Slashdot Mirror
Should You Care About Politics?
Jim Deggan, a self-described Linux Geek from Sunnyvale, California, e-mailed me last week that he hangs around sites like this one specifically to avoid talk of conventional politics, "or any reference of any kind to people like Al Gore and George Bush." He appreciates the advance warning Slashdot provides: that he can block all stories with the "United States" logo and thus access a politics-free environment. But he was curious, before he blocked, about whether there was some reason why he shouldn't. (Maybe the real question is whether it's even possible). He was surprised to see me writing about politics at all, since he assumed from my previous writings that I didn't like the subject any more than he did.
Nobody can blame Deggan, a database administrator, for wanting to avoid the bizarre ritual going on in that other realm. Most people on this site feel just the way he does. But the truth is, he can't avoid politics, even if he wants to. And since he cares about technology, there are compelling reasons why he might want to pay attention and perhaps, one day, even participate.
It's been more than a decade since William Gibson articulated the idea of "cyberspace," and the surreal revolution he predicted has not only come to pass but has become one of the most significant political forces in the world. Computer networks are blasting away the existing political landscape, reconfiguring it in ways we are just now struggling to figure out.
Gibson's paranoid notion of a world ravaged by ruthless, greedy and competing multinational corporations whose power derives from hyper-linked information networks is transcending fiction. The skirmish between AOL/Time-Warner and Disney over cable domination and other issues is a prescient conflict-of-the-future right out of Gibson and the non-virtual games "Mage" and "Shadowrun." The disorienting thing is that we have two political cultures, the old and the new. And the new tends to make the ancient mistake of underestimating the old, corporate and otherwise. Government is seen as clueless and toothless, but program's like the FBI's "Carnivore" program and laws like the DMCA suggest they still have plenty of sharp teeth, a strong reason for caring about politics.
The odd reality is that some techies can be "tech smart" but "world dumb" -- that is, their work and interests tended to be internal and circumscribed. Some (not all) think that knowing about programming is the same thing as understanding technology or its impact on the world beyond. Many think they live and work beyond the reach of politics or government. This intensity, I suggested to Deggan, kept them from grasping the fact that what they are do is often intensely political, both directly and indirectly. Code, for example, is more significant each day, relating to freedom, culture, intellectual property, commerce. The content, language and architecture of cyberspace now affects almost every aspect of the political and economic system.
What economists like to call "late capitalism" -- the emergence of a new post-capitalist, techno-driven global economy -- is characterized by the astonishing growth of multinationals : Microsoft, Barnes &Noble, Wal-Mart, Bertelsmann, McDonalds. More powerful than most governments, these conglomerates operate beyond conventional oversight or regulation, acquire culture, business and media, render conventional political boundaries obsolete. They operate in a new kind of social geography, powered by technology. They corrupt politics by becoming its primary bankrollers. They smother innovation with legal assaults, assault individualism. Simply put, they have taken over, without much of a tussle. Our only hope is that eat each other, as Gibson suggested.
Technology is the central element in their rise. The focal point of these companies' power is an electronic network that covers the planet, and a marketing system to expand and inventory it. This power has no world headquarters; it's in the ether, built into the very architecture of the cyberworld Gibson foresaw. That's what makes technology so political, and gives us so many powerful new reasons to care about it and the political environment surrounding it.
This new kind of politics provokes relevant questions about whether conventional civic systems can or ought to survive, but at the same time it makes politics more important than ever. Ironically, though there's less reason than ever to pay attention to the two-party politics practiced in Washington, there are more reasons than ever to care about politics itself.
Among them: privacy, ownership of ideas, control over software and hardware that powers the network, the use of supercomputing to address social and medical problems, the open source challenge to proprietary institutions (which is shaping up as one of the landmark political struggles of the new century), the use of computer-assisted gene mapping to engineer human life at the hands of for-profit bio-tech companies, and control over creativity itself. Compared to the Bush-Gore-Nader agenda, those kinds of political issues are in urgent need of debating.
The truth is, technology and politics are no longer separable. Almost every citizen, from the hapless buyer trying to get tech support to the parent eliminating a potentially retarded embryo has to deal with technology, even though we don't have any national philosophy of technology and it almost never surfaces directly as an issue in our political system.
Congress is awash in last-minute bills relating to telecoms, free speech online, encryption, privacy, pornography. The gaming culture itself has become one of the biggest mainstream entertainment cultures on the earth, even though the violence allegedly caused by videogames has become a frequently invoked issue in the presidental election, raised by Gore, Cheney, Bush and Lieberman.
Right down to its conception as a communications tool that could survive the Cold War, everything about the Net is intrinsically political, from the distributed architecture incorporated into its design to the empowerment it provides for its users. Conventional politics will shortly feel its effects on the way money is raised, voters vote, volunteers are recruited, on the potential for new candidates and parties to reach new audiences. Whatever the early coders and hackers intended, the information revolution they've created is an in-your-face slap at the way much of the world has done business for centuries.
As interactive tools transform the lives of millions of once disenfranchised kids, who now have access to much of the world's archived information despite frenzied efforts to block and filter them, technology has also empowered and politicized the young. That has traumatized educators, politicians and parents, but the fact is that kids can escape suffocating adult restrictions on their cultural and social lives. In political terms, that may be the biggest whopper of all.
So the citizens of cyberspace have a tricky dilemma. While it's difficult to take seriously a system that labors for months and finally offers us George Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan and their Pleistocene campaigns, it is becoming almost impossible to live in this space and avoid politics. If you don't find it, it will find you.
Next: Birth of the CyberNation. Filling the new space with an ethical platform.
I care about who has control, but I can't stand 'politics'. It shouldn't be two different things, but they are. And it sickens me. It brings a sour, bile taste to the back of my throat.
.sigs??
-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
O P E N___S O U R C E___H U M O R
great comedy company.
Robert Heinlein said it best: for all its problems, politics is the only way to get things done that doesn't involve breaking heads. And if you leave it to the crooks and empty suits -- which is what we have done -- the results are disastrous. BTW, Heinlein's book "Take Back Your Government" is still in print, and surprisingly useful 50 years after he wrote it.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
-------------------------------------------
Why should i care about petty politicien who are trying to gain control over a small part of the planet. I am a citizen of earth, internet is the highway i use every morning to get to work, my browser is my car and TCP/IP my fuel. If things dont go the way i like, i change country...
"Failure is not an option, it come bundled with the software"
Because, if you don't vote, you vote anyway - for the majority.
Unfortunately the majority's opinion sucks most of the time.
So, hell! Yes, get your lazy but of the sofa and : vote!
Disclaimer: I'm darn glad that I can't partake at the US presidential election. It's sort of the choice between a rotten apple and a watermelon gone bad. This is however no excuse to let Mr. Bush wreck your country...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
i'm not sure the "evil corporations" can take credit for corrupting politics. politics is about robbing peter to pay paul, plain and simple. and you wonder why people are sick of it all? it seems pretty simple to me.
Have you seen Ironstayn vs Supergovernment yet?
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Politicians are not the ones in control. The multinationals are.
Does my bum look big in this?
I learn from Slashdot. Thank you slashdot.
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
(Paraphrased, as I don't have the exact copy on me)
If you live in a society where you can vote, do so. ..). Then do exactly the opposite.
If you cannot find someone to vote FOR, find someone you can vote AGAINST
If all else fails, ask the advice of a well-meaning fool (there is always one or two about.
I've found it to be a quite useful guide in confused times. .
Oh, and Katz makes an excellent well-meaning fool for the final method. . .
I look at it like this. You should vote. Regardless of what you feel about the candidates in the major election (this year, President). There are probably several local issues that your vote could help sway. Even if the way you vote doesn't turn out to be the winning choice, you have made your voice heard.
I am tired of hearing people complain about the way the system works or that the people in office are crooks, etc. The only way to change the system is to make your voice heard. Don't like any of the candidates. Vote against the one you hate most. Your state going to elect the guy you don't like for president? Vote for a 'third-party' candidate. Maybe that person will now get 5% of the vote and their party gets matching government funds.
Paraphrasing Heinlein, "If you make a choice, you may be wrong. If you don't make a choice, you will be wrong." Exercise your right to vote. Take some time to find out some of the issues for your area. Try to determine not only how the issue(s) will affect you now, but also how they will affect you in five, ten, and twenty years. Because unless it is declared unconstitutional (possible, but unlikely) or repealed (about as unlikely) the issues that are passed are likely to be around for a long time.
That's my political message for the day.
Eric Gearman
--
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
Much to my chagrin, I've got to agree with Katz on this one. This Deggan guy, although well meaning enough, is ignoring his civic duty and indirectly hurting us all. The name sounds Irish as well. Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm as strong a supporter of civil liberties as you can find. However...
I feel that democracy is essential to maintaining our rights and freedom. And if the citizenry does not take part in politics, (even if they do vote), then that is no democracy. That is why the attitude of Deggan and people like him is so harmful.
Now, we're not exactly knocking at the door of tyranny yet. But any careful observer, or casual reader of slashdot, will note that our freedom is under constant attack... and eroding steadily each day.
I sometimes think the Athenians had the right idea -- all citizens were required to vote! But in lieu of that, I must urge each of you to become aware of what's going on. Read many news sources. Chat it up with your neighbors. And for Tech's sake, vote!
On the one hand are the "greedy multinationals" and on the other are government-encouraged roving packs of jackals^h^h^h^h^h^h^h trial lawyers attempting to extract as much tribute from them as possible. It's like watching a wrasslin' match where someone forgot to book a good guy, so we're left with two evil ones.
he can block all stories with the "United States" logo
Looks like he'll miss his name immortalised by JK then. Isn't it a little mad posting an article (well, more a soapbox speech really) about whether you should be reading the same article. It reminds me of the phrase..
'If you notice this notice you will notice that this notice is not worth noticing'
Mind you, given the current state of US politics I don't doubt that some people try to block whatever is thrown at them. I'm not a US citizen and even I'm sick of the presidential rally.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
The problem with trying to care about politcs, especially the election campaign in the U.S., is the lack of meaningful, viable options and the total coruption of the system by corporate money and influence. The corporations own the government and the government still has the guns, so basically we are screwed. Denial is a common reaction to an overwhelming situation.
If you care whether or not this happens to you, care about politics. Likewise if you care whether or not this stuff happens to other people, care about politics.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The best way to put it is: If you don't care about the government, then the government won't care about you.
If you don't take the time to use the little bit of influence you have, the government's not going to bother doing anything to please you. Why should they care if they upset you, or even take away your freedoms, when you won't spend the time or the effort to let them know how you feel?
Sitting around complaining and doing little more doesn't change anything, it just makes you unhappier. And the fact is, it has a lot of effect on your life - even if you're not in the US. Don't believe me? The free market and capitalism sure didn't bring about this internet thing.
Oh, and if you're only concerned about the internet, technology, computers, and programming, then you're in trouble anyways.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I have a close relative with a Ph.D. in Political Science. He's constantly criticizing politics. When folks ask him why he studies something he hates so much.
His answer: He has friends at the Centers for Disease Control who have no liking at all for viruses or diseases, but find them nonetheless absolutely fascinating....
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
I guess I consider myself a Libertarian (I intend to vote for Harry Browne this election).
If any political viewpoint would be most likely to bring about Gibson's view of the future, I would have to admit that Libertarianism is it.
When the States and the People have their liberty restored there is a distinct possibility that some corporations might take advantage of the situation and begin to setup corporately-run city-states like in Neal Stephenson's Cyber-Parody "SnowCrash".
