized the best system would be: POPULAR MAJORITY VOTE.
If, however, winner-take-all is bad and should be minimized then the best system would be: POPULAR MAJORITY VOTE.
Well, what do you know?
"Obtuse Anger is that which is greater than Right Anger" - Lewis Carroll
/. never promised to be an objective witness to anything. /. is unashamedly partisan on lots of issues. To a very great extent, /. is still CmdrTaco and Hemos's personal website, no matter how popular or well funded it is. If the links that they find most interesting about the presidential elections tend to be unsympathetic to Bush, then that's the way they feel and that's what they post. Don't confuse /. with a real news source - it's still a very personal creation.
--
Xenu loves you!
Moderate this up, you commie bastards!
You have some good stuff to say here, but there's one thing that really sticks in my craw. You wanna vote for Bush because you think you agree with him on the issues, that's one thing, but to pretend that he's got some kind of superior character is just... just... well, it's just mind-blowing to me. Do you know anything at all about the guy?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Gore or Clinton are some kind of saints over Bush, either. Far as I'm concerned they're all a pack of weasels. But geez, saying "character counts" and pointing to Bush as the positive example is like saying "security counts" and pointing to Microsoft.
Tell me something. When a conservative makes a truck, does it pull right? The answer is No.
But, seriously, it's virtually impossible to influence politics through the way you create a truck or what have you. The media, on the other hand, has a very significant influence on the public by simply producing their sole product: information. Put simply, they are the SOURCE from which 99.99% of the public relies on for information beyond their immediate surroundings. It's not as if each and every person personally hears what a politican has to say, or can accurately measure the state of the economy beyond their own hometown. Instead, they turn to the likes of CNN from their information on the candidates, what they say, and on the issues. When those quotes are selectively biased against a particular candidate, or when the "facts" about a candidate are distorted, or when the information of the state of the economy is withheld from people, you can be sure that's going to have some influence.
To sum it all up, there's a word for this. GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. If you feed the people crap, you can hardly depend on them making anything other than crappy decisions. Now maybe crap is a little strong of a word, but the point is that the more crap you foist on the public, the more apt the public is to bring about bad policy. The more leftist the media coverage is, the more likely the public is to be friendly to leftist policies.
I, for one, believe in the public, on the aggregate. In other words, if you give the public a decent reporting of the facts, the majority of the answers are apt to be things that you'll agree with. The flipside, of course, is when the media gives its typically glossy coverover of the news, they'll have little understanding or appreciation for the more subtle issues.
The New Science of Character Assassination says, "The past ten days will go down as a turning point in American history. This is what it's like when the far right is taking over your country: the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character."
Um, ignoring for the moment the issues of our current candidates' character or lack thereof, I'm pretty sure the Hated Far Right (tm) did not invent character assassination. Here's an example from the Bible which documents the practice at least 2500 years ago:
(1 Kings 21)Jezebel his wife said, "Is this how you act as king over Israel? Get up and eat! Cheer up. I'll get you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite."
So she wrote letters in Ahab's name, placed his seal on them, and sent them to the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth's city with him.
In those letters she wrote: "Proclaim a day of fasting and seat Naboth in a prominent place among the people.
But seat two scoundrels opposite him and have them testify that he has cursed both God and the king. Then take him out and stone him to death."
So the elders and nobles who lived in Naboth's city did as Jezebel directed in the letters she had written to them.
They proclaimed a fast and seated Naboth in a prominent place among the people.
Then two scoundrels came and sat opposite him and brought charges against Naboth before the people, saying, "Naboth has cursed both God and the king." So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death.
Then they sent word to Jezebel: "Naboth has been stoned and is dead."
As soon as Jezebel heard that Naboth had been stoned to death, she said to Ahab, "Get up and take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite that he refused to sell you. He is no longer alive, but dead."
When Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, he got up and went down to take possession of Naboth's vineyard.
Did you even read the article? You're a conservative, thats great, if you hate Gore's guts, thats also great.
BUT YOU TOTALLY MISED THE POINT! And the point is that the media and rebublicans have taken statements made by Gore (not even mistatments, most of the time) and turned them into urban legends.
As for the rest of your OT rant.....
I'm a Gulf War veteran and a former naval officer. I left service BECAUSE of the downsizing of the military under Clinton's watch and the subsequent demoralizatoin.
Duh, of course the military should be downsized! We were prepared to fight World War 3 with the USSR, and were in a constant race to have a better military than they did. Now that thats not an issue any more (even if hard line communists regain control in Russia, their military is but a shadow of what it once was) there's no point in spending that much money on it. Fucking Clinton, its all his fault that we aren't in an arms race anymore.
That mid life crisis in the armed forces is a large cause for low moral; instead of being prepared to fight a drawn out, major theater war in Europe, they now focus more on responding quickly to smaller conflicts. And of course, the scandals didn't help moral either - Tailhook, the Admiral (can't remember his name off the bat) who commited suicide rather than be court martialed for wearing medals he didn't earn.
Gore IS NOT "pro-choice". In the past, he has said otherwise. He just changes his views depending upon whatever the populists say he should represent).
What, he's not allowed to change an opinion in a quarter of a century? If he was really pandering for votes, he would be far more cautious about it...he could just tip toe around the issue without giving a strait, like some canidated he debated a couple of nights ago.
I'm not a big Gore fan...I think he's a big, arrogant dick more often than not, but at least he can tell his ass from his elbow.
Personally, I'm sorry McCain still isn't in the running.
Winning solely by popular vote would be like winning the World Series by runs.
To win the World Series, you need to win games. To win the presidency, you need to win states.
Without the electoral college, a candidate could just go with one dividing issue and win on that. Things as they are, candidates have to travel from state to state and discuss a variety of issues.
Anything that makes it harder for the candidates is a good thing in my book.
The REAL discover article on the electoral college from 2 years ago.
Math Against Tyranny
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
---------
1. A lack of third parties. There should be 4 or 5 candidates doing these things, not two. The reason we have a two party system is because the media perpetuates this. They do not give any third parties decent air time. Put three more candidates in at least one of the debates.
2. Virtually no mention of the economy. The stock market has been in a free fall for a bit now, yet all we heard about was the huge government surplus (which the two candidates are gleefully planning on spending) and the prosperous times we are in. Yet the stock market is falling and the Fedral Reserve is raising interest rates to slow down the economy. Some thoughtsd by the candidates on this matter would have been nice.
3. Ignoring technical issues. This is the "Information Age" as the candidates liked to point out when talking about education, yet not a single technology issue was seriously discussed other than filters. Hell at least talk about the Microsoft case, the people know about this and it will effect them directly.
4. Drug war. It is criminal to not even mention this. The US has a HUGE prison population, mostly due to the Drug War.
5. All 3 of the debates talked about the EXACT SAME ISSUES! (slight variance here and there). There are 3 debates, not 1, lets hear about different issues in each.
6. The "Town Hall" debate was a joke. The moderator (Jim Leer? I think, I forget his name) picked the questions that would be asked. How exactly is that a Town Hall meeting? The only difference from the other two debates was that some Joe Blow asked the question (9same ones as the previous two, see #5 above) instead of the moderator. Wow, how innovative.
