Slashdot Mirror
Politics With A Slice Of Lemon
With the weekend comes many stories about the upcoming election.
First,
Herger sent us an article by Liberatarian Neal Boortz which is fairly humorous, and makes several good points, along with talking about Harry Browne.
cmpgn sent in transcripts from a panel discussion on how GWB would govern.
James Hills sent us Rolling Stone's Interview with Gore.
Yohahn sent us filmmaker Michael Moore's article after being on the road with Nader.
Finally, a few links of a more general nature:
Duncan W. McQueen sent us a page that tries to match up your beliefs to a candidate, and
LizJ sent us a site trying to be impartial and track the candidates' stance on the issues.
Still getting lopsided story submissions. We're trying to give links to several different candidates each time, but Gore and Nader are the only candidates that we're getting good submissions for. I'm voting for Quimby anyway ;)
How can the man call himself a libertarian when he's profoundly anti-choice about abortion?
The same way he can support legalizing drug use without using cocaine or heroin.
For libertarians it's about personal freedom. Harry personally finds abortion objectionable for whatever reason but he realizes (correctly, IMO) that it's not the place of the government to regulate people's personal behavior.
note: I'm not looking to get into a flamefest over the abortion issue so don't bother.
Actually, Harry Browne doesn't want the Federal Government involved in the decision at all. Here is his position on abortion from his website.
--
The shareholder is always right.
Does it really matter which dictator you elect? Both candidates are identical in pretty much every respect, and we can be sure that whoever wins, the US will still continue to be as arrogant and insular as it always is.
The fact that /. is bothering to provide "coverage" of such a non-event is quite sad really, all it does is provide a forum for the slashbot hordes to propound their particular dogma to people who'd rather use Windows than admit that someone else's politcal views might have validity.
God, I wish it'd hurry up and be over and done with.
Libertarianism has come to mean whatever you want it to. It's inclusive of everything from the far right to the far left and if there is anything there you don't agree with just claim those other people are misguided. Honestly, is it simply entertainment or a real, thought out postion when Boortz says things like "maybe it's a mistake that women can vote". Or that 2 income households should be outlawed. Are we supposed to take seriously this altdotblackhelicopters thinking? When right wing self professed Libertarians claim on a show like Boortz or Limbaugh that those liberals in the "major media' secretly control what you see and hear, and it's evil I have to laugh.
Now maybe they don't represent what the rest of you consider mainstream Libertarianism but that's my point. Anyone from Ghengis Khan to Leon Trotsky can claim to be Libertarian. After all the "S" in Nazi was for "Socialism" - you can twist words to mean whatever you want. All I can tell you is that I live in a state where at one time Jesse Helms was considered the more liberal of two Senators and I've heard the self defined Libertarian rhetoric: anti gov't, pro-gun, eliminate the sep. of church and state, no immigrants, no taxation, eliminate all but the vestiges of a federal system, power to the states, responsibility to the individual, yah ya yah. It's Ruby Ridge with a soccer mom face. I read the book I saw the movie. It was by Leni Reifenstahl. Be afraid.
I found a well-written article on the Zero Year curse affecting US presidents. It apparently stretches back to a Shawnee Indian chief named Tecumseh, who cursed president Harrison in 1840. Interesting stuff. And a reminder that we should keep in the back of our minds the possibility of President Cheney or President Lieberman.
Death Cycle of Presidents elected in Zero Years
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
We need to understand that "libertarian" originally was a leftist (i.e., pro-labor, as opposed to pro-capital) term. (For more information, hit Google with "libertarian socialist" and "anarchist"; also try "zenarchy".) Leftists aren't necessarily in favor of big government; some of us want a small government, like the libertarian capitalists of the Libertarian Party, but one that moves in a different direction. We reject the notion that capitalism is somehow a natural state that arises from a smaller government; indeed, capitalism requires a strong state, to define and defend property.
Think of government as a vector quantity; the Libertarians have (at least in theory) a magnitude I like, but the Greens have the direction I prefer.
Nader's the only one talking about how corporate power and concentrated wealth is threatening individual freedom.You'll also find that on many practical issues there is agreement: on free speech, ending corporate welfare, ending the "prison industrial complex", decriminalization of victimless crimes, Fourth Amendment rights, and religious freedom, the Libertarians and the Greens are pretty much in alignment.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I think I'll take this opportunity to mention Canada will hold an election on Nov. 27. Prime Minister Jean Chretien dissolved Parliament on Sunday at 11 am; he admitted Canada's worst-kept secret to opposition leader Stockwell Day over coffee on Friday.