However, I do believe that Liberty is worth the risk. It is more important to me to live free than to have security.
I would rather have my tax money in my pocket to do with what I will than to "invest" in the crippled social security system.
Liberty is a risk. Do you feel that it is worth it?
However, those that are a bit more pessimistic view the whole process of government as pointless. I have been like that myself at times. We can't realy do anything to fix it, just like in our jobs, so we often want to leave to go somewhere else. I still think I will end up leaving the U.S. to move somewhere, I have a few ideas of places, but I am waiting a bit so I can see if improvements will be made in the U.S. The problem, and sites like slashdot particularly cater to the paranoid people when dealing with news, is that we hear the bad stuff more often than good. Honestly, I don't know if anything good is going on in the government right now, but from what I see and hear they are only sitting around wasting my tax money trying to find ways to take away more rights. Of course I am going to have a negative view towards politics, and since the majority of people in the U.S. seem to be content, nothing will happen to change it.
I think I fall within the standard point of view of slashdot readers. I can be enraged about some things such as laws like the DMCA, but when picking an elected official such as president, I am more apathetic. I am going to vote for Browne as I believe he is closest to what I believe to be right, but I know he won't win. It reminds me of a lyric: "Informed, but powerless."
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
If you sit back and do nothing, and give everyone else the freedom to do what they want, want happens? All those people who want to meddle and interfere and shove their solutions down *your* throat will be the ones who *will* participate and shove their solutions down *your* throat. Then *you* bitch about it.
What is wrong with this picture?
If you do not take responsibility for your life and your environment, political or otherwise, you become one of Kosh's pebbles ("The avalanche has begun, it is too late for the pebbles to vote" - B5)
The solution sadly, is not to isolate yourself in the cubicle or hole up in the hills. The solutions is to be involved, to grow your influence and power for the things you care about. This does not just include technology issues, but things like personal freedom, your friends and family, etc.
Anyhow, who am I to tell you what to do?
it is *only* your life ...
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Is it just me, or is it slowly getting more difficult to get hold of his books nowadays? All decent bookshops had his books in the Science Fiction Department a couple of years ago, even if it was just a few paperback Fridays.
My local Waterstones (a 4 story (HoHo) quite large bookshop) does not stock any of his books....Large newsagents no longer stock him...
Of course major online stores carry his books - people who use them like Heinlein, in general, but he is disappearing from meatspace (ugh - hate that word!) stores.
When I were your age, all round here were fields...
These are the very same violent games and movies watched and playd in Europe yet they don't have the real actual crime we do.
The only politician running and openly criticizing the multi-nationals is Nader. Unless you want to include Gore's rhetoric about not being in the corporate pocket which is coming from an environmentalist who helped stopped the required raise in CAFE standards and supports NAFTA and the WTO. Toss in the best friend of the insurance industry VP and we have a pretty lousy ticket for liberals.
Even if Nader is never to be heard from again, at least he's opened political discourse for millions of minds accross the nation with real plans to curb corporate power and their media control, which helps keep this issue, perhaps the biggest of our times, from serious discussion in the two major parties.
I am probably a bit naive, but the thing that makes we stand around in awe is that despite all of it problems, and all the great differences in people is the fact that democracy allows us to meet in a forum, curse, shout, call names, and after some time we emerge with a solution. Sometimes this solution makes us happy, and sometimes not, but what is truly amazing, is that the solution is something that we all can live with.
The thing that I detest is that politicians have not embraced technology and allowed it become a powerful tool of democracy. Instead, as what usually happens, is our leaders get in their respective office and do as they see fit, rarely asking the people what they would like after the election.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
people still read the bible and use the bible as valid material. Half of our laws in the US are based off the bible and the bible thumpers still outnumber the rest of us. Do not underestimate the power of any book, new or old.
OSDN should just start a political party (maybe with some kick ass music, the established political parties usually aren't fun) and find candidates to run for local elections... Given the choice between an idiot and an idiot who reads /. i'd vote for the /.er
Need a Catering Connection
True Democracy (Power to the people, for the people, by the people) is nonesence since this would require the people to be consulted on EVERY issue. That would make next to impossible!
As a result of this you get political parties that (alledgedly) represent the opinions of the people. The people then get to choose between the (two) parties once every 4/5 years and then realise that it's the same shit, except it smells slightly different!
Politicians are generally the liars who'd sell their own mothers to reach a position of power! They are the worst of ppl.
People should gain national office as result of merit, not the size of their campaign budgets or due to how well they use the media and the "sound bite"!
Personally, I'd prefer a military dictatorship! Atleast you know you're fscked as opposed to having the media and politicians telling you how "free" you are!
-- "To ask a question is to show ignorance; Not to ask a question means you'll remain ignorant."
Well said. EOD (End Of Discussion).
There are many ways to reinvent the system. One of the more interesting which receives very little attention is the Madisonian model of government. In it power is more closely held by the people, and each higher level of government is diminished in importance.
Under the Madisonian model, it is difficult for special interests and political parties to gain control the apparatus of government, which is exactly the problem we are facing today. The special interests with undue influence are the corporations wishing to trample on the rights of consumers. See the DMCA and the UCITA for perfect examples of how the centralization of power and the propogation of that power upwards in the political strata have corrupted a system once based on protecting the rights of the individual.
Our current political system is based upon the assumption that those elected to office are benevolent, but that ignores the truth of the corruptability of man. Faith in that very corruptability is what has made our free market economy a success, and the Madisonian model exploits that same weakness. It gives the lower rungs of government a built in incentive to want to hold on to as much power as they can, and not allow the centralized leaders to take over too much of it. So, power is decentralized and diffused so that the energy and resources needed to exert undue influence on the system becomes unreasonably large.
Read up on it. It's good.
If we all had apathy for politics, what would we care about?
If you are passive you have no voice. Do you think that someone will speak for you?
pronoblem
So, still, why should I care? As a professional programmer, I know that my skills will always be needed, and I will always be paid relatively well in a primarily capitalist economic system. The laws that Katz is talking about are irrelevant to my ability to earn a good living.
They want to save our children. That's the big issue. The 'values' of America. And we have to uphold them! Of course we do!
What white elderly millionare is going to save us for the next four years?
Gore and Lieberman don't know anything but censorship.
Bush is an idiot.
Do I care? Why should I? The electorial votes are already halfway given out. That means that if everyone in this country voted for Ralph Nader, he still wouldn't get the office. There aren't enough electorial votes left to let him come close.
I don't vote because I don't have a choice. I'm either fucked or really fucked, depending on your standpoint.
Obi
misterorange.com
It was created a long time ago. It is based on some really great ideas, but it also contains a lot of cruft and anachronisms unique to the time in which it was created. It has been surpassed by newer systems and should be redesigned from the ground up, but nobody can agree on what to keep and what to throw out. So, as a result, we keep chugging along with it and putting up with its shortcomings.
Consider:
1) The Electoral College is a throwback to a form of representative democracy born in an era when direct democracy was not technologically feasible. The notion that a person whom the majority of Americans hate could still become President because he won in three states should be quite troubling.
2) The Bill of Rights is in serious need of revision. Does anybody even pay any attention to the ninth and tenth amendments? Of course not. Legally, they are too vague and the government can't tell when it is violating them. As a result, they are ignored just as vague terms in a contract may be safely ignored by the parties. What about the third amendment? Quartering soldiers in peacetime? Does anyone really think this applicable to the 21st century?
Perhaps it's time to re-think the system. Keep what's good, but throw out the cruft and make it usable by average Americans without degrees in Constitutional Law.
If the lameness filter actually worked, would you even be reading this?
Multinationals do NOT dominate this world, or if they do, they only dominate to the extent that people willingly let them.
These oh-so-evil companies have no relevance in modern society, and very rarely do they impact our daily lives at all.
Politics and politicians have been held in disdain for thousands of years. Just go back to the writings of the ancient Greeks, or read Plato's account of Socrates trial. I don't think our freedoms and liberties are under any more risk now than they always have been. Technological changes occur and the world eventually adjusts to them in spite of politicians.
He keeps on bringing up Gibson as pointing out what could happen, but in Gibson's books there was never a stifling of innovation. If anything, there was something closer to an arms race a la US and Russia between corporations in the same market. What were the two companies that were battling... Ono Sendai and one other... there was some serious industrial espionage going on between the two corporations... with lots of innovation in order to get ahead.
Multi-national corporations will not smother innovation, nor will they become huge monolithic monopolies due to the science of things. In any large organization, whether it is a company, religion, application development, etc., there is always the pressure to fork. You *NIX nuts should know this the best. People always have different ideas about how something should progress. If you feel strongly enough, you fork. It doesn't matter what area you're in, that's the way large social groups function. Whether you're Lutheran-Catholic-Episcopalean-etc. or Pepsico-turned-Pepsi-and-"that food company" or just wait until Microsoft becomes Windows-Office-.NET-etc... at such a point, it becomes necessary for groups to splinter to solidify their ideas and receive funding. Look at Palm and 3COM... or Ma Bell, Lucent, and all of the Baby Bells...
Things will grow, band together under a common purpose, then splinter, reshuffle, and band together again. The whole thing is cyclical. In a capitalist society, there will always be competition, and when there is competition, there will be innovation. And as long as human beings are relied upon for innovation, there will always be worker's rights. Why? Because humans need incentive to work and to work well.
please take the surveys and use the candidate selction tools. Great fun and good info.
I had no idea you were a jelly donut (thats what Ich bin ein Berliner means.... if you wanna say you're from Berlin, say Ich bin Berliner)
Need a Catering Connection
If voting really changed anything, it would be illegal.
All we have in the US is nothing less than European style feudalism in suits, where power is passed down through lineage, just the way royalty would. (Note: Al Gore's dad was a US Senator, George W. Bush's dad was President).
This is a country run by sons of sons of sons of sons of Senators. A system run by the privilaged families whose birthrite seems to be political power. This isn't democracy. Voting is likened to a television show that appeases the masses, so they can pretend they have some sort of influence over government.
tnar
/*drunk.. fix later*/
niceFire.com - Humor and Lego's or Lego's and Humor or Some Combination of
Vote Libertarian. Stop all of the public-private partnerships. Get government back into the role of regulation and supervision, not profit-sharing.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Ugh. Is that asking for a flaming or what?
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.
Text is copyrighted 1973 by Robert A. Heinlein, from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" The latest edition was published in 1995 by Pomegranite books, and the ISBN number is: ISBN 0876544731
Humanity now enjoys the highest standard of living in its history. In what sense, then, have we been "ravaged" by corporations?
Cultures are dieing, they are being systematically attacked by the huge marketing machine that is big business. And is American.
- What happened to the "family farm" and the culture of the land?
- What happened to little town America?
- What happened to the statesman?
What is SO funny to me is the number of Time magazine articles about some small businesses success selling some small doo dad no one thought of. In each article it is painfully obvious to me that some person got sick of being fed mass produced crap, and decided to go his/her own way (snaple for instance). Time (and other popular media) are constantly amazed when someone "makes it" because they do something they want to do. Instead of something they are told to do (in adverts, on the TV, in shopping centers and WWF stadiums)It is replaced by the culture of the "Corporate Farm"
It is laughed at nightly on television, and if you come from a little town you'd better not admit it (bad for the career old boy).
They were run out of town by the politicians (it's politically expedient)
The culture of "GEEK" is sheik..... now. Wasn't long ago that "family values" were all the rage. Now family values are sneered at if you mention some values are important to you. It's as if you had contracted some disease. Remember this, a homogenous culture is much easier to sell to. A homogenous culture is easy to figure out and market to. Niche marketing is simply moving that niche to the mainstream, marginalizing it, and in the end destroying it.