Well that is all for now.
Q.
You know, I'm really growing tired of this Al Gore invented the internet debate. Why are people making excuses for his lies? And why is Slashdot being so hypocritical.
Basically, if I understand correctly, Darpa created computer networking on a widescale. Sure, it wasn't called the "internet" then, but still, they accomplished something important.
But then Al Gore claims internet creatorship because he sponsored finance bills which helped turn Darpanet into the internet?
So, isn't this a lot like patenting Kerberos, or 1-click shopping? Isn't it like all of those lousy patents where all they are is different implementations of the same technology?
I mean, Slashdot attacks those patents, but supports Al Gore. Am I wrong to think they're being hypocritical?
Well sport, the people who are voting for Nader aren't necessarily as interested with getting him into office (since it's not going to happen) as we are with perhaps getting him into the debates next term. If that happened, and his views became public and known, it could really change everything. I know people who are registering to vote for the first time, just to vote for Nader. For once in their lives, they feel represented by a candidate. All he wants is attention? Absolutely. You need attention before you can get your views across. If more people were motivated to vote by exposure to a candidate they feel really represents them, god knows what could happen to the political climate in this country.
Source: My Ass
If you are a journalist, report fairly. To say the media is pro-democrate, look at CNN.com. The have extensive coverage of Gore in the "Democracy in America" section. Little, if any information regarding Bush.
This is also true with CNN TV coverage. Unfortunately, CNN is the only national news channel broadcast here. Are other news organizations as poor? Watching election coverage on CNN is like watching one long commercial for Al Gore.
Randall.
Property law should use #'EQ, not #'EQUAL.
How about reading the salon.com article? If you did, you would see that it provides attributed quotes. If you don't believe the story, you can go and ask the person quoted. That is what decent journalism is all about. There are facts and you can check their veracity yourself.
He didn't say he created the internet (as if he were the only one responsible), he said he took the initiative in creating the Internet, which was a group effort.
The Romans could have invented a system of gateways, dns's and tcp/ip two thousand years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that the Internet as we know it today took funding, and backing - two things that Al Gore provided.
As does Gore, but they both HAVE put forth some specific plans.
At least Gore can explain his......
Were you watching the same debate? Gore was just as vague, if not more as Bush on this.
That was just *one* issue.....Bush was vauge on *everything*. And aside from this debate, Gore's positions on gay rights are well known; unions but not marriage, openly gay people allowed into the millitary,etc. Bush's responces have generally been a variation of "well, *I* don't distcriminate against anybody." Well, thats wonderful, but what if you aren't working for Bush if he becomes president?
I certainly don't remember hearing anyone whimper. But if we are going to get into childish, immature sounds while debating, I don't think you want to be defending mr *audible forced sigh* Gore.
Funny, I didn't hear any sighs until TV shows increased the volume on the clips by about 500%.
Oh, Gore can be a supremely arrogant prick, but an intelligent arrogant prick has better chances of being a good president than a guy who can't explain his own tax plan or familiarize himself with the state of affairs in Yugoslavia given a couple weeks notice and a running mate like Cheney.
McCain, please run again in 2004.
In 1996, Discover published another article on the Electoral college called Math Against Tyrrany by Will Hively that argued almost the opposite point. Why is there no reference to this old article with the current article. The old article is here.
The Author's point is pretty good. He summarizes his argument with a comparison to a baseball series, and it goes as follows. Not using the college is like determining the winner of a baseball series by who scores the most runs. That's silly, because if three of the games are blowouts, but the other 4 are really close, it's the games that are close that really matter. If team can win three of the games by ten point margins, but lose the other games by 1 point each, which is the better team? The one that only won three games, but won them by 10 point margins, or the one that won four games, even though they were very close. If a team (or candidate) can do really well in a few big games (or states), but can't win the games (or states) that are really close are they the better of the two teams? I don't think so.
This is such a bunch of horse shit. The media has decided that the status quo is "correct" on all issues. As a liberal I resent conservatives labeling the obviously conservative media as "liberal." They aren't. Go cry about something else.
Let's face it, we are stuck with a bunch of losers. And those people who want to support Nader, you'd better tack a real close look at his Tech Policies and how he wishes to handle foreign affairs.
I'm voting Gore and voting for the most curmudgeony Senator I can and the most liberal representative I can to make sure if either Bush or Gore get elected, they'll face a Congress that won't put up with any of their tripe.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
LOL. Also puke.
/. - I'd kind of like at least ONE place to go without the same moronic political arguments going on.
I kinda like the "vast right-wing conspiracy" theory spouted by Mr. Agre. He's at least an amusing bufoon.
What I don't like is having this kind of crap show up on
But there you are. The triumph of propaganda in America, aided and abetted by the MegaMedia titans. We like to call it political speech, though...
-- "I never talk like that." - me
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
Lets look at his post:
Now, how is this insightful or informative enough to be worthy of a Score 5, the highest rating a post can achieve on Slashdot?
Geez. So you were subjected to a dissenting opinion. Get over it. And do try to not be a total asshole when you respond to content you don't agree with - it just makes you look ignorant. But if you *are* ignorant, then by all means carry on...
Just how, exactly, was I being either an asshole or ignorant? If I wanted to throw in a few cheap shots, I could have pointed out that there are 10,000 fewer soldiers on food stamps now than there were under the previous president and secretary of defense.
Not that I care, since you are a lamer who flames as an AC.
Gore was a tabacco farmer, and presumably knew many other farmers. Even if he decided that smoking was bad and the cigarette companies are evil, he might have voted for tobacco subsidies to support the agricultural side of the industry.
I'm not trying to rationlize it (I don't know what his votes were on, do you?), just pointing out that raising the crop was part of his life and farmers probably made up a large chunk of his constituency.
As you say in your page, most of these I recognize as Quayleisms from several years ago.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
95% of the time he talks in vauge, feel good generalities and will avoid specifics at all costs. Does he support the SC's version of affirmitive action or not, does he support gay rights or not. Christ, he whimpered in the first debate when pressed on the issue of the abortion pill.
Uh guys......Bill Bradley, his Democratic opponent in the Democratic primary, and quite a liberal in his own right, asked Al Gore in their debate if
"you (Al Gore) can't tell the truth as a candidate, why should we believe you will tell the truth as president?"
Do you honestly think Bill Bradley is part of this vast right wing conspiracy?
Gore lies....and he got caught.
I'm still working on a clever footer.
I would like to see a Presidential debate where each candidate could bring a laptop computer and consult it during the debate. "Well, I downloaded Senator Bedfellow's platform last night, and it clearly says here ... on the other hand, if you look at the 2002 Federal budget, on this line...."
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Well, my feedback (which I'll also furnish to the debate commission) is that Jim Lehrer is a horrible moderator. Not only were most of his questions insipid, (or in the case of debate 3, ill-chosen) but he allowed repeated violations of the rules. It's probably too much to hope that any candidates would go for this, but I'd prefer to see a mix of agressive journalists/commentators rotated thru the moderator position. I'd love to see people like Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, and Bill O'Reilly asking the questions. And I don't think any of them would just sit there while people went over-time or started asking each other questions.