It will be interesting to compare how the elections are conducted. Our campaign starts now; legally, the campaign can only run 36 days, from dissolution of Parliament to the election. We have at least four well-known parties throughout the country people regularly vote for - five in Quebec due to the strong separtist party in that province. For a while, the separtists were the official Opposition in our Parliament!
We also don't choose a separate president and majority party; the majority becomes the government, with the leader becoming prime minister. In the event of a plurality, the government can rule as a minority or form a coalition; the current leader of our Progressive Conservatives, Joe Clark, led a minority gov't for a few months back in 1980.
Our elections can get just as nasty, though I think in this election (IMHO, of course) Canada will focus more on the parties' overall platform and performance, whereas the US election seems to be centered on who will make a better president; the contest over the House and Senate seems much more fluid. I suppose that happens when the man currently in charge has a legacy of misadventures involving his johnson, and his potential successors are seen as the men who will have to restore prestige to the post.
Main reason I like our elections; they only last just over a month, instead of seeming to last forever:)
Let the best candidates and parties win, in both of our countries.
-------------
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
In September a major point in the French Constitution has been destituted: the president from 2002 onwards shall be president for 5 years instead of 7.
20% of people voted...
There seems to be a growing disinterest in politics everywhere. In France, it is partly due to all the "affaires" (corruption and so on...).
I believe that it is all deeper than that. Not too far ago, politics represented an institution. People in grey talking about things noone understands and who everybody respect. But now, in the times of improved communication, of less censorship, of more accessible information, people start to think for themselves, have better opinions and start to realize that politics has become a big marketing fight with its buzzwords, buzztopics, trends, ruled and leveraged by polls. This has been pushed to such a point that they define voters as 'targets'. So they have to act younger, speak younger to seduce tomorrow's voters. Just like bankers, priests, singers or recruiters. Signs of times, the French socialist candidate for the city hall in Paris recently admitted he was gay. 2 weeks later, his competitor gave an interview in a gay magazine (looks like a fight over a market sector doesn't it ?).
I don't believe they will get anywhere better if they don't clearly show some genuine interest for the community, or at least for their own vision, and moreover, stick to it.
Also, I tend to believe that people do not understand a 100th of what is going on. Rather, they support their candidate as they would support their football team, with a strong feeling of belonging to a community rather than that of supporting the most suitable person. Am I wrong there ?
É que os desafinados também têm um coração
To vote for somebody you *know* is a corporate drone who will support measures you don't only gives them more power. The right answer to this is *not* to vote for a "relatively benign" corporate drone, but to *organize politically* from a grassroots level and create an alternative. The most important thing one can do for this to happen is to work outside electionary politics at a grassroots level; voting for Nader, or any other candidate, is a very small part of this whole process.
Yeah, now there is a great way to pick who you support to lead the country. Why not just pick the one that has better hair or who smiles more. Screw the issues, we make our decisions irrationally :)
Finkployd
This is very true. I don't know if Taco is actually a socialist, but he is definitely a leftist. I assume his idea of 'good story submission' is one that supports Gore or Nader.
He has already shown a bias towards Gore in his story intros; why wouldn't he show a bias in story selection?
I personally think the presidential election has no place being covered on Slashdot. If you want to talk politics, go to a politics forum.
Rob is only covering the election so he can try his hand at influencing the little people, just like all other major media outlets. What used to seperate Slashdot from other news sources was a lack of bullshit (of the political variety, anyhow). But now, we can't go two days without being exposed to Rob's political views. When is this going to stop?
If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
CmdrTaco whines about there being no submissions... well I submitted this and he didn't post it in his political links. Whatever, here it is for your consumption: http://ww w.s alon.com/business/green/2000/10/19/harry_browne/in dex.html.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
The candidates do have distinctive programs, despite the eternal whining that modern presidental campaigns pander to the older voters.
Unfortunately, these issues don't seem to line up for one candidate or another.
With regards to tax cuts for tech types- Bush is a clear leader. Most technical workers will exceed Gore's "middle class" limits, while Bush will give them a 10% tax cut (i.e. raise).
On the other hand Gore and Nader oppose giganticism in the tech industry. They'll keep the anti-trust pressure on the MicroSofts, Intels, and Ciscos that threaten the smaller startups. Also limit immigration of cheap tech workers.
A third issue is retirement savings. Bush suggests privatizing in too ways: first let workers invest the SS surplus in the market instead of federal bonds, with the possibility of bigger payouts. Second Bush?replications would give larger tax breaks to 410K & IRAs.