Differences in culture makes for an interesting life, makes for different thought patterns and adds some spice (if I may so say, and I do)
Ah yeah, politics, pick your politician wisely, or else he will help pass laws to marginalize YOUR culture, and you will be part of the mainstream. Fear that!
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Let's look at a moment what the main political focus of Slashdot is. Corporate interests crowding personal freedom. Legislation against the internet and the online counterparts of our offline freedoms. Our ability to analize things, tinker with them, take them apart, given to us by the Fair Use doctorine is being taken away by the DMCA.
And which canidate is addressing these issues? Why, near as I can tell... None of them. They are focusing on Gay mariages, Military spending, Taxes.
Even Nader, ever touted here, is focusing on worker rights, and raising the minimum wage. The fact that those things go against corporations, and that that is needed to achive our ends is mere coincidence.
I'm voting Nader, but only because his goals happen to dovetail better to mine. I have yet to see ANY canidate run on a platform with a SINGLE geek inspired or supported plank. If geeks don't care, that would seem to be a major reason why.
Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
Our current political system is based upon the assumption that those elected to office are benevolent, but that ignores the truth of the corruptability of man.
And the more fundamental flaw of the gullibility of people. The willingness to believe what a person says even when their past record doesn't live up to it, because what they say sounds so good. The high number of people that fall victim to psychics, faith healers, and the like is proof of this - the lack of critical thinking most people have.
When they're so easily taken in by the small timers like this, of course the charismatic con-men that are attracted to power will gravitate to politics, because there they can get it. There they can get control over peoples' lives, over money, etc. (A few hundred years ago they went into religion, because they had a lot of power and control there. Some still do, but it doesn't have the importance it used to.)
Sometimes I think the flaw is that we have to vote for people who WANT into office - I worry that politicans are the worst people to run the country. (OK, second worst, behind religious leaders - but then again, they already run quite a bit *Cough*Pat Robertson*Cough*Christian Coalition*Cough*Republicans*Cough*.
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
So, yeah, I care enough, but I'm not going to roll in it like a dog does in a carcass.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I plan to do my civic duty next week, but I'm having problems deciding. I'm told that Gore is a better choice for technologists, but I really don't think I can stand for his feelings on affirmative action and other non-merit based systems. Bush appeals to me more on those lines, but his tax plan is absolute crap, and as a student, I'm not rich (yet).
Can anyone point me in the direction of some better reading?
Thanks,
Captain_Frisk
Well, the popular vote determines how the electoral college votes (each state has a number of votes equal to the number of senators + the number of representatives in the electoral college). Different states have different rules. You are actually voting for representatives to the electoral college. If nobody gets elected on the first round, some states allow the representatives to change their votes. Some states allow the votes to be split. etc.
The problem is that there isn't a single candidate that is worth voting for. And most of them are worth voting against. I think if there were a none-of-the-above, that's who would win this time.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The chowder-heads that make it to the heights of our national offices are ones that started their careers at the local level; city, county and then state. It is at this local level where we, as concerned and informed citizens, have the most power to affect the future. If individuals at the local level are not checked, it's too late to do so by the time they get to the national level (in fact, IMHO, it's too late by the time they get to the city level ).
For this to work well, a good cross-section of every city must vote, and vote smartly. This involves much time in investigation; reading-between-the-lines of local newspapers and understanding these sources' biases. Gathering information about prospective individuals running for local offices, such as how well and in what manner did they attend their training and/or schooling. What are their philosophy and beliefs. Not everyone is willing to spend this amount of time to be informed citizens, but it becomes a necessity, especially in light of the crop of individuals/groups that have been at the national level for so long.
Guyote was here.....
Ich bin die Maus, die gegen die Laus kämpft. ein rumpledidledee, ein rumpledidledoo. Hoho Yo und eine Flasche Rumdumriddleyhoo.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Um, because the popular vote in the various states determines the compositon of the Electoral College. The largely hypothetical objection that the winner of a plurality in the nationwide popular vote could fail to have a majority in the Electoral College is no reason not to vote to determine who your state's electors will be.
Faith in that very corruptability is what has made our free market economy a success, and the Madisonian model exploits that same weakness. It gives the lower rungs of government a built in incentive to want to hold on to as much power as they can, and not allow the centralized leaders to take over too much of it. So, power is decentralized and diffused so that the energy and resources needed to exert undue influence on the system becomes unreasonably large.
So the different pieces of the government are constantly battling each other over power, which leaves them to little time to actually do something useful. Which will require the country to have a second government to actually govern things, lest some behind the screens topman/woman actually takes over...Sound like fun, where can I sign up?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
...that the people who you seem to be reaching out too will not read this article, for they have already filtered out all stories that have to do with politcs or Katz.
That's what's so depressing....
If only Madison had played some role in drafting America's constitution. I wonder what color the sky would be in that world.
It hasn't work so far (DMCA, COPA, COPPA, etc, etc), what makes you think it is suddenly going to start working?
Sometimes I don't think we are any smarter than slow-boiled frogs...
Shut up, be happy. The conveniences you demanded are now mandatory. -- Jello Biafra
Yes, I completely agree with this sentiment. I have promised myself that from now on I will vote in every local, state, and national election. And I will NEVER AGAIN vote for a Democrat or Republican candidate. I will vote in this order of preference: Green, Independent, Libertarian.
What's wrong with this country is not "Liberal" or "Conservative" philosophy, but entrenched power locked in place for our representatives by multinational corporate power through media management and campaign contributions. The whole system is completely corrupt.
I've protested. I've sent letters (snail-mail) to my representatives. I've voted (though I missed '96). Frankly, no matter what I do I feel completely unrepresented as a constituency and citizen by those in political power. I'm at my wits end here. I'm a pacifist, so no black bloc activity for me.
So, some of my friends tell me that if I don't like it here I ought to leave; these folks are somewhat nationalist. You know, I'm seriously considering emigrating from the United States and removing my taxes from the US revenue base. Maybe they're right! It's the only protest I can think of left to do. If a few tens of thousands of well paid geeks up and blew out of here that would make a real dent on the tax base. A few hundred million anyway. Money is something I know these politicians understand.
I don't mind paying taxes. I'll pay taxes for education, health care, supporting the elderly, safety regulators, defending our borders, etc. But I'M SICK OF PAYING TAXES FOR INTEREST ON OUR NATIONAL DEBT!. I'm sick of paying taxes for ridiculous "defense" systems like SDI, which clearly can't work and serves only as a money funnel to defense contractors. Look at the Bush tax cut: forget how it's spread to benefit mostly wealthy tax payers, and instead consider the rationality of dumping a trillion dollars into our economy at the same time the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates. The Fed doesn't want to stimulate the economy... they're trying to control inflation at the same time the Republicans promote a highly inflationary tax cut, which WILL NOT PAY DOWN THE DEBT! The Democrats are no better... just look at the crap Gore promotes.
Maybe it is time to blow the hell out of this country.
and say so little. Actually my only complaint is your constant assertion that everything was invented in the last twenty years. Norman Spinrad, Robert Silverberg, Harlan Ellison, and many others were all writing about cyberspace in the 50's and 60's. As for the world view your talking about, that can be traced back to Orwell, Huxley and Wells. While admittedly, future vision is much more accurate in detail when you only look 3 years in the future as opposed to a hundred years, the framework remains the same. The other problem with Gibson and cyberspace is, though he is a great writer, he doesn't know a thing about computers, how they work, and how people interface with them. I would be willing to guess that he has never owned one.
You may not care about politics, but it cares about you. Ignoring government doesn't mean it goes away, it just means you have no chance to influence what it's doing. If you don't want to wake up one day to discover that your 'leaders' have upped your taxes, trampled on your rights, or generally made your life miserable by some new action of the nanny state (we don't think you really need that SUV, citizen), then you ought to be following politics closely. And not just as a passive observer; politics isn't a football game. Write letters to your representatives. They actually do read them and will modify their behavior on a surprisingly small number of letters or calls. They know that for every one they get, there are thousands of people who feel the same way, so you can have tremendous leverage. If you really want to see a politician take notice, get a dozen or two people together and all of you write or call on the same topic.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
What reason does a legislative body have to act in the nation's best interests when the nation doesn't care what they do?
What better way to say "I don't care what legislators do to the Internet" is there than to forefit your one quantifiable method of influencing who makes the decisions?
Try this at home. Tell somebody, "I really could care less what you do!" See if they act in your best interests.
America will remain a free country so long as it retains a participatory government. Lose the participation, and you'll be left with a corpocracy, or worse.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
The mutual alienation that exists between technological and political cultures very well suits politicians, and the corporate money that funds most politicians. That way, we stand passively by while the politicians pass laws aimed at funneling more money into corporate coffers, laws that increasingly infringe on our technical rights. Even though many who vote may be frequent users of technology in one way or another, those most likely to see the true impact of these laws are also those who feel most alienated from the strange political culture in Washington, a culture which simply doesn't "get it" when it comes to relevant technical issues. So, the point is, regardless of how irrelevant politics may seem, the decisions reached in Washington are going to effect all of us to a greater and greater extent as time goes on. If the political dances of the mainstream parties makes you sick, then get in there and change it. Voting is the biggest part of making this change, but i think that a lot of people will need to take more of an activist role in order to convince the voting public that there are other ways. Things do not have to be like they are. Somewhere in their brains, people know this, but the status quo is powerful.
"That government is best which governs least."
Personally, I want it harder for government to affect my daily life.
Politics is only one way of organizing society. You can also organize society by using private property, and allowing people to trade amongst themselves. This works just peachy as long as private property rights are secure. People can plan, they can freely associate with others, they can refuse to accommodate uncooperative people, and they can get the full benefit of their activities.
In a political system, anything you do benefits everyone, but the full costs fall on you. THAT is why so many people are uninterested in politics. And that is why you have to watch out for political solutions -- because people who take an interest in politics usually do so because they intend to use the political process against other people.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Perhaps Katz's pal will understand it better this way.
"Politics" (a word that is rather lazily thrown about these pages) are really about Power. Geeks should understand this because we are also into Power. We see something that we like, think is cool, want to use, etc, and we fusk with it. We make it do cool things. We wield command over the tools in our dominion. And the users in our domains, incidently.
Politicians have been doing this with the world for the lifetime of human social interaction. They're much better practiced at doing that in their realm than we are in ours. They're powerful. We have servers and cell phones and /. There are defininte differences between "us" and "them" but one thing must be clear--you are a "political" animal.
My point is just that they are powerful, and thus often judged. We should understand about power, becuase geeks do have a relationship with power. So think about that before you hold in comtempt a politician for being a politician.
You do not get to live your life independent of society, obviously, and by virtue of your living you are involved, you are therefore politically engaged. In other words, you are a part of the American political landscape even if you choose to "not act."
Inaction is action, as anyone who has read about Buddhism will readily tell you. I never thought about that much before I read into Buddhism, and it seems that Heinlein also notes this (see above). Not that Heinlein should be our guiding, light, frankly I think the man was a sexist pig. But who cares about this.
So what is really happening here is that Deggan doesn't like the politicians that he encounters. He therefore equates "politics" with poor thinking or wrong action (akusala action, to keep with my buddhist theme) and discards it as below his station.
If we do this, we commit a grevious error and we will loose the power that we have wrought for ourselves. We must be aware of the fact that if we do not concern ourselves with the stuggle for power, what power we have could be taken from us. This may be done financially, politically, etc. They can't out tech us, for sure, but we're not immune to our sociopolitical landscape.