The electoral college does not only influence which candidate gets elected. If this were the only effect of the EC I wouldn't care either.
But the structure of the EC--winner take all in each state--means that in uncontested states, like Texas, California, and New York in recent years, politicians will not make any effort at all to appeal the state's voters.
Instead, we have battleground states like Florida or Ohio; smaller states with closer races get more attention. Not only do candidates only campaign (funraising aside) in swing states, a president angling for re-election will pander to the states most likely to influence a close election.
Why are there so many appeals to family farmers and our nation's heartland and such drivel? It's not there are very many farmers, just that many states in the midwest can go either in the Republican or Democratic column.
A Florida voter has vastly more power than a California voter. This is undemocratic. Down with the electoral college!
The electoral college is like the world series.
Say on average, team A should be able to score 2 more runs per game than team B. If you were to determine the winner of the world series by who scored the most runs after 7 games ( popular vote) then team A would almost never lose. Occasionally, team B would outscore team A in a game but on average, team A would come out ahead. And since you're totalling the runs, all that coming out ahead adds up.
On the other hand, if you determine the winner by who won the majority of the games (electoral college), team B's chances improve. The odds that they'll win 4 close games while losing 3 not-as-close games are better than their chances to outscore team A over 7 games.
If you're a player on team b, your actions in the second scenario matter more than in the first. Or to make an analogy, if team A is much better than team B, then no matter what you do on team b, it's generally meaningless. But if the difference is not as great, then while your actions in an electoral college may still be meaningless, they'd be less meaningless than in a straight popular vote.
The article presents this concept with better backing so give it a read.
I think the electoral college is great. I don't like the idea of people electing the President directly. There are lots of stupid people out there. I don't mean stupid like they don't agree with me, I mean stupid like they are uninformed. Most people don't care about the campaign process or politics in general. They form opinions early on and most refuse to even listen to what the other candidates might have to say. They disregard pesky things like facts or character. They are impressed with charisma and false promises. If you ask someone why they are voting a certain why, the answer is usually "Because." No real explanation, just a vote on a whim. Personally, I think if you don't vote, you don't belong in this country. You are messing up my future by not participating in this "great experiment." Vote Almeida 2016.
If you recall, during the Reagan/Bush administration, the buildup was to make the military strong (I quote the 600 ship Navy and SDI). The percieved strength of our military forced the Soviet Union to overextend themselves. Eventually, communism in the SU failed and the "wall came tumbling down".
Reagan also had to deal with the cluster F of Nixon/Ford and Carter and what's his name. Gov't grew greatly under Carter (as did inflation). I don't necessarily blame Carter for all of it. He did many good things (like regional trauma centers). Carter was a smart man who inherited a mess. He then made the mess bigger by going along with a democratic house.
Anyway...back to Reagan...
A lot of factors existed here. Had we not been in arms race with the SU, I'd suspect gov't would have been a lot smaller. But, we would have been unprepared for the events that occured in the Bush/Quale administration.
During Bush/Quale, there was the initial hit of going to war. Following the war, the economy hit the skids. Unfortunate, but it happened and it was predictable. Without the "war machine" running, layoffs occurred and domestic life went south.
Clinton/Gore did continue to reduce the size of the miltary. The navy has shrunk down to under 400 ships if I am not mistaken. Op-tempo has increased by 400%. My old ship (now decommissioned and destined to become a barrier reef) saw Somalia, the Middle-East, and South America and a few other "conflicts" before returning home for decommissioning. Many left service because of the "liberalizing" and "nation building" philosophy imposed upon the military. Active reserve programs were disbanded.
While some say a Navy's job is to be at sea, there is prudence in making sure they get home, see their families, and maintain their ship. When at sea, much of the maintenance doesn't happen. Things break and people get hurt.
The view that Bush/Cheney propose is a lot smaller. While Bush has not given specifics on exactly how he'll rebuild the military, I'd suspect it would entail a build up of ships and increasing morale by bringing troops home, increasing their benefits (for the lower enlisted ranks, many are in poverty) and then giving them the purpose of being the military rather than the peace corp.
His plan to move many programs to the state and local levels will allow them to custom craft their programs. Money will still be spent, but it will be (hopefully) better targeted and utilized.
Gore's plans, while they sound fantastic (I'd LOVE to see many of them, BTW), are going to cost us a fortune. Somebody has to pay for those programs. This means that the tax cuts we've been promised since 1992 are not going to happen. Our "surplus" will initially go to funding these programs. But, eventually, we will be saddled with the price tag. If Gore is reelected in 2004 (assuming he is elected in 2000), you can bet we'll see tax hikes to pay for these programs.
If a republican takes office in 2004, either those programs created by Gore will need to be funded or killed. So, expect to see either no tax cut and a reduction in some of the programs or a serious killing of programs in the next term. This would make the public view of the republican president pretty poor as he's hurting the poor. Its a no win situation for the president (or the American people) in 2004 if Gore is elected.
If Bush is elected and he makes too many cuts. He looks bad now, but he will have the opportunity to either create new programs (hey..congress is elected every 2 years, right?) or risk being removed from office in 2004. End game - a return to the democrats in office to start the cycle all over again.
RD
I love ./, but what can I call all this pro-Gore nonsense but "Fools at work"?
Gore lies. A lot. In such ways as to shore up his self esteem, claim he did things he did not, is things he is not, and was places he was not.
All these attempts to excuse him just don't add up.
He is supposedly a "tech genius", but shucks, that disappearing email, that's technical stuff, he doesn't know anything about that.
He doesn't know, supposedly, that a fundraiser is a fundraiser, that a Buddhist temple is a Buddhist temple, that monks with vows of poverty can't possibly be the real source of the contributions.
He drank a lot of iced tea, you know, so he was out of the room when anything illegal was discussed.
Down, but Google has the cache on nader's page her e.
"Secret Luxury House" is worth $100,000 (ok, in 1972, but still - dissing the guy because he owns a house?)
Supposedly damning quote:
Um... ok, but it's a nonprofit organization... the laws allow him to not pay taxes. I don't see the inconsistency.
What's the problem here?
Also, claims that he works his staffers really hard. Well, ok.
Complaints that his nonprofits has amassed funds. Fine, that's legal, and I wouldn't even say immoral. As long as he's not embezzling it...
Oh, and apparently he's a hypochondriac, too.
If that's the best they can do, he's still my man.
(read the page for yourself, there are a few other perhaps more damning allegations, but the majority sound like rumors and innuendo to me...)
---
IMO, Slashdot should state the candidates they support and not be wishy-washy about it.
I watch the sea.
I saw it on TV.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
In most states, the answer is that Bush would receive all of the electoral votes.
In New Hampshire, however, things are run a bit differently. As you probably know, the number of electoral votes assigned to a state is equal to the size of its congressional delegation, i.e., the total number of Representatives and Senators, or the number of Representatives plus two. New Hampshire tallies the popular vote by congressional districts (New Hampshire has two) and awards one electoral vote to the winner of each district. The remaining two electoral votes go to the overall winner of the statewide popular vote. Generally, both districts have swung the same way, but I believe that in either '92 or '96 the two districts voted different ways, resulting in a 3-1 split of the state's four electoral votes. (Don't remember which year exactly, or who got what.)