So there are clear distinctions. But they don't all fall into clear party boundaries.
But if you are in fact a citizen of the United States, then it's people just like you that have helped to get us into the predicament we are in today. If you aren't vocal, if you don't let government know what you think and want and if you don't vote, then you turn into a society of the governed.
Our leadership turns into "dictators" like you say. Because they know that to be elected they only have to appeal to the very small minority that votes.
That's why Joe Blow American is always feeling screwed. "Why don't the candidates speak to me? Aren't my needs important?" They aren't important to a candidate if he knows you'll be sitting at home with your thumb up your butt come election day.
Its decent piece of rhetoric. I don't agree with the ultimate conclusio, but hey its free society aint't it? Well, it used to be. Anyway, the point about how the old people who vote in numbers are robbing the youth of this country is one worth noting. I'm reading a very good book right now called The Scapegoat Generation. One of the points in that book is that the over 40 crowd who have benefitted the most from social spending is consistently voting to deny younger people such benefits largely gain an opulent subsidized lifestyle. Now, I know I just touched a major hot button there, but hear me out a sec. The child as in under 18 poverty rate is twelve times the senior poverty rate. Where does social spending go? Not to the young. Anyway, I strongly encourage Slashdot readers to check this book out at your library. The points about the organized political war on youth are well worth noting, especially since it was published two years before the whole Columbine mess.
I like how they've set this up. You post questions as comments in the forum. Harry chooses to answer 5 of the question every day until Thursday. Because of the continuing nature of the interview, it will allow for follow-up questions.
Given the high volume of questions already, I think some people are going to be disappointed that their question won't be answered.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
The races that are harder to decide, and ultimately just as important, are the local and U.S. Congressional races. As usual, they've been badly ignored in the news media this year. It's up to you to seek out information on them (and hurry!) The composition of the House and Senate makes more difference in upcoming legislation than the next president. Don't like the DMCA? Wish we could export crypto binaries? Want better Federal education funding? Think Social Security monies should be invested in the stock market? and what about environ- mental reform? You'd better make an informed choice in these races. All the social programs that Gore and Bush are kicking around require legislation to address. Even the ones that could be addressed through Administration programs are going to need to get their funding somewhere.
The same goes for your state. In my experience, geeks tend to think about politics in abstract and focus on large-scale issues. That's as it should be, but please don't ignore what is going on around you! Public education is still funded mostly by property taxes, so it's largely a state and local issue (and maybe you take issue with the whole idea of rich neighborhoods getting better-funded schools; I certainly do). Your city council controls development; it alone will decide how to deal with issues of conservation, affordable housing, and urban sprawl. Your local school board may be gearing up to install censorware or ban sex education. Your city may not allow you to carry a gun. Many of you live in states where it's still against the law to be gay. These are major points of contention, and they're being played out at the state and local level.
The politics of coalition-building are quite a bit different at this level, where many factions and lobbies have to be represented, and as a result these elections are often more interesting than presidential ones: the candidates are more differentiated. Also, you might have a chance of electing a third-party candidate in your state, as opposed to voting for one as a protest gesture.
So there's my appeal. It may seem obvious, but it's easy to lose sight of your full voting power while watching the presidential races. You can't vote early, but you can vote often. Make sure your views are represented in your school board, your city council, your state house and senate, and the chambers of Congress. Then punch the line for president. If that last one is the hardest decision you make this year, you're not paying attention.
Vovida, OS VoIP
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
I tried VoteMatch and it told me I was chaotic neutral, and had special skills in repairing small engines and archery. I'm going to keep re-rolling until I get at least two 18's.
How can the man call himself a libertarian when he's profoundly anti-choice about abortion?
-- Anne Marie
Folks, if you don't take the time to follow up on or gasp! even take proactive stance towards politics and politicians (especially the ones that represent YOU), then don't shake your heads when [insert whatever infuriates you...] gets passed in Congress or even in your local legislature.
Stated in another fashion, a democracy (even a representative democracy) is a system designed with the expectation that citizens are SUPPOSED TO be involved with political decisions (not just elections). In fact, some would say that it is YOUR DUTY to be involved in "the process". After all, aren't political decisions (the good and the bad) supposed to be made to the benefit of, for and by the cititzery?
I don't how we've (as a nation) have come to the point that we now expect our representatives to follow his/her's own agenda after they're elected. No wonder the tradition of the career politician keeps on. No wonder that the big two political parties are running this year's show. No wonder the electorate is, as a whole, apathetic. No wonder that we've got tweedle dee and tweedle dum running for the Presidency this year.
This is another view of the world.