That said, vote Nader.
Or Bush, if you really feel he'll be less inclined to regulate free speech on teh web, which has been mentioned on /.
Or Gore if you don't want to "throw away" your vote by voting for Nader.
Or don't vote, but know that you cast a vote by not voting.
_________________________________________________ Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
You bet your silly ass politics are important.
When I was in High School, it was mandatory for all students to read "Romeo and Juliet." The funny thing is, we were never required to read the "Constitution of the United States of America."
Sure, we had to know the basic concepts of the "Bill of Rights." But the Contitution, and all that it means was never something that our teachers seemed interested in getting students to understand.
There is a "Vast Politician Conspiracy" out there to try to get Americans to forget the constitution. We have allowed our politicians to deceive us into giving them more power than the Constitution allows.
Think about this: If Social Security is such a great system, why don't the members of Congress take part? Why should they be exempt from Social Security so that they can take part in a seperate retirement plan that will guarantee them the same salary they are making on Capitol Hill once they have retired?
We must take back control of this Nation from those whose interest in governing is only the advancement of their own power.
If you allow the government to violate the limits of the constitution to finance just one "Government Program" that does a lot of good, you open the door for an ever-increasing government system that will legislate away every right guaranteed by the constitution.
If you allow Congress to pass laws that will remove the right to bear arms, what will stop them from passing laws that remove your right to peacefully assemble? Nazi Germany revoked the rights of it's citizens to arm themselves in the early 1930's... this left Germany's Jewish, Gypsy and Homosexual populations without the means to defend themselves against government aggression.
If you think that this "can't happen in the USA" just remember, in 1930 no one in Germany (except those in power) could have conceived of the Holocaust either.
Stop the advance of Government. VOTE ACCORDING TO YOUR CONCIENCE NOT JUST FOR THE "LESSER OF TWO EVILS."
"If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you."
That's the smartest thing to come out of Ralph Nader's mouth in oh, 25 years. Nader is a great guy, but not presidential material and he doesn't have a chance, but he tells it like it is. Don't vote for him this year, he doesn't want your vote, he wants you to think. Not about intellectual property or income taxes, but your own life. So do it. Put your vote in the place that will get what you want. Forget about Open Source and Linux and DeCSS and the DMCA for five minutes and think about real people. Dubya has killed almost 150 people in Texas. How many have been killed by the MPAA? This election isn't about "Geek" issues, it's about people, and people will benefit from a president who isn't a murderer, isn't an idiot, isn't an addict, and is willing to protect the freedoms that count. You can have my fucking MP3s, you can shutdown Napster, you can block DeCSS, I don't need them. But give me liberty, the right to walk down the streets and say what I want, to not live in fear of violence, to not have my life cut short by the air I breathe or the water I drink, to make my own decisions about my health and my body, to do some good around the world. Get out there, vote. I won't tell you who to vote for here, but I will tell you who I am voting for. Politics is a game, and I'm putting my voice behind the blue square. I don't love Al Gore, but he will speak for me, for my rights, my freedoms. The country is changing, don't let it revert to what it was.
Stop Bush 2000
GW Bush.com
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
Cyberpunk is fun to read. I don't want to live it.
I think it's time we got up and started doing something about how this political mess is going. If we don't, who will?
-----------------------------
1,2,3,4 Moderation has to Go!
It doesn't matter whether or not people should care. They don't. And won't unless something really bad happens (i.e. global depression or Martian invasion).
So, apathy is a symptom of a healthy society and economy.
Go ahead and refuse to vote. More votes for Guandunh, conqueror of worlds. All hail Guandunh!
www.ridiculopathy.com
I don't thinki techies are inherently indifferent. I think what you are seeing is due to the dominance of tech by younger people, who tend to be indifferent. I paid no attention to politics in my twenties, but as I got older, that changed. Now, I'm a politics junkie. My guess is that when you get married, have a family, and get some money in the bank, your outlook changes. You begin to realize that governmental action has an impact on your life, and you start paying attention. This is a generality, and I'm sure there are people who don't fit, but this is what I've observed.
Politics can't be ignored. Even these greedy multinational companies use politics to deal with each other. Their politics are slowly but surely supplanting national/international politics. It will take a long time for that to happen completely, if ever. Politics are part of human nature and probably always will be. Once VR really takes off we'll be seeing virtual politics. So we're stuck with politics because that's just how humans focus power and deal with other focuses of power.
This is an urban legend. The indefinite article with a noun indicating profession, nationality, etc. means the word is being used figuratively or to indicate a characteristic quality. (Example: "Er ist Politiker" == "He's a politician"; "Er ist ein Politiker" == roughly, "He's such a politician".) See also Snopes.
It's fascinating to me to read some of these articles about the world Katz lives in, which bears so little resemblence to the world I live in. It's almost like he's describing an alien place.
Jon, the reason no one cares about politics right now is not because of any sense of corporate powerlessness, it's because life is too good! Unemployment is incredible low, salaries are high, and so people have to find issues to whine about (that being human nature).
When the inevitable downturn comes, people will become interested in politics again, and these "pseudo-issues" that grace the frontpage of Slashdot will fade away.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
If you live in the US, over half of your income is taxed.
That means that if you work a 40 hour week, over 20 hours of your time is spent generating money for other people to spend.
Politics is about deciding how to spend YOUR money.
You have no other expense that remotely compares; not your house, not your car, not your broadband connection, not your caffeine or nicotine habit; nothing.
I don't know about you, but it seems obvious to me that one should care about how half of one's income is spent.
-
Hell, I am Canadian and I am more worried about the US elections than our own Federal government elections coming up in late November (Canadian Alliance vs Liberals - can't trust either one!)
I many ways I like Gore, and Bush sometimes seems more sincere (or he is an incredible actor).
But I know that the US elections matter more to us Canadian than our own... in the long-run, it's the US that influences the Canadian government. Hell... even Greenspan has control over CANADIAN interest rates! (with a bit of lag of course)
This is why ALL americans should vote. You must realize that your vote not only affects you locally but the world in general. The more diverse the voting population, the more accurate the outcome (or so the theory goes).
Vote early, vote offen!
Cd
---
This
Take a look at http://votenader.org or http://www.gp.org/platform_index.htm/a& gt;
suffering from pronoia
Politics is about compromise, which is to many in geek culture a dirty word. But it's how people are able to get along, coexist, and move forward together. Human interaction is not binary. There are seldom yes or no answers. Even in programming and high-technology, there are countless arguments about trade-offs (RAMBUS/DDR, Mac/PC, Dreamcast/PS2, etc.).
Politics is not pretty. It doesn't always (or even often) produce the best leaders. However, it's a very complicated thing to get the majority of any group to agree on something and act on it.
By saying that new technology profoundly changes politics, or that it should profoundly change politics, people are essentially saying, "I want a technology solution to a human issue." They want clarity in a world that is fundamentally fuzzy.
It's not that simple - it never has been and never will be. Relationships, between two people or two hundred million, take hard work.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I didn't want to vote. I felt like democracy was playing a giant joke. I could have nominated myself, but would have had to pay a big deposit for doing so which, inevitably, with only one vote, I'd have lost. I tried to avoid being registered (which is illegal, voter registration is compulsory in Britain even though voting itself isn't.) but wasn't able to get out of it. I was sorely tempted not to turn up to the ballot, but felt that was wrong.
In the end I voted for a third party (Britain's Liberal Democrats, which are a pro-liberty semi-socialist group.) Part of this was that the Lib Dems, while having no hope of winning the election, were in the end the closest thing to a party that represented my views. The risk of the Conservatives winning again because "my vote" went to a third party wasn't an issue - I knew full well that Labour were no better. And when it came to the crunch, Labour's first acts in government included abolishing student financial support at zero notice (something that might have worked given 10 years notice so that parents could save towards college funds, but at no notice was a disaster), and very little I could relate to as being better than the Conservative policies of the time.
Insofar as my vote had an effect, it help keep the Lib Dems from disappearing off the political map. That meant they could at least negotiate with the existing big parties and have a say in government. Recent revelations suggest that the Lib Dems might even be being taken seriously by the ruling Labour party to the extent of that they may be invited to participate in government - an apparently bizarre idea until you realise the extent to which Labour's traditional support base has been frozen out of that party, and that Labour at least has to show that when in power, the left have some voice in government (though it risks alienating party loyalists.)
I guess everyone has to ask themselves a number of questions. What do they stand for? Who stands for them? And the technical, political, question: would voting for the party or politician who most closely represents your values put those values closer to government, or risk removing them entirely?
Over here, I'd have problems. Gore and Bush are both contemptable, Gore being, to me, the lesser of two evils (Bush's gloating over his executions and the contemptable justification he gives for going ahead when there's reasonable doubt in a death penalty case push him over the edge into the realms of the extreme and dangerous, whereas Gore's just a slimy right winger, relying on the fact that the left have nobody else to vote for.)
I don't know if I could vote for Gore. But I also know that voting for an opponent, be it Browne or Reynolds or even Nader, all three of whom hold values closer to my own, would risk putting Bush in power. Other people reading this might feel the same way from an alternative viewpoint, prefering Browne over Bush but feeling that Gore would push the country further away from Browne's PoV than Bush would.
How do you move the country closer to your own values? Do you vote for the candidate that will move it away from those values the least? Would voting for a non-mainstream party result in a winner moving towards your viewpoint, or further away from them?
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"Should I care about politics?"
Need you even ask?! Of course you should. Politics effects every facet of your life, and you can either take control of it or let it run right over you.
As I said in the first article, the alternative to politics is a system where someone puts a gun to your head and makes all choices for you. That's not the kind of system I want, and I'd imagine that Mr. Katz would have some objections to it himeself. Yeah, politics is a dirty business, but it's the only way to preserve individual liberty.
Many of the problems of the Slashdot-reading community are political, just not in the way people think.
One of the first criticisms levelled against Christianity was that it was too apolitical and that brought about the fall of the Roman Empire. To be honest, that's not an entirely inaccurate statement. We need to learn from that criticism. If we allow ourselves to get suckered into this notion that our vote doesn't matter, then we sign away the essential freedoms that we take for granted today. We're all effected by politics, so it is imperative that we take control of it.
You may argue that the two major party candidates don't represent you. Still, that doesn't mean that your vote is worthless. A vote for a third-party candidate will be noticed. (Believe me, I work for one of the major political parties and we're watching the Nader movement very closely.) You have the opportunity not only to pick a president, but others who can represent your special interests.
It's simple - either work with the system to enact positive change or allow yourself to be steamrolled by it. You may dislike politics, but you have the power to change it - don't let those who would want you to sacrifice that freedom convince you otherwise.
One of our Leading U.S. Presidential Candidates thinks burning more natural gas and less oil is going to help with global warming, apparently not realizing that both are hydrocarbons and put the same amount of C02 in the atmosphere.
Your mission -- find out which one. (Hint, he's affiliated with the oil industry)
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
Personally, I want it harder for government to affect my daily life.
Disclaimer: the following is a personal opinion, if you do not agree, feel free to bother somebody else about it.
If you can't beat them, make them hire you?
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
They pay this guy to write this stuff?
Cmon Katzy... just quit and go live on a mountain side or something. Talk to your fifteen cats about the geek lifestyle, they'll listen.
And I will NEVER AGAIN vote for a Democrat or Republican candidate.
Thats nice, but what if you ONLY have one choice? In PA for example, for one office, the ONLY choice was republican. Not even a democrate was offered...what is one to do then?