I've heard rumors that other states are considering something like this. IMO, it makes sense.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Oldman at odds with DreamWorks over ``The Contender''
Exerpting the first paragraph:
LOS ANGELES(Reuters) - Actor Gary Oldman claims that DreamWorks turned his new film, ``The Contender,'' into anti-Republican propaganda to serve the Democratic agenda of studio owners Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen, Premiere magazine reported Friday.
Only difference is that the dems like to rile people up with propaganda pieces like this one where the republicans are just using the more than ample ammunition supplied by Al Gore in a truthful way.
'I took the initiative in creating the internet'.. Sounds pretty clear to me. He lies constantly, and not even about important stuff and the lies are not even well thought out. He told union laborers that his mother sang him a song 'look for the union label' as a baby only it was written when he was 27. He claims his mothers dog takes the same medicine as his mother at a higher cost, which isn't true (and BTW the only reason human drugs are more expensive then pet drugs is that they must pass much more stringent tests involving many years of trials.. The prices reflect this).
-- Greg
PS: ugh what is up with slashdot. I think CmdrTaco has taken the dem's platform to heart... 'Look at those poor lesser processes, why the httpd and mysql process is using all the cycles and not _sharing_ with other processes, well we'll just increase their -nice- bracket so there's more time for the less fortunate processes on the CPU'.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
Wow! That story on how badly Gore has got to be one of the best spins I've ever seen put on Gore's lying ways.
Can they explain some more of these "lies" the press is spreading?
1. The Buddest Temple was not a fund raiser.
2. Little Kaylie is still standing in Florida.
3. His aunt pays more for medication than her dog.
4. Gore saw real combat in Viet Nam.
I could go on and on with examples. To call this story any kind of "science" other than "junk science" lends far too much credit to the DNC spin-masters.
Maybe we need to know how they define "truth"? Is it the same way Clinton defines "sex" or Gore defines "fundraiser"??
Viv
-----------
I Use Napster. I use DeCSS. I buy over $1000 a year in CD/DVDs.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
According to the Daily Howler the "Gore invented the internet" story was popularized by Wired writer Declan McCullagh in this story. Declan finally gives Gore some credit, 19 months later, here. But by then, practically every journalist in the US had piled on, many of them exaggerating the story. And Declan is still ducking responsibility for the stories he & wired spread; you can read Phil Agre's dissection.
To his credit, Newt Gingerich tried to set the record straight on 9/1/2000 when he took part in a colloquium for the American Political Science Association. The panel was broadcast live on C-SPAN. Speaking about the 1996 Telecommunications Bill, Gingrich at one point said this: Remember: this is Newt Gingerich speaking. You can't dismiss his remarks as another case of liberal bias. But I'll bet ya never saw that story in the news!
And while I'm debunking, here's a line from a story that appeard in the Boston Globe 4/11/2000: The truth is, Gore worked five years for the Nashville Tennessean, and prior to that he spent two years as a reporter in the U.S. army. Two plus five equals seven. But the Globe never saw fit to retract their lie.
So Phil Agre is absolutely right: the RNC has gotten away with an amazing campaign of character assassination. Now it's time to tell the truth.
Who defines the spending bills, jackass?
> 1. Under Reagan/Bush, the government EXPLODED in size and cost. Budget was spending more than it took in and the national debt skyrocketed exponentially, leading future generations to pay for 80's excesses.
Who was in charge of Congress? Not Reagan/Bush.
> 2. Under Clinton, the government SHRANK significantly, became more efficient and modernized, the out-of-control budget was BALANCED and we now finally have the chance to pay back the debt, unthinkable 9 years ago.
Who's in charge of Congress now? Not the democrats.
You know, that's a very good point. Since most people think the choice is between Bush and Gore, they will do exactly like you said, not understanding how the voting system works. (They don't even understand the current one.) Someone who wants Bush but hates Gore, and knows nobody else, may end up electing McReynolds. Wouldn't he be in for a rude awakening?
I think Instant Runoff would be the way to go. Three choices should be sufficient.
Constitutionally Correct
Kenneth Arrow's famous "Impossibility Theorem" (1951) showed, among other things, that there is no "perfect" voting system. Thus, we must choose the system we use based on empirical considerations. Even a cursory look at the Borda count reveals that it is a DANGEROUS system that forces individuals to make distinctions which are irrelevant to them; but these "irrelevant" distinctions could very well decide the election.
What am I talking about? Let's say John Q. Voter wants Bush to be in office. It's a no-brainer for him to put Bush as first preference... and Gore as last preference. Anything else, and he's throwing away part or all of his vote!! What about the other candidates? They will be randomly ordered in the middle, with any other candidates he fears might win the election put near the bottom.
One cannot expect "principle" to win out here and stabilize the results. The results from our existing system are proof enough that the majority of people do not like to waste their votes. You can not safely assume that people will be stupid and rank Bush 1st and Gore 2nd, especially after the first such election (which I guess could be a sort of "party IQ test"...). 45 percent will rank candidate A first and candidate B last, 45 percent will rank candidate B first and candidate A last. Now, the election will be decided by the random noise of intermediate rankings of the mainstream voters, and the divided outlier 10 percent. Methinks "random noise" wins the day. The voting population obviously won't like "random noise", but they're forced, in very large numbers, to make the decision between supporting their choice's opponent, or accepting a microscopically increased risk of a random winner. This sort of thing is much worse than what we have now!
I find "approval voting" a much more practical (and conveniently, simple) system, though it may not be the best; I leave it an exercise to the reader to observe it poses none of the major risks and discomfort associated with popular Borda count.
Software that was used to rate the candidates truthfulness during the debate. Cool stuff. I would have loved to just sit there during the debates with this thing running flagging everything they said.
.co m/time/campaign2000/story/0,7243,58092,00.html
http://www.time
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Political dirty tricks have been an amusing part of campaign season for a long time now. The Culture Jammer's Encyclopedia has a number of examples, particularly in their Guerrilla Hacks and News Trolls sections.
Among these:
The punk rock group Crass spliced together bits of speeches by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, along with background noises, to make a tape that sounded like a phone conversation between the two of them that had been recorded from a crossed line. The U.S. State Department denounced the recording as the product of the KGB.
The legendary Dick Tuck played a number of tricks on the other Tricky Dick during his campaigns.
You should definitely check out this parody billboard altered as a commentary on the latest Bush candidacy.
The group ®TMark has made parody web sites of Rudy Giuliani's and George Bush's campaigns, amongst their many other hacks.
But also, citizens have been able to use sneaky and theatrical tactics against their oppressive governments. Some of the street theater being practiced now against Fujimori in Peru is similar in flavor to that of the recently successful Otpor group in Serbia, which in turn owes a debt
Other good sites on campaign hacks include: How to Make Trouble and Influence People and Dirty Deeds and How To Deal With Them.