There are two factors which would make living in a soit-disant democracy palatable and indeed achievable:
Representation by conscription and
Universality of hegemony.
The representatives we end up electing are usually our answers to Who will do the least damage to me . The best of the worst. The old saw goes: People who want office should be barred from it. They are either greedy, venial and will extract the most advantage from our pockets or they're masochists and not representative either. In the large part we are neither thieves or fools ruled by cupidity or stupidity.
Picking names out of phone books every four years would get us a real democracy and eliminate the incredibly expensive gathering of favors by those who want your vote and which will have to be repaid (out of your pockets) that happens every four years and results in some change of names, but not agendas.
Universality of hegemony would be truly devastating to the entrenched who stuff ballot boxes either crudely, a la Milosevich or with goodies that they don't deliver a la Read my lips: No new Taxes.
It means that just because you happen to be somewhere, doesn't mean that you get your services from and pay your taxes to the local authority. If you're willing to live with Sweden's taxes in order to get their health care, you don't have to put up with the Swedes to do it.
Hate your local demagogue? Why not deprive him (or her,) of your taxes and be under the wing/rule of someone you do appreciate?
The odds of this actually coming to pass are nil, none and fuggedaboudid. And we have pathetic voter turnouts as a result.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
As Katz is quick to point out, too many techies labor in an insular world which they believe orbits safely above the murky venacular of partisan politics. Such assumptions are delusional, at best.
Gore and Bush may not know what ICANN does, what reverse-engineering means, or the impact upon fair-use of anti-circumvention clauses. However, such topics have not escaped the attention of Microsoft and AOL-Time Warner and their legion of lawyers and lobbyists.
For example, look at UCITA (in Maryland and Virginia) and the DMCA. While some geeks chose to roll their eyes in disgust at the failure of government institutions and representatives to grasp the fundamentals of IP, the corporations (who essentially authored these provisions) rammed the obtuse and and over-reaching documents into law.
I can only think of a fistful of instances where geeks have taken to the streets to protest legislation that threatens their freedom and livelihood.
To appropriate a favorite phrase of Mr. Nader:
If you don't turn on to politics, politics will turn on you.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Insects and Grafitti Photos
Sure, we like to say that all mega-corp.'s are evil entities that want to exploit the masses but one must remember that their is competition among these giants; Competition that could drive them to be better cleaner nicer companies.
As an outsider it appears that government regulations do not curb these beasts as much as public opinion.
Cosmetic companies stop using animals to test only because that cute sticker sells more shampoo and mcDonald's doesn't use styrofoam because the hippie freaks would protest and drive away business.
We like to think this country is a democracy that listens to the public where the reality is that this is a republic that listens to the lobbies.
At least the corporations listen to their customers and that is thier weakness.
A boycott is more effective against corporations than elections are for politicians (they end up as lobbyists).
I hear so many people whine on a day-to-day basis about how they have to vote for either a republican or a democrat to avoid throwing their vote away. Bullcrap. Do a little math... Voting for a republican or a democrat isn't going to swing the vote one way or the next. On the order of tens of millions of people will vote for each of Gore and Bush, and your singular vote will not sway either of these. But that's not what voting is about, one person's vote has never determined the next president. Put your vote where it will be useful, and make a statement about how you want your government to be run. Find a third party candidate who supports how YOU feel your government should be run, and cast your vote for them.
The majority of the people I know want a third party candidate to win, and the majority of those people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate for the above stated irrational fears. Well I have news for you that does matter; if everyone who wanted a third party candidate to win had the courage to vote by their heart, we would have a strong government by the people. Instead, we have a situation where the majority of the U.S. population votes like sheep, and we keep putting the same criminals back in office. Wake up and stand up, people!
Please find out what you're really voting for before you do: www.issues2000.org
I hear so many people whine on a day-to-day basis about how they have to vote for either a republican or a democrat to avoid throwing their vote away. Bullcrap. Do a little math... Voting for a republican or a democrat isn't going to swing the vote one way or the next. On the order of tens of millions of people will vote for each of Gore and Bush, and your singular vote will not sway either of these. But that's not what voting is about, one person's vote has never determined the next president. Put your vote where it will be useful, and make a statement about how you want your government to be run. Find a third party candidate who supports how YOU feel your government should be run, and cast your vote for them.
The majority of the people I know want a third party candidate to win, and the majority of those people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate for the above stated irrational fears. Well I have news for you that does matter; if everyone who wanted a third party candidate to win had the courage to vote by their heart, we would have a strong government by the people. Instead, we have a situation where the majority of the U.S. population votes like sheep, and we keep putting the same criminals back in office. Wake up and stand up, people!
Please find out what you're really voting for before you do: www.issues2000.org
The truth is, technology and politics are no longer separable. Almost every citizen, from the hapless buyer trying to get tech support to the parent eliminating a potentially retarded embryo has to deal with technology, even though we don't have any national philosophy of technology and it almost never surfaces directly as an issue in our political system.
Jon, the anarchists (Zerzan and the Unabomber being only the latest examples) have known this "revelation" for over a century.
Whether the folks here want to admit it or not, technology by its very nature perpetuates the class systems that have ruled humanity since the first Sumerian bean counter decided it would be cool to charge rent for grain storage.
The question of whether politics and technology are separable can only be raised by someone who categorically refuses to understand the effects of their life here on Gaia. The person of which you spoke is such an individual, and if he is, as you imply, representative of the sector I work in--and I fear that he is--then I *need* to find another line of work.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
If you don't take the time to use the little bit of influence you have...
Exactly. The problem with politics is the force of your influence. If I am voicing my opinion to a local government, my influence has some decent power. If I'm at a state gov't, my voice has a little power. At the national level, my voice has little or no power whatsoever significant. To make your voice be heard in large government, there has got to be more than one of you. Period. If you can't say it as a group, there's no point in saying it (in large gov't).
Hence, this is my apathy towards national politics. Do I have an opinion? Yes. Would I like it to be heard? Yes. However, there is no medium for my voice to gain the appropriate recognition (unless I join a group of some sort and adopt their ideals and politics, something I abhor) and so my disinterest increases.
Government is just a game, you are but a chesspiece.
Blog,Twitter
But I'M SICK OF PAYING TAXES FOR INTEREST ON OUR NATIONAL DEBT!
well, maybe our taxes wouldn't be so high if MS and other would pay its fair share. Yes, a billion IS fair share for one that makes billions.
Don't you get it? Because of the iron-fisted rule of the evil corporations, I only have a $2,000 PC instead of a $5,000 one. I don't know what "highest standard of living" utopia you live in, but my television screen is a tiny 19 inches corner to corner. I don't have a home theater system; just a cheapie $199.99 DVD player attached to some old speakers. I'm lucky if I get to eat out once a week.
Capitalism has failed. Any system that can only provide me a six year-old car, and my wife an eight year-old car, is broken. My dishwasher makes a funny rattling noise when I run it. My central air heating/air conditioning unit will have to be replaced in the next five years. This is not a society, my friend. This is a scarred, blackened, Hellish wasteland. How we have survived this long is truly a testimony to the human spirit.
IT is time for the common man to revolt. No longer should most of us have to put up with measely 56K connections and 50-channel basic cable. That computer I mentioned earlier? A Packard Bell. That's right. With an S3 Virge video card.
Indeed, this is truly one million times worse than the Blade Runner future horror we have all feared. DAMN YOU, MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
The power of multinationals comes from their ability to convince consumers to use their products and services.
Wal-Mart does not destroy local economies. Local shoppers make the choice to avail themselves of the convenience and selection of these mega stores. Local shops suffer. Is it a conspiracy or just the choice that consumers make?
McDonalds success merely proves that many consumers choose convenience and consistency over taste.
Barnes & Noble shows that consumers want a large selection of material over the atmosphere of a mom and pop bookstore.
If multinationals are a threat, their power doesn't come from technology. The power is contained in the consumer's wallet. You have the choice to keep it in your pocket.
What's wrong with this country is not "Liberal" or "Conservative" philosophy, but entrenched power locked in place for our representatives by multinational corporate power through media management and campaign contributions. The whole system is completely corrupt.
The entrenched two-party system that offers false alternatives between "liberal" and "conservative" is what's hurting this country. The republicrats rig the elections to shut out any other voices. They raise the requirements of ballot access when the Libertarians or Greens get on it; they shut non-Republicrats out of debates big and small.
What is "conservative?" By definition, and practice, it's the liberalism of the past. Or as Bob Dole said, "we have to stop this system where the democrats propose a bill, we vote it down and then phase it in over three years." The real choice is between freedom and non-freedom (slavery; corporate control; collectivism; big brother -- call it what you like). The problem with the two main parties as they they are always for non-freedom. Whatever they do tends to increase the power of government over our lives. Or it deputizes coporations to take on government duties (like tax collection). Vote for a party that things less government means more freedom, not one that thinks more government control is more freedom.
It's not the economy, stupid; it's not for the children; it's freedom! Vote for freedom!
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Jon, what a poor choice of words in the above statement. In fact, technology does surface in political discourse, but the example that you used about reproductive choice is driven mostly about ideas about morality (God, embryo/fetus viability) not technology per se.
If we, as the people are divided, then how CAN our legislators be united on this issue?
This is another view of the world.
Until then, I'll spend all the extra free time I have from not voting doing something more important.
-cibrPLUR
Liberal liberal, blah blah blah. Corporations are evil, blah blah blah. Shut up Katz.
1) Your vote *does* matter. One person *can* make a difference in this society. It just takes a realization of that fact.
2) If you don't vote, you have no right to complain about what the government has done/is doing to this society.
3) These people, whether you like them or not, have the power to pass laws restricting or granting freedom, depending on what their political beliefs are.
DISCLAIMER : I was raised in a Republican/Southern Baptist home. The only thing I have in common with my family is extremely conservative political beliefs. I'm a card carrying Libertarian, who votes Libertarian for the vast majority of spots on the ballot. Would I vote for Harry Browne? Yes. Will I? Probably not. Dubya stands a better chance of winning, and I like the vast majority of his proposals.
the unbeliever
aim:dasubergeek99
yahoo!:blackrose91
ICQ:1741281
So you're fed up with the two major parties. I agree. They completely suck, they're corporate whores, etc. Don't vote for them, they don't represent your ideas and beliefs, they don't need your vote.
But you know why your vote matters? Third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens, (Reform party if you're crazy) appear on ballots in different states based on the number of votes they got in the last election. So if one of them represents your beliefs, vote for them. Then in the next election, it hopefully won't take 30000 signatures to get your favored candidate on the ballot.
Don't believe the media's insistence that there are 2 candidates. There are 6 parties on my ballot for president. Republican, Democrat, and then the ones that matter: Libertarian, Green, Reform, and Constitution. Is your local ballot like that? Shouldn't it be? There are far, far more people than this running for president however. There are always at least a couple hundred people running for president. I'm sure the UFO party's candidate would appreciate your vote. I am sure that there is someone who represents you who's running. You just can't depend on the media to tell you who.
At the same time the left castigates corporations as ever-more-evil, our jobs are better than ever.
...
Here in Silicon Valley, many companies serve lunch every day, have food in the lunch-room for breakfast and dinner and snacks. Pete's coffee is almost a requirement. Oracle and other big companies have fantastic cafeterias with very low prices.
The fastest-growing big companies treat people better than any previous generation: stock options, maternity leave, great benefits,
I don't know about Microsoft, but Oracle (a company which I consider much sleazier than MS) treats its people very well.
None of this happened because of leftists agitating. It happened because we became wealthy, and people are now in short supply. It hasn't happened everywhere nor for all talents, but it will.
This line of argument is ideology -- dissociated from actual fact and experience.
How, at the beginning of the 21st century, with the historical landscape littered with 100+M dead from 20th ideological disasters, can we believe that 'idealism' is so wonderful?
How can idiots like Jon Katz continue to be published in engineering-oriented publications like this? Do engineers forget their solid-theory, pragmatic views when they consider politics?
Lew Glendenning
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
You could always add a write-in, even a bogus one simply to reduce the percentage of votes garnered by the winner.
Or, for next time, try to persuade somebody else to run if there is somebody whom you think deserves the seat (or at least, more so than anybody else who's liable to run)...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Governments. Governments are the ones with the armies (for now at least) so they do have ultimate say. Corporations exist only as they are recognized by governmental bodies.
Do you think that nobody wants to shake things up and redistribute power? Check out Harry Browne and Ralph Nader.
(heard on a Nader TV talk-show appearance) :
"If you don't take an interest in politics, politics will take an interest in you."
This issue of a world controlled by a few megacorps that Katz talks about is the reason I'm voting for Nader, because as far as I can tell both Gore and Bush are running on the Corporatism party ticket (even though there are many differences between them, mostly who to tax and who to spend it on, but I digress...).
I do not believe voting for Nader is throwing away my vote. First of all, just because your candidate doesn't win, doesn't mean you throw away your vote. As I said before, elections are not horse races; you are not there to predict the winner, but to make an informed vote, and to vote your conscience. Also, voting for Nader is building up the Green party which addresses a number of important issues the top two parties are not talking about. A large showing for that party increases its visibility in future elections.
The same is true for other third parties for that matter (as I know a lot of libertarians read this site, and your issues will be different than mine. I see a lot of libertarians running on the local (WA) tickets; good work...)
Since becoming the age of voting I have always felt the politics was only picking the lesser of two evils, being limited in my political choices, and a feeling of pointlessness in voiting since the electoral college decides who is our figure head anyhow, but with all of these issues of the government sticking their nose into the internet and issues dealing with free speech, it has become apparent that I DO need to vote. I only have positive things to say about this article. It raises awareness that we as netizens generally lack. Despite the limited control I have on this nation, I need to exert as much control as I am given to attempt to make a difference. I for one do not want to have my future children growing up in a world where the internet is taxed and freedom of speech and expression is limited online. Okay that is all :)
Please. Jon Katz, do you believe that what you are writing is relevant outside of a small group of naive geeks who have never seen beyond a suburban home or a dorm room? I would halfway consider your sincerity if you ever worked on anything besides advancing a journalism career that ends you up in Time Magazine more than anywhere else. When there are protests or movements to organize, neither slashdot nor jon katz appear to be willing to put themselves on the line. I guess that has to do with a certain corporate ownership, huh. Anyway. As Jon Katz pleads with Time and Newsweek to do one more introspective piece on columbine, the independent media movement will be doing exactly what slashdot and katz claim to be doing.
Independent Media Center
SF Bay Area IMC
bjord.org
news from the revolution
a highly inflationary tax cut,
Now that is an interesting state of affairs. Letting citizens keep their own money is inflationary. He have to take it away via taxes to "save the economy" from the ravages of inflation. Has anyone stopped to think that inflation exists because of hte federal reserve? Inflation is actually devaluation of the currency, and is a consequence of there being "too much money" available. Of course, the reason there is too much money available is because the fractional-reserve banking system, lead and controlled by the Federal Reserve, has created too much money. The Fed buys government debt and gives the treasury credits in its Fed accounts. This acts as "reserves" for lending and as backing for the issusance of currency. It is money created from nothing. Commercial banks borrow money at the Discount Window at the Fed -- again, a debt-for-credit swap. This creates more money out of nothing. Banks make more loans based on deposits and Discount Window loans, making more money from nothing.
The sad thing is, because the U.S. has had a debt-based monetary system since 1933 (and earlier, but only partially), we can never get out of debt because it would destroy the money supply. Before the advent of debt-based money, there was usually little debt on national, corporate or personal scales (wars excepted; they simply printed money to finance early wars). 70% of all business growth was self-financed (financed without borrowing from banks) in the 20s. The Fed put a stop to that by offering loans at below market rates with money created out of thin air.
To pay off the national debt, we will first have to switch back to a commodity-based money system, such as the original silver-backed money system. Commodity money systems don't let the government inflate the money supply at will. The other thing we'd have to do is reform banking. Banks should protect your money, offer useful services, and charge fees for doing so. If you want to invest your money, then do that. Currently, a bank invests 97% or more of your money when you deposit it. This is what causes bank runs; if more than 3% of depositors want to withdraw their money, the bank runs out, because it's given it away to other people. Essentially, when you deposit money at a bank, the bank issues to several people the right to withdraw it. It does this by telling you that you can get it back out, and then loaning the very same money to someone else, who immediately withdraws it to pay for their house or whatever. If the bank runs low on "liquid funds," it borrows from another bank. It may also borrow from the Fed's Discount Window. All the loaning out of the money promised to depositors creates more money on the fly. This process gets recycled several times. I borrow $100k to buy a house. I deposit it at my bank to pay for the construction. The bank then loans it back out to someone else. I write checks; the builder deposits them; his bank loans the money out. Repeat. Because of reserve-fraction regulations made by the Fed, this process has a terminus; but it creates nine dollars for every dollar put into the system.
The whole idea that not confiscating your money (i.e., lowering taxes) is inflationary is repugnant, and a sign of a fraudlent and crooked banking system.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
If I remember correctly the American political process is based on the concept of the informed voter. This is to say that the voter knows and understands the issues and votes for the candidate which he/she most agrees with.
My problem with half of these "rock the vote" kind of programs is that they create largely uniformed voters. They say to go out and vote, but they do not arm to voter so that they can accurately and effectively participate in the political process. Its just a pep rally to get people involved in the "voting experience."
This is crap. I would much rather have the unintelligent and uniformed voters out there sit on their asses watching MTV, ESPN, etc. rather than voting for the candidate that has the best smile/most hair/biggest advertizing budget. To put it simply, these idiots are watering down political process. My vote is effectively worth less for every moron that votes irrespective of how they vote.
In conclusion, if don't know who the candidates are and you haven't studied the issues, then don't vote.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
I have heard two comments related to the election that absolutely stunned me. One is "I don't want to waste my vote", and the other was "A vote for Nader is a vote for Gore" (or maybe it was Bush... I don't remember). And you think this is a democracy??? It is inconcievable to me that anyone can even consider saying such things, and at the same time think that they are in a democracy.
I come from Ireland, and there is a system called Proportional Representation that we use there. It has the property that if there are more people who say that they believe candidate A will do a better job than candidate B, than there are people who say that they believe candidate B will do a better job than candidate A, - then B will never beat A. (I have seen several other voting systems and I don't believe this very fundamental property applies to any of them.) This quality IMHO is the most important quality a voting system can have - indeed, a quality a voting system must have in order to be considered a democracy. The U.S. voting system does not have this quality.
I think it is key to have different parties in Congress and the White House. Have you noticed that they've been squabbling a lot these past few years, and haven't managed to pass any huge budget-sucking new programs or make any major tax cuts? The only reason Republicans are suddenly able to push US$40 billion worth of pork through is the pending election and Clinton's unwillingness to shut down the government. Up till now, the Dems haven't been able to get anything passed, and the GOP hasn't been able to get anything signed. Life is less bad than it could have been.
Frankly, I believe our current government is *too* efficient, and perhaps more efficient than the founders intended. They regarded political parties as "faction" and something to be avoided. Competing interests are fine, but having only two dominant sets of competing interests was not the intent at all. Imagine a situation where the President was not a member of either of the parties fighting over congress. Congress would be forced to be more bipartisan. Or maybe quadpartisan!
Walt
Over 1 billion people on this planet live on 1 dollar or less a day. I make four hundred times that amount working at a fun-as-hell programming job.
So, just because life is good for us, we shouldn't ignore politics. We have a responsibility to vote for people who will work hard to make it possible for every single person on the planet to live the way we do.
I don't know who is the best person to run this country but I studied all my choices carefully and I will vote for the person I deem most fit. Every American should do the same.
meept!
meept!
Check out the FBI story a couple stories more recent than this one. This guy got a search warrant served just because he was curious to see what had been done to a defaced site. Basically, he did little more than look at the site, but that was enough to get served. Check out the a href-"http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/31/ 025228&mode=thread">full story. Just to give an idea of how inocuous this is, its what any I-Noc op does to trouble shoot a problem. Yet, the system labels it suspect. They can do this because we--the techies--don't bother get involved in politics. We don't try to explain, and when an outsider is dumb enough to ask a question, we tend to crap on 'em. But, worst of all, we don't do anything except sit in our rooms, code, chat, and play net games. The world is out there, and its reacting fearfully to something that it does not understand.
do you really think that if the US decided that the Coca-Cola company must die that it could just withdraw from the us and go about its business? First it would be tremendously difficult to withdraw from here for most companies. Second, we could use our completely undue influence to get other countries to freeze their assets.
Want a good historical example? Look at the catholic church in europe, a classic multinational. They had property everywere, wealth, tremendous influence. But if the local lords decided hell, we're protestant now, lets seize the catholic church's property the church was unable to resist.
Your statement is false because a) the US is a gigantic market b) the other big market would be Europe, who we have completely too much influence over, c) there is international law and international governmental bodies, d) lawsuits - if you sue rj reynolds for tobacco damage, they can't just get away by stopping us activity, the gov't won't let them. Now, when microsoft buys an island state and starts training a real military, then i'll be scared. But right now the multi-nats depend on the (weaker now than it used to be, yes) infrastructure provided by the nation states. Who has all the nukes? From Dune: "He who can destory a thing, controls a thing."
Ya don't want our weather. Landscape's not much to look at either -- mainly flat, flat flat and more flatness.
What the majority of /. posters don't seem to understand is that this is actually a good thing. The whole point of national elections is that a candidate has to have a bland enough platform that they can be seen as the lesser of two evils by the majority of people. This means that the whole process is filled with compromises and politics, but it also means that the people we elect will be unlikely to do anything terribly radical without a huge amount of public concensus.
This way when the candidate you like fails to get elected it is not the end of the world. If splinter parties had more of a voice we would live in a very different place. During one president's term the Lord's prayer and the pledge of allegiance would be mandatory in every school, workplace, ballpark, and recreational facility, in the next president's term it would become illegal to drive a car anywhere in the Western United States because the resulting pollutants endanger the spotted tree marmot.
A good example of this has been President Clinton's tenure as Chief Executive Officer. His major plans were all completely frustrated, but he, in turn, was able to frustrate many of the plans of the Republican Congress. In the end only those measures that had broad public support were made into laws.
The bottom line is that if you are unwilling to cooperate with other people to forward the issues that you care most about, then you will never be heard. What's more, society is probably better off. Ideas that are only popular among a small part of the populace are generally not the kinds of ideas that should become laws.
During the second presidential debate Governer Bush proclaimed that 'a child could turn to the Internet and have their heart turn dark'. During the third debate Gore spoke of the 'battle' between popular culture and parenting, and of the need for federal regulation to help parents 'win'.