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
I'm glad someone on the left took time away from trying to portray Bush as a stupid coke head, Cheney as old and dying, and republicians as evil to recognise the disgusting actions of those on the other side who have the audacity to do the same thing to their exualted party.
It's a sad state of affairs when a liberal has to take time away from hate mongering and slandering to respond to the same thing from conservatives.
Thank you Taco, for bringing this injustice to our attention.
Sheesh
Finkployd
Here you go repeating the same lies every other right-winger keeps repeating about gore "inventing" the internet. Regardless, with the NSF no longer funding most of the internet and with the government an insignificant part of its current structure, I don't think gore's minions, even if they existed, could have any impact on what is currently out there and evolving.
Yes, I too have worked for/with Japanese companies, and in general their higher-level-management pressures are stifling at best. But consider Japan's regulators have been MUCH more involved in the last 5 years than ours have. Once it took off in the US, it was unstoppable but the Japanese regulators are doing their best to make sure that that doesn't happen. Once the people in Japan break free of their 3-hour commutes to work and start using the net more, I am sure there will be similar effects in Japan as in the United States. It is probably the most ripe country in the world for telecommuting due to the population distribution, but from my understanding has some of the worst infrastructure outside of the larger cities.
--mud
More data, damnit!
Also, did you know he was denied access to the debates, not only as a debater, but as a viewer? Twice, he had valid tickets to enter the premises, and twice, he was denied access by the debate commission, with police threatening arrest. Tell me there was any reason other than his political affiliation... I imagine that will go to court as well.
Oh, and get your Nader Funky Beats here.
---
Helping the government get email addresses does not make you for the people. Looking out for the people you are representing makes you for the people. Don't confuse the two.
A few writers seem to feel that the way the article is worded somehow shuts out other opinions. I wonder why? If Taco does support Gore and says so, that doesn't mean that that those who disagree can't speak. Instead of complaining, post your own position. A discussion always carries the "risk" that people will disagree and some might even be persuaded to change their minds. Also, let's skip the argument that Slashdot is not supposed to be about politics. I believe the site is supposed to be about "stuff that matters." Clearly at least a few people out there believe it matters. If it doesn't to you, then just scroll down for 2 seconds and skip it, or explain in detail why you feel the topic is inappropriate.
See www.votescam.com for proof. The authors, two brothers who were both respected journalists, are now martyrs for the truth.
Ok, I'm Australian, and I find the American political system perhaps slightly more boring than even our own dodgy political system. But I have been interested in what appears to be, even to the casual international observer, character assassination of everyone but Bush.
For example, Ralph Nader is known even over here in Australia (at least if you've had more than a rudimentary education). He's clearly a smart guy, yet it seems he's getting the sharp end of the stick at every turn. Why?
And Al Gore. We've all seen the 100s of posts in his defence disproving his "gaffes", pointing out that they're not gaffes but blatant lies and misrepresentations by the media. So why do the lies and misrepresentations continue?
I say it's for entertainment. It's clearly a bad news-day/week/month and the media is playing your election up for all it's worth. If they were honest and portrayed the candidates in a fair and unbiased light then you'd have no contest. It'd be like a boxing match between Tyson and Pee-Wee Herman (and that fully exhausts my knowledge of American celebrities). Your Tyson is of course Al Gore. Not only is Al Gore obviously smarter than his #1 competitor, he also has more experience, he did better at school, he looks better on TV, he has more hair, his teeth are much shinier and whiter, and he's taller than everyone else too. What more do you Americans want from a President?
Nobody would watch the debates if the media had portrayed the candidates fairly. So in an attempt to boost TV ratings and newspaper sales, your media is doing a snow-job on Bush and a smear-campaign on Gore and ignoring all the other candidates (because you can't have a fair and unbiassed election if there are more than two choices! everybody knows this).
Your presidents are picked by TV. I think you lot should know this by now. The TV conglomerates not only pick the winner they force it to happen through media attention and persuasion. Who cares who becomes president when there's a buck to be made! I think you should all vote Rupert Murdoch for president and acknowledge who the real leader of your country is, once and for all!
I live in Arlington, VA... and I can tell you from first hand experience, that the press in this town (Washington, DC--- hello! the epicenter) is NOT "conservative" and NOT pro Republican.
The Washington Post (Arguably one of the top 2 most influential dailies in the land) is decidedly LEFT in its coloring. And they have consistantly favored Gore, so much so that i've written twice to the editorial staff to press them on their clearly biased reporting (of course I got no response)
Plus, Why NOT post something balanced? Like how the Dems do it too? (I read more than half of the article until I wanted to puke, it read like a high-school-girls rants of a "cruel-cruel-unfair-world" when all along, we know she's doing the same things herself to her classmates!!!)
I've read too much crap from the Post... and now, you make a sweeping statement about the press being 'right' leaning, PUH-LEASE!
I think what Dodechahedron posted above you is accurate: ".... I think what bugs you is that it's now happening to a candidate you favor..."
Just as the linked article bugged the shit out of me... at least I can be honest about it not just cry myself to sleep and hate this cruel-cruel-world!
If she floats, she's a witch.
When we wonder how intelligent somebody is, how do we measure that?
The other day, I saw exceprts from Gore's transcript from college. The low grades in economics (I think it was a C or D) and other pertinent courses ( like math) makes it clear that not only did he invent fuzzy logic, but also fuzzy math and fuzzy economics .
I'd really love to see Bush's transcript as well. Since both are went to "tough" and "respected" schools (Havard vs Yale) for the rich, it would be a nice comparison.
Seriously, do I think Gore cares about the environment and people. Yes, I do. But, do I think he's the one to lead this country? Hell no.
Do I think Bush cares about the environment and people? Yes, I do. But I think he's the better candidate for the job when given the choice of available candidates. I really like to see a blending of Gore and Bush, but Star Trek tranporter malfunctions are pretty rare in this day and age.
As for sending Bush on overseas diplomacy visits. Last I checked, the VP is really the one to handle foreign policy. Cheney is ideal for this. In critical situations, meet here in the US and have the veep and the prez attend.
BTW, while I really do hate bringing religion into politics, do you honestly think a jew can bring peace and honest brokering to the Middle-East given the hatred the Palestinians have for the jews?
Do I think Lieberman is qualified for the job as VP? Yes and No. I say no because he has already shown that he works both sides of the fence in regards to Hollywood.
Do I think Gore really wants campaign finance reform? Yes...but only because he got caught in the middle of it all. Does Bush? Probably not to the extent that McCain wants it.
BTW, did anybody check out the fact that during a recent Gore fundraiser in New York (at Bon Jovi's house), they closed off the major traffic arteries for 45 minutes until Gore passed during rush hour? Where was Gore's caring for the American worker when all the American worker wanted to do was get home to their families? Even Howard Stern lit into Gore for this one.
For those that really care, this fundraiser was held the day after the second debate when Gore said, in pretty clear terms, that he wasn't a Hollywood lackey.
RD
Bush talks about giving a state more autonomy with regard to education, then talks about holding them "accountable" in the same breath. Doesn't this strike anyone as a contradiction?
Are the Democrats really considered liberal? They seem rather conservative to me. I'm not American, so I'm kind of baffled by that label.
And as long as we vote for shitty choices we'll get shitty results. Period. If Bush wins I hope he fscks the country so bad it will wake the liberals out of their stupor induced by corporate money, and give them a real bad hangover, maybe enough to actually do something about it.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I don't follow the election campaigns that well--having already decided who to vote for even though I don't particularly like him :(--but even so, I know that the defence of Al Gore linked to here is fishy. Here's how:
1) It only included a subset of the "lies" that Gore is claimed to have made. Given the tone of the article, I surmise the author probably picked those "lies" that are most conveniently disproved. But even these instances of "assasination" struck me as pretty mild. For example, the false claim that Gore said the words "inventing the internet." No, he said, "creating the internet," as a matter of fact. Huh. What a vicious campaign of character assasination. . . not. But if these examples are the best the author can come up with, I'm just not impressed.
2) The author completely ignored the obvious question of what counts as a lie. Of course Gore didn't say he came up with the idea of the internet, or actually created it himself. But equally obviously, he worded his phrase to make it seem as if his contribution was much greater than it actually was. Polititians do these sorts of things all the time--does this count as lying? Hm. And if someone calls a politician to account for dishonesty, and calls it lying, is that character assasination? Well, hardly.
So, I would say that this rather inflammatory and obviously skewed piece is worth something to show how Republicans fight dirty, but is worth almost nothing as an indication of media bias (which, by the way, is universally recognized to have been stronger in favor of the Democratic party). In fact, it seems to me to be proof that the Democrats fight dirty too. Shock! Disbelief!
Respondeo dicendum quod . . .
Also check out the latest issue of "Red Herring" magazine with the picture of Gore and the tite 'E-Gore' - it's all about tech and he seems to know what he's talking about.
I don't think either Gore or Bush 'gets' tech issues, so we need to ask, what are their philosophies? Is their first impulse to regulate, to place under government control, to 'fund' (and we all know what happens to government funded institutions, they get controlled). Think of it that way, and the choice is clear.
Really, you should know better than to ask that. Of course they don't have any examples. They never do.
To the conservative mindset, any time a news outlet doesn't print one of their press releases verbatim it's evidence of a "liberal media".
I remember when it was the liberals who were annoying, whiny assholes.
P.S. Here's a couple of stories about Bush that so far have been under reported.
Let's see here. Rick Lazio gets smeared by the media when he "encrouched into Mrs. Clinton's personal space". Yet when Gore charges Bush in the 3rd debate, nothing is mentioned in the press! (Bush by the way did a GREAT job blowing Gore's advances off). So either the media is biased towards the left OR they think women can't handle "aggressive men". So which is it?
Next, Bush is slammed by the media for "coccaine use" charges. Did they have an ounce (or gram) of evidence? Not one bit! Meanwhile, they all chucked over Bill Clinton's "I never inhaled" blatant lie. So, is the media biased towards liberals? Are you convinced yet?
How about the fact that the AP wire talked about Gore's lead in the polls everyday when Gore was ahead. What happened when Bush was ahead? The AP only talked about how Gore was leading in California and New York. Is the AP hoping that if people don't hear the Bush is in the lead, they will believe the AP's spin?
In Minnesota, our liberal news shows gave so liberal professor crackpot over 5 minutes on how he as a mathematical model that shows Gore will win. Why did they put him on? Because Bush is leading in every poll.
The list goes on and on. Those in the liberal Slashdot world just don't like the fact that their "good buddy" is taking some heat. So, how does it feel?
Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you!
A minority of eligible voters actually register and vote. If the reason they aren't voting is because of disgust with politics (i.e. they don't think either major candidate will make a difference, or find them homogeneous), this means that these people might vote for a 3rd party candidate if they knew more about them. A 3rd party candidate who can carry the currently undecided/uninterested voters could win by a large majority. No president in recent history has actually been elected by a majority of eligible voters, just by a slim majority of participating voters.
-m
Come on now. Is this an article about how the media twists the facts (BIG NEWS!), or nothing more than a political rant against a particular candidate?
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
It's too late to work within the system, but it's too early to shoot the bastards
Before the Clinton-Gore administration, the government resisted computerization.
Al Gore pushed for adoption of computers and computer methods. Government departments began to have web pages. Government leaders began to get email addresses.
Because of Al Gore and the Clinton-Gore administration, it began to be easier to interact with the government. It is now possible to apply for federal trademark over the internet, for example. It is possible to download government manuals and forms.
Before the Clinton-Gore administration, I paid $50 to get the addresses of all the senators. The only way to get a list of addresses was through a commercial company which sold the information! The $50 price was for a non-profit organization. For a profit-making company, the cost was more. Now the list is a free download.
Before the Clinton-Gore administration, many people didn't want government to use computers effectively because it would reduce their profits, or their control.
Vice-President Gore led many initiatives like this to make government more for the people, rather than for particular interests.
Under the current electoral system, a candidate needs to win only 8 states to become president: CA, NY, TX, FL, OH, PA, and two others which I don't remember off the top of my head. Theoretically, a candidate could campaign only in those states, completely ignore the other 42, and be elected president of all 50. Of course, it probably made more sense when there were only 13 states and there was less disparity in their populations.
I am voting neither republican or democrat, but the character assassination peace seems to be somewhat trite, one sided, and paranoid. I would have expected a more objective article. In my experience the media tends to favor democrats anyhow.
But that's not even the good part. A full 59% of the voters did not want Clinton as President! I think we should have a runoff election the first Tuesday in December between the top two candidates selected at the national level by popular vote, and dump the electoral college. This could even potentially help third party candidates as all they have to do is garner a larger popular vote than one of the two big parties for an opportunity to win it big. All the electoral college does is accomplish a method for a president to win without winning the popular vote.
First, since 1945, the US was in a constant battle to "contain" communism (hence, the Cold War). Democrats and Republicans alike contributed to this effort (it was the "American" thing to do). Funding, in generally, went through the roof for this effort. I admit that during Reagan/Bush, the gov't did grow as did the military (which is what I focused on since that is my background).
I started off enlisted destined for submarine duty. I ended up a navy officer via ROTC and was in the Surface navy. I saw the military from both points of view. I saw morale in the military at an all-time high during the Reagan/Bush era. I also saw it decline during the Clinton/Gore era.
If we did not grow as we did, what would the world situation be today? Would the Soviet Union exist? Maybe, maybe not. But, in their efforts to keep up with us (and us with them (even if the info was basically wrong)), the SU overextended themselves militarily at the expense of the people. People got pissed and communism came to an end in the SU. Are they better off for it? Tough call given the difficulty of the transition.
Who was in charge of Congress during the Reagan/Bush era? Well, since it was a Republican house and senate, naturally, more legislation went through unimpeded. Congress and the senate ran the country. If the American people put that many republicans in office during that time, don't you think that is what they wanted at the time? They were tired of hearing the plight of the Viet Nam soldiers, the poor material condition and disrespect for the military. We're talking about WWII era people who saw the US as a leader. They wanted that status back again.