Many people think I am a sarcastic asshole. I do not pay attention to warning labels on music. I wept not only for the victims of the massacre at Columbine, but also for the persecution that followed, and the resulting paranoia of people like the Trenchcoat Mafia. I enjoy reading the Onion (http://www.theonion.com). I am not one of 'the right people', whoever they are. I feel that my way of life is threatened. I feel that Al Gore wants to ban MAD Magazine. I am scared when Bush claims 'there should be limits to freedom' in response to a website parody tilted against him.
I want these politicians to know that I am not a grumkin hiding in a sewer or a dark alley, ready to pop out and sing some Tom Lehrer songs to innocent, impressionable youths (I don't like sewers that much). I am not the enemy, and I am not an insurance liability. _We_ are good people, and _we_ will not be silenced or legislated against, or used as a debating "straw man" to symbolize something that is wrong with America. In fact, I strongly believe that America without people like us would be a bland and boring place.
I've printed up a whole bunch of little buttons with dark hearts on them, a la pink triangle. If you agree with my views, or even if you think I'm a total whiner who should move to Canada anyhow, I would be honored to have you wear a Dark Heart button.
you want one? send your snailmail address to ohako79@hotmail.com, and I'll mail you 5 for free
Keith Page
I'm sure 99% of people will find *something* in that list which concerns them. If you find nothing in that list, it's because the list is incomplete. Politics *is* society (ahem, although Mrs Thatcher famously remarked that there is "no such thing as society" - but she was a daft old cow). If something about society bothers you, and if you choose to ignore politics, you have chosen to sacrifice your right to complain.
--
One of the biggest problems in the political sphere (esp. recently) is that people assume that just because something is new, we should treat it differently. This article is a prime example. It even went so far as to sugest that our current civic structures are out of date and may need to be replaced. Like Edmund Burke said, we have inherited a tradition. This tradition has acomplished great things in the past and it would be very irresponcible to simply throw it all away on a whim. How arragant would we have to be to think that we could improve anything by starting over? The nature of the world is that it changes through evolution not revolution.
One of the wonders of our political system is that it does not need to be changed to handle every new thing that comes along. Unfortunatly people think that it does. This is why every new medium of expression has to go before the Supreme Court to see if it too is covered by the first amendment. It happened with radio, tv, the internet, and now software. The reason we have so many freedoms in this country (and for those of you who insist we have no freedoms here I sugest you move to China or Libya) is that our constitution spans the life of our nation.
If we want new developments to be treated with equity, we need to stop making exceptions for them. I think we would all perfer that DVDs be handled under conventional copyright law rather than the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. As if authors deserve more compensation in this millenium than in the last one.
At the same time the left castigates corporations as ever-more-evil, our jobs are better than ever.
Here in Silicon Valley, many companies serve lunch every day, have food in the lunch-room for breakfast and dinner
and snacks. Pete's coffee is almost a requirement. Oracle and other big companies have fantastic cafeterias with
very low prices.
Well that's just *special* for those of us lucky enough to have high-paid IT jobs.
Now, stop being so selfish, and start thinking about people on the minimum wage, or those with no job and no prospects. If you don't, some of them will get desperate, and you or someone you like may well be one who gets robbed.
--
William Gibson gabba gabba corporate gabba gabba rights online gabba gabba Linux gabba gabba future gabba gabba hacker gabba gabba cyberspace gabba gabba privacy gabba gabba... I don't know about you, but hearing Katz drone on and on about this stuff without a germ of real insight is getting really agonizing.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
At least he spelled Shadowrun correctly. And the other game's full title is Magic: the Gathering.
FYI.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
From the Roman road network, to the early use of
mass production for rifles, to today's tactical
lasers, high tech has been used for military/
political purposes. So what's new?
Daniel
> consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way.
Granted, this wasn't the original poster's intent, but the aforementioned quote is probably the best argument I've seen to vote for Bush during the whole campaign ;-)
i find it an interesting situation... a lot of people who work in the industry caught between the dislike of giant corporations controlling our lives and government, and the need for a paycheck. makes you feel like a hippocrite, honestly. but what i find disturbing is when people who are supposedly enlightened claim that idealism is backwards or that political vigillance is nothing but the behavior of crackpots. and that they support and defend these big corporations because they happen to be on the right side of the tracks. try stepping out of your tiny little microcosm for just a few minutes and realize that just because you have it easy and make a lot of money doesn't mean these corporations you work for are just. How can you justify a corporation that makes billions of dollars in profits, and then lays off thousands of workers? how can you justify a company with record profits that hires 11 year old children to work 18 hour days making 18 cents an hour? There is such a selfish "me me me" attitude among so many people in this world, it is no wonder that peace can't be reached in the middle east or that people are shot and killed for something as simple as a pair of shoes or their sexual orientation. i'm glad to see so many people walk through life with their blinders on. i just hope that those people are the ones laid off. then maybe they can see how the other half lives...
"How it infuriates a bigot, when he is forced to drag out his dark convictions"-- Logan Pearsall Smith
I have perused this /. topic many times and have been stunned by the lack of understanding of how things in Washington work. But, for the time being, let me point out that the biggest part of the problem is encapsulated in the first line quip: "tech savvy but world dumb"; and a similar statment I find true in Washington "world savvy but tech dumb"
People tend to avoid and denegrate subjects they don't fully understand or feel comfortable with. I am certain every reader can think back to an example of having a non-tech person make a disparaging, off the cuff comment about something they clearly don't have a good grasp of. I believe most of the readers who choose to avoid this topic are doing roughly the same thing. Quotes like "empty suits" and "crooks" signify a response based on discomfort due to lack of knowledge.
Most /. readers prize themselves on being knowledgable, especially about tech issues. Many readers depend on knowledge for their income. Yet, on issues involving the government, these same "knowledge workers" treat politics like the techphobic treat computers.
Fortunately or unfortunately, (and I believe fortunately) the US allows all people (over 18), even those who aren't paying attention, to vote.
I would suggest that before any reader makes a blanket statement about either party or any bill or any political issue, that you take the time to think "how much do I really know about how this bill got done?" Am I reading the full text, or am I being spun?
Be aware that pretty much anything you read on the editorial page of the newspaper, or what you hear on talk radio is spin. Read the byline of the author carefully (also understand in many cases he/she is not really the author, just a respected person whose name is being used to promote a position). Finally, imagine that the people making the decisions are overworked folks getting massive quantitites of information and trying to adequately represent the voters who put them in office.
I can tell you from here on the inside, I have rarely met, or heard of any Members of Congress of EITHER party that are really bad people. They are all just trying to represent the voters and get re-elected.
Your JOB as a US citizen to to select a representative who will adequately represent your views. It it essential that you not turn off from politics. Instead, take the time to embrace it for a few weeks, learn what you can, then check your gut. Don't be the kind of person you hate to meet who attacks your work, or calls it trivial, because they don't understand it, and are slightly fearful that they will look ignorant.
Is it really too much to ask for a few weeks every 2 or 4 years?
A sig?!? I don't think so.....
New laws never give us anything. they only take away something from us, be it individualism, intellectual property, freedom, privacy, etc. We could get by with a handful of laws instead of the thousands that we have on the books. I would like to see 99% of current legislation come to a grinding halt. Even though some will say I'm throwing away my vote, I'll be voting libertarian this year as a direct result of the DMCA and carnivore.
on slashdot.
Think about it: if there weren't hired "analysts" out there, having to come up with something new to say about why this poll is up, or this poll is down, when any first-year statistics student can tell you that one in twenty polls will be way off and any poll can be up or down 4 percent for no reason. If they didn't have to come up with false distinctions between look-alike candidates.
And if slashdot didn't have it's own version, such as those who feel the need to think that everything is a conspiracy that will result in the rise of the ubergeeks and the overthrow of normal society by the technological advantaged.
Man, if we could line all those people up against a cliff and give them a short sharp swift kick to the rear, what a wonderful silence would result.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
As Michael Moore says, the largest political party is the non-voters. 60% of the population maybe? Now if they all went out and voted for nader..... how would this be throwing away their votes?
This is a complete non-issue. But if you're worried about it, here's what you do: if you live in a swing state, look at the polls the day before the election. If gore, or bush, is going to win by a substantial margin, then don't worry about the issue. Go out and vote for whoever you want to, knowing that the issue is already decided.
If you didn't vote in the last election - feel free to vote any way you want to. The Dems don't own your vote, and heck they're not even expecting it. So vote your conscience! This includes all 18, 19 etc yr olds, please don't fall into the 'throw your vote away' stupidity now. Have you ever seen a herd of water buffalo running from a lion? Didn't you wonder why they whole herd doesn't just pivot and trample the predator? Because they have the hearts of sheep. They can't imagine thinking outside the box. Now have you wondered why the american voters don't just vote for someone real instead of another phony lying, value-less career politician? Because we're sheep. We believe the lions when they tell us to vote them into office so they can continue to trample our rights. But they only have power if we choose to give it to them. Don't be sheep. Show that you're above the politics of greed and fear-mongering. Vote for something you actually believe in.
Everyone just has to refer back to the instantiation of the term "cyberspace." Gibson's Neuromancer had so much more to do with the philosophical implications of mankind creating an intelligence than with the political state of the world it was set in. Snow Crash, by comparison, is extraordinarily political and pertains directly to the question of whether a federal government is something that should (or can) exist. How can one reference Gibson and ignore the reduction of the federal government to just another franchise that Stephenson presents?
Read harry browne's position. If we eliminate social security taxes, and everyone just put that 15% (can you believe they take 15% of your salary - to tell you how to invest?) in a savings account, people would end up with SUBSTANTIALLY more money at the end. So..... in what way is this a government service? And what if that 2% investment failed? Do you think the govt would actually allow that?
I know that invoking that name is going to be modded down as flaimbait, but he did say that and it is basically what wnissen said!
The truth is, technology and politics are no longer separable.
That may be true, but the kind of tech you see people obsessed with all over the web is irrelevant to politics. It seems that the only political issues many netters are interested in are those related to internet taxes and Napster and encryption. It's a weird, twisted out-of-touch view.
Recently posted a story about low end video cards. It turned out that the definition of "low end" in the article was pretty much "anything that's not a GeForce 2." Then there was verbal blasting from people putting down cards like the TNT 2 and ATI Rage 128. Whoa. Top of the line game developers were doing 3D modelling using software rendering all the way up until 1997 or so. Now here we are, three years later, and people are putting down cards that are 10-20x more powerful? Excuse me, but you can't continually be relative about the state of technology. Heck, the Game Boy has surpassed 100 million units and is selling like hotcakes.
It's not so much that geeks have an interest in technology, but that there's a peculiar fixation in what I see as a self-centered backwater swamp that's irrelevant outside such neurotic circles.
You forgot to mention the international zionist conspiracy.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Ideas that are only popular among a small part of the populace are generally not the kinds of ideas that should become laws.
/.ers are radical people, have unique and new ideas that do not agree with the majority of sheeple in the nation, and therefore have a right to feel apathetic about the elections, because, as you state, if [they] are unwilling to cooperate with other people to forward the issues that [they] care most about, then [they] will never be heard. While I agree with this statement, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people in these forums (Slashdot,et al) have concerns outside of those presented by the major political parties in their platforms.
Why not? The general populace does not always have the best ideas in mind, and oftentimes it is the radicals, the one-voice-in-a-million's that have the right ideas (Galileo, Einstein, pick your favorite radical).
Perhaps, then, the majority of
Hence, their voicelessness and resultant disinterest.
Blog,Twitter
Tacklehead wrote: ;-)
/Duncan
Heinlein wrote:
> consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way.
Granted, this wasn't the original poster's intent, but the aforementioned quote is probably the best argument I've seen to vote for Bush during the whole
campaign
By this you mean that Bush is a malicious fool?