As for the gov't shrinking under Clinton...it had to to get out of the recession generated by the ending of forty five years of cold war. But, it came at a heavy cost to the military.
As for balancing the budget and paying of the national dept. Balancing the budget is a good idea. We have to do everyday or we either go bankrupt or to jail. I agree our gov't must do the same and they must be held accountable. Paying of the national debt when other owe us as well (and with no accountability) is not.
We excused Mexico's debt (they pretty much decided not to pay us anyway). What were the ramifications? We opened up increased trade via NAFTA with them instead.
Whose in charge of the Congress now? The Republicans. And, who makes the laws in this country? Who make the laws for policy to go into effect? Can you say the Congress and Senate? If we are in such an ecomonic boon, then who really made it possible? Republicans or Democrats?
We are so quick to denounce the Republicans and corporations. Yet, if it weren't for them, where would most household incomes come from? You'd probably be sitting on steam vent with a cardboard box for a house since there would be no jobs or living in public housing. Or, we'd have a socialist (or communist) gov't or we'd revert to a pre-industrial revolution state (there is some positive argument for this one, BTW).
So, is it really bad to make companies prosperous if that means more jobs? Well, that depends. If those workers are working for paltry wages and paying tons of taxes or working longer hours and prices keep going up...then its not so great.
If there were checks on prices, export markets expanded, wages were decent and taxes low, I think most in the country would be better off.
How about you? Do you have ambitions of working to pay the gov't or working to have the better things in life? Do you want to own your own business or work for somebody else all your life and complain when THEY do well?
I hope all political parties are watching this race. It's close (as of now) and both sides have valid points. Maybe both sides will come away with something positive. One can only hope.
Our country's destiny is in your hands. I may not have convinced you to vote against for the Republicans. But, I hope that I convinced you of the importance to vote. If you don't vote, then you really have no basis to gripe if things don't go your way.
If you're in school now, remember that when you graduate, you'll be looking for a job. It would be nice if the jobs were there for you when you do graduate. Of course, it would also be nice if the world you enter had clean water and air and we didn't have to wear Sunblock 2000 when the ozone layer is gone.
Just like you, I want a better world (well, I assume you do too). A lot of what the democrats propose is worthwhile. But, if the democrats come to power, who will pay for all those wonderful programs?
umm we specifically live in a representative democracy mr. ac.
Gore actually got worse grades in college than Bush ever did! The Washington Post did an front-page article comparing the two on March 19, 2000. The Post charges $2.50 to dig stuff out of their archives but a little searching turned up a copy here.
--LP
Yes yes yes yes yes. I'm glad someone said this. American culture has a longstanding anti-intellectual bias. When someone's as intelligent as Gore, people start looking for ways to take him down a peg; they pounce on every tiny mistake. Then you get an affable idiot like Dubya who can make the most egregious errors, and everybody shrugs it off.
The American public identifies more with the affable idiot, which tells you a little about how most people view themselves. It's the same belligerent know-nothingism that sells a million quack cures and crackpot theories ("don't listen to those so-called experts, don't trust the gubmint...") and now threatens to put the country in the hands of a mental lightweight and his many handlers.
The kicker is, the public's stand on the issues--to the extent the public actually has a stand on the issues--is more in line with Gore's. It boggles my mind that this is one giant popularity contest. I don't care what Gore's personality is like, he's smart (a Good Thing) and I agree with him. He's got my vote.
Salon ran a good article lamenting how the media likes to put together focus groups of "undecideds" as if this staggeringly ignorant bunch of herd animals is representative of the nation: "Ignore the undecided."
Disclaimer: Yeah, I'm another registered Democrat and a card-carrying egghead to boot. My biases are obvious.
obviously conservative media
hahahaha
That's a new one.
Finkployd
IMHO, this article is more confirmation of what I've been thinking for some time now: that both parties are corrupt and that we must develop a viable alternative to the two parties we have now.
The right continually portrays itself as principled, honest and trustworthy. They paint a picture of honest, Consitution-loving folk who've been opressed by the lying, biased, liberal media forever and a day. And how do them demonstrate this honesty, these principles? By engaging in the very activities they condemn so loudly!
Where are the principles? Where is the honesty? You would think that Gore's association with Clinton would be enough on the character front - surely Dubya's policies are distinct enough from Gore's... Or are they?
I live in South Carolina so I know firsthand what Dubya is capable of (see: John McCain). I am also astonished at how little of what Dubya claimed to support in SC in Feburary he still claims to support now. But then, he's only moving towards the center - Gore is lying, but Dubya is moving to the center.
The accusations in the linked article should shake any so called conservative to their very core because, if true, they establish that both parties are equally corrupt.
Gawd, what a couple of losers - I'm not sure if I can hold my nose tight enough to pull a lever for either - of course SC will go for Bush unless he's caught (by Rush Limbaugh!) in tha act of committing sodomy with a black homosexual welfare recipient and a partially burned Confederate battle flag on the floor. If he dies SC still vote for him - we've already done that for Strom Thurmond at least once...
I plan to really investigate the claims of the article but not because I'm a Gore supporter - I'm not. If Gore does in fact have a pattern of deception, I want to know. If the RNC, Limbaugh et al have engaged in a pattern of deceit, I want to know that too. I plan on doing this because I want to uncover the rarest of things these days: the plain, unvarnished truth.
I guess I'll just toss a coin - heads Libretarian, tails Green Party. At least that way I won't be throwing my vote away.
You have given the first real intelligant argument for Bush that I heard/read from all other Bush supports that I have listen to. Most are like your first post where they talk about character and they talk about Tax cuts but not about what Bush will really do about it. Tax cuts are something that is nice, but what do we lose in the mean time. I don't believe we should talk about tax cuts utill we have entirely paid off the national dept. Yes, I was a Perot supporter, but now I believe that Gore will do more for this aim then Bush does.
/. leaning towards Gore. Hey, I listened to Gore go against Microsoft. He told them to their face that the government has a case against them. And these were likely voters as well as MS employees. So who do you think slashdot will go towards. Someone that stands up against MS, or someone that MS pours a lot of money to?
:-)
As another poster said, we can't go by character because there's nothing to show that Bush has a better character than Gore. In fact, looking at their histories of when they were younger, I would say Gore has a better character. I believe that Gore really wants to benefit the country but has a charisma of a door knob. That and his flip flopping has hurt his image. During the debates, Gore would always say "Yes, I support that" or "No I don't" and I agree with most of what he does. But Bush never seem to give a straight answer.
I'm a strong believer in the saying of "I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". So I like to hear others views, but only if they actually give it some thought. Not just some blind thinking of "I like the way he/she talks". But if they actually listen and agree to views, with facts(or what seems to be the facts, since I know people will argue that), then great. Yes I hear the same stupid thoughts from the Dems as well.
Bush really does scare me. I'm afraid of what it will be like when (if elected) he goes over seas to talk to other world leaders. This is not because I don't agree with his ideas, but how intelligent he really is. I would be much more comfortable with the more conservative President like Dick Cheney. I disagree with most of Dick's views, but damn, he's smart. I much rather have a intelligent President then a charismatic one. With the exception of Reagan. The United States needed someone like Reagan at the time. But we had to pay later for what he did. But I agree, it was worth the cost. I disliked Bush Sr, since he seemed to carry the Reagan ways at a time it wasn't necessary.
As for
Not to mention "Gore invented the Internet"
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
This is an ongoing trend that is getting worse as we go. The media will sensationalize anything, including character and dry facts. Their punchlines at the end of the report is just one tool.
Consistently (with a few exceptions outside of politics), they choose presentation over substance. You know why? Because in the media, money matters, and the dimwits outnumber the smart people. By catering to the dimwits, they get more money for having a larger audience. It's that blindingly simple. There is little incentive for them to be factually correct and nuanced when they can walk all over the topic with their flashy sensationalist moonboots.
Anyhow, that's my 2c.
Stop the brainwash
Er, yeah, that was "smooth". Gotta use that preview button. How about "see how smooth the words flow".
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Where are the facts to back you up??? Or are you just talking out your ass???
While Nader and Buchanan were bitching about not getting to schmooze right next to Shrub and Deadwood, Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne actually DID something about it:h arry_browne_tscript.asp
h arry_browne_tscript.asp
s ernum=67
http://clubs.lycos.com/live/Events/Transcripts/
In other news, the Libertarian Party also announced the winner of the second presidential debate to be moderator Jim Lehrer, who had a hard time finding the differences between Bush and Gore:
http://clubs.lycos.com/live/Events/Transcripts/
You want somebody willing to address the issues? Browne takes a stance on an issue that Bush and Gore seem to dance around and ignore-- gay marriage:
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?
If nothing else, read the debate transcript. It's positively superb.
It's obvious who the slashdot staff intends to vote for. Thats great. They have that right. They SHOULD exercise that right.
Just have the nuts to endorse him, not bash the opponent, Let me know why your gonna vote for Gore, not why your NOT gonna vote for Bush.
Even if the article on Gore was accurate (who knows if it really is), Gore has major character problems.
I don't see anyone demistifying Gore's "No controlling legal authority" statement. I, personally, don't see how you can vote for anyone who could stand there and say that.
Gore's record on campaign finance is horrible. The man is a criminal. Luckily, Janet Reno seems to be extremely loyal.
I'm not promoting Bush. I'm just trying to get people to be fair. Apparently, Slashdot feels it is necessary to encourage its readers to vote for Gore. Screw reporting news, just tell people what you want them to hear.
Kris Felscher
Kris Felscher
We've got enough youth, how about a fountain of "smart"?
My Southern Califonia, right-wing lunatic fringe uncle (he and my aunt quit the John Birch Society in the mid-fifties because it *wasn't* conservative enough..) used to constantly give me such tracts as "The Big Red Lie" when I was in junior high school in the late '50s.
That was an entire book dedicated to modifying, amplifying and ultimately distorting snippets of fact regarding the Soviet Union into page after page of bald-faced lies.
But the end justifies the means.
These are absolutists who are absolutely correct, most often because god (their god, anyway...) is on their side.
Remember:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Most of the right wing still believes that at its heart, even though most of the most public figures have adopted the politically expedient posture to hide what they truly think because they know they're too extreme for most Americans.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
From the "character" link:
the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character.
Not that this sounds ANYTHING like sore-loser whining, but it's also blatently false, according to nearly every Reuters/Zogby poll.
(http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/zo/)
While some of Bush's policies are opposed by almost half the population (vouchers and gore's upping minumium wage are favored), these polls clearly show Bush's policies favored. Some examples of headlines:
Bush's Star Wars Anti-Ballistic Shield Favored
Majority Opposed to Selling High-Tech Weapons to China
More Autonomy for States to Set School Standards
Accountability Narrowly Beat Out Smaller Class Size
State Rights Favored Over Federal Regulations on Health Care
Teaching Certification Based on Teacher's Ability Favored
Half Favor Bush's Social Security Investment Plan
Bush-Cheney's Military Build-Up Narrowly Approved
More Than Fifty Percent Favor Bush-Cheney's Homeless Plan
Yes, I know these are just polls (although pretty well-respect polls) and are subject to inconsistancies and could be way off, but I have yet to see a major poll say that Gore's policies are favored.
Taco, I respect your right to have you opinion, and to publish it on your own website (which I enjoy), however by not doing your own research and posting your opinion supported by false articles and sloppy reporting, you are only destryoing your own credibility. Stop buying everything spoon fed to you about how bad Bush is and how great Gore is, and do your own research.
Finkployd
I'll do you one better, not only have they not called him to the carpet for a lack of a physical "lock box", they have given him a complete pass on the fact that his "lock box" metaphor is a complete and utter lie. There is absolutely not one scintilla of difference between his "lock box" and the current system of investing payroll taxes in T-Bills. And at the end of the day there will be exactly the same amount of money in the "trust fund" under Gore that there is right now. Exactly zero dollars and zero cents. That's right, there is not one penny in the social security trust fund. Never has been, and until the system is completely changed, there never will be.
How can this be, you ask? Because those T-Bills are simply an IOU from the US government made out to the US Government. It is absolutely farcical. The entire purpose of the trust fund is to pile up some money for a future time when there will be too many retirees and not enough wage earners to fund the retirement benefits from the current tax revenues. So we collect extra payroll taxes now, and invest them in T-bills. So far, it sounds good, right? Well, two small problems: First, what do you think happens to the money that the government borrows in the form of a treasury issue? It gets spent. That's right, every dime that has been taken in over the past ~20 years of trust fund investments has been spent in our deficit budgets. All of it. Second, where do you suppose the money to repay those T-Bills will come from when the Social Security Trust fund cashes the notes in? Why, the same place the money for all T-Bill redemptions comes from--from current tax revenues. But the sole purpose of the trust fund was to set some money aside because we know that there won't be enough wage earners to pay for those benefits out of current tax revenues at that point in time. So we have accomplished exactly NOTHING in the furtherance of eliminating the burden on further generations, we have simply shifted the coming tax increase from the payroll tax to the income tax. Big whup-ti-doo.
And here's the worst part, and it should really hack you off. For those of us who will start collecting social security after the baby boomers, we will be paying that money TWICE! That's right, I'm putting money in the trust fund now, and when they come calling to redeem those T-bills, I'll be paying the income taxes that will pay them back, with interest. So Al Gore's fictional "Lock Box" simply insures that I pay the cost of the boomer's retirement not once, but twice over. Yeah, thanks a lot!
That's the straw man offered by the Republicrat debate commission in defense of its exclusionary rule. (I realize that you aren't necessarily defending their position.)
An objective standard (there's no way anything based on polls can be objective, since polls can be easily spun to get the results one wants) such as listing on enough state ballots to be theoretically able to win would typically give four to six candidates (in this case, five: Browne, Buchanan, Bush, Gore, and Nader).
Admittedly, there is a case for having the top two go head-to-head, also. Perhaps it should be like Survivor, with one of the debaters being voted out each round until the top two remain for the closing debate. That should also make it more interesting.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.