Duncan Watson
Duncan Watson
What minimum wage?
People working in 7-11s make $20 an hour here.
The only people who subsist on min wage are kids in their first job (even McDonald's pays more than min wage), those who can't speak English (McDonald's is another exception), or those who have absolutely no skills whatsoever.
I am not selfish. I give lots of $ to people in Russia, for example.
Our "minimum wage poor" are very rich compared to the average person in other countries.
Lew
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Should you ignore politics? Only at your own peril. Like it or not, politics, in a broad sense, is the way power moves in this country (and all human civilization). Politics in the sense of who is going to be the next President of the U.S. is important, too. After all, we have the government that we have RIGHT NOW, and I would rather have the people I think are the best for the job in office (that's not to say that these people are perfect).
JonKatz thinks that corporations are taking over the world, that there is an old politics and a new politics, and that the survival of conventional civic systems is questionable. I'll respond to each of these ideas.
First, there have long been multinational corporations that wield an enormous (even inordinate) amount of power. Remember the East India Company? They practically took over an entire country (India) on their own. How about Standard Oil? Or maybe the robber barons who used technology to give themselves a monopoly by constructing a transcontinental railroad?
Big business has always controlled the cutting edge of technology. And at times, the people's ability to control the corporations has lagged behind the corporations' collective ability to expand. But then the people catch up, and the balance is restored.
Sure, we have multinationals, but we also have a lot more control over them than Jon seems to think. Back when Standard Oil had its monopoly, the U.S. didn't even have antitrust laws. Now we have those laws, and we also have the FTC, FCC, FDA, EPA, and so on. If you think that these agencies do nothing for us, then travel to Romania and see what unregulated, uncontrolled industry really does to the world (massive, catastrophic pollution, for example).
In this latest piece, Katz takes a fictional novel and attempt to use it as some sort of historical context for the present. Gibson's book is not reality. Gibson's work should be put into historical context, not turned into a context of its own. In short, Katz lacks a sense of history. In every single one of his columns on politics he fails to place the present in the context of the (actual) past, and thus his predictions about the future are completely baseless and ultimately useless.
Second, last I checked the so-called old politics was the only game in town. If the new politics is a bunch of kids who spend all their time coding and living online, then I fail to see any improvement over the old system.
Third, I'll believe that conventional civic systems are an endangered species when we get every poor, single mother in the inner city online and participating in grassroots social movements through the internet. Until then, we need conventional systems to keep everyone involved (or to try to involve them). Jon talks about how the net has empowered millions of people, but there are millions more out there without access who need empowerment now, not when the technology finally trickles down.
Once again, JonKatz hits far from the mark. The amazing thing is people like me actually feel compelled to reply to him. After all, if he had to go about spewing this junk the old media way, he'd be just another annoying guy on the street corner with a megaphone, and we would all ignore him.
...is the other 99% of us who don't want it. Sorry. The system works pretty well for most of us.
Phallic Symbols in LOTR
However, there's a scary comparision between politics and religion as played around the world: both areas assume that your ideologies (political or faiths) are so in-line with a large group of people that you should belong to that group. If you can't align your (political|religious) beliefs with these groups, you are generally treated with less respect and possibly are attacked by the system. Thus, both politics and religion lead to a mass mind-control system that can be used effectively to keep independent and enlightened members of a society down.
Look at the Spanish Inquistion (not the Monty Python sketch, but the real thing) -- they threatened people to convert to Christianity under penalty of death. The prosecution of non-Catholics under the Roman Catholic church of the mid 1500s (IIRC) until Martin Luther nailed a declaration of rights to the church door. The recent proclaimation by the Vatican that other religions are 'valid', but only Catholism will get you eternal salvation.
Similar trends in politics happen today. The continual pidgeonholing of everyone into Rep or Dem, and the stronghold of maintaining a unbreakable 2 party system; the crying of a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and trying to kill any 3rd party successes. Even the constant swaying that Shrub and Gore are trying to convience the undecided voters to vote Democratic or Republican.
Does it work? Certainly, even in today's age. I know people that follow their religion down to the letter, even though they don't feel a certain aspect of it is right (example, the recent slamming of the gay community by Southern Baptists left many a member questioning that judgement but felt that they had to stay with the church and joined in the slamming reluctantly). If you can't believe 100% in the ideals of that religion, then how can it be your religion? Similarly, if you are a Republican, save for the issue of abortion rights, how can you consider yourself a Republican? The answers easy for most people, however: it's easier and requires much less 'work' to go with the flow. Are you Lutherian? Then the church tells you to follow this, that, and that other thing without questioning why, and you get eternal salvation. Are you Democratic? Then you simply vote every D on the ballot without researching the candidates, and you get more Democratic party-like government support.
Now, in both cases, there has been times where the status quo has been challenged by enlightened folks, such as Martin Luther and the Founding Fathers of American for religion, and those successful third party candidates like Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura. But it's hard to have these people achieve success when those in power want to keep it down. But there has been successess in religon: while not universal, the right to practice any religion with question is granted in many countries. However, while we have the 'right' to vote any way we want, there is still prosecution at a mental level for any independant voter or third party candidate.
What this boils down to is the fact that I cannot believe that every person can say that they believe every ideal that a limited number of religious or political choices can offer. Some can, but the majority can't; they only like to make the choice that aligns closer with their views such that they don't have to worry about anything else and makes their life easier. Those that do try to find something else are typically prosecuted and treated as lower class until they do align with something. And while the religion side has come to realize that they can't speak for everyone, politics still tries to mind-control everyone they can.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
"politics will shortly feel [the net's] effects on the way ... voters vote..."
I believe all or most of the votes in the U.S. are tallied by computer... does anyone know what compan[y|ies] produce[s] the machines & the code? I once read an interesting article about this potential chokepoint in the system (or is that The System?), implying that funny stuff was going on. Does anyone have info on this? Clearly, this code really ought to be Open Source, but I gathered from the article (late 80s in the San Jose weekly "Metro") it's anything but.
Robert Heinlein said it best: for all its problems, politics is the only way to get things done that doesn't involve breaking heads.
...
Not to get off on a libertarian rant here, but
If you think that politics doesn't involve breaking heads, try not registering for the draft -- or even worse, not paying your taxes -- and see how many times the government asks politely before they send someone to your house with a gun. Say what you will about "ruthless, greedy, competing multinationals" and "empty suits" -- at least they derive their influence from mutually consensual transactions, not from brutal force -- and business can never "ravage" the world the way government has (are we so quick to forget Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Tianenmen Square, South Africa under apartheid...?)
While you listen to Bush, Gore, and Nader go down their laundry list of issues they want to "do something about" (i.e. control by force), remember what political philosopher John Locke said: "Nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it. So that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me."
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Excellent. This is the most deliciously funny comment I've read yet.
As per Heinlein's suggestion, I'm voting against. In this case, against Gore, as opposed to voting for Bush. In four years, we'll see who I vote against. . .
i like the way Mark Twain put it:
hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? and hain't that a big enough majority in any town?
sad, but apparently true... thanks to Lee C. for that qoutation.
He's too busy writing this crap. And he's so in love with Gibson that he can't admit Stephenson writes better, more current cyberpunk. Witness his overly-stylized writing, a la Gibson, compared to Stephenson's plainer, more drawn out style. Gibson would never have written "In the beginning there was the command line." Too boring, too didactic, and too reality-based.
1) If you really meant your statement concerning your future voting habits as written (i.e. "I will vote in this order of preference: Green, Independent, Libertarian."), are you really doing better than those who always vote Democrat or always vote Republican? Individuals are elected to office, not political parties.
2) If your #1 concern, as it seems from your post, is the national debt and the incredible tax burden here in the U.S., why in heaven's name would you vote Green as your preferred party? Their platform contains nothing that would lead me to believe they will ever lower taxes or pay off the debt. In fact, folks like Nader seem even more likely than Gore to raise taxes and spend the excess protecting the ants in your backyard.
If I may make a little plug regarding #2... if you are really concerned about taxes and the national debt, why not consider Libertarian as your first choice? They're the only party with a consistent presence (i.e. not a one-shot candidacy) who have a serious plan to quickly pay off the national debt, while eliminating the income tax and all other national taxes that our government, constitutionally, has no right to impose on us in the first place. (Incidentally, the Libertarians are also generally for reducing Defense spending to a level commensurate with defending the U.S., as opposed to running around the world attacking everyone like we do now.)
My $0.02.
Ever considered running yourself? Voting is only part of the civic duty done by a good citizen.
For every wild haired Einstein with a raft of good ideas, you have 20 radicals that can't hit their butt with both hands. In the end the Einsteins and the Gallileos of the world win out for the simple reason that they are right, and the rest of us are wrong. The good ideas become mainstream, and the laws begin to reflect their good sense. Sure, this process takes a little longer, but it is the surest way to guarantee that progress is made. For example, it is much more likely to yield success than simply listening to whatever wild-haired loony happens to be passing by.
The good news is that if you are actually right, then your ideas will eventually prevail.
This is why it is so important that we don't try to short circuit the process. Anything that makes it easier for anyone to create laws is a bad idea. It allows our opponents to push through laws like the DMCA before we have time to organize opposition. Gridlock is our friend, and the political process that creates this gridlock in the national elections is doubly our friend. We want bland presidents with little power to actually change things, because their simply aren't enough Galileos and Einsteins to outnumber all of the Homers and Beavis's, so the popular vote is bound to elect some Presidents who have bad ideas. If these Presidents had a free reign to actually make changes we would be screwed.
Fortunately, the process that allows them to be elected, combined the politics of staying popular, means that they can only push for programs with wide public appeal. These sorts of programs are almost always well within the "safe" range of measures that nearly everyone agrees on (because they have been well proven).
but only if you like the internet the way it is, and not heavily regulated, or if you like being able to send email with out it being monitored. I can't believe the apathy among computer enthusiasts when politicians in Washington who know nothing are deciding what the internet will be for future generations. These are decisions that directly affect users and programmers of the internet. One example is a supreme court case that will be heard in the next year or two regarding privacy and whether or not an ISP has to reveal the identity of it's subscribers if they have commited a malicious act(in this case slandered a company on message boards). They want to reveal the identities of people and prosecute them just because they said some bad things about the President of a company. That doesn't sound too free to me. Is that what you want, zero anonymity on the internet and total supervision of everything you do and say because it could be illegal? If you don't voice your opinion politicians won't care about you and they'll happily appease all the parents out there by totally regulating the internet, leaving us out in the cold. This is the type of thing where you wake up one day and it's too late to do anything about it. There could be as many as 4 supreme court justices chosen by the next president and those justices will decide what the internet is and how it should be regulated. The conservatives have always been pro-censorship while the liberals have generally been more in favor of the individuals freedoms over what could be called the moral majority. This election is crucial in the future of the internet and if you don't care about it then I'd better not see you whining on this message board in 8 years when all the freedom of the internet you've enjoyed is taken away. Vote Al Gore, you might not like the man, but the supreme court justices he would choose would preserve individual freedoms and not allow censorship. I wouldn't blatantly tell you who to vote for if I wasn't so scared of the other option. Vote strategically for the party and it's ideals, and not the man, to make sure our internet remains free. And to all of you people out there complaining about taxes, why don't you stop using the government roads, eating food the government makes sure is clean, using electricity the government makes sure is affordable, and using an internet that wouldn't have been possible without government funding. The government has done a lot for you, and it's a privaledge to live in this country where we have more opportunity for luxury than anywhere else, why don't you realize it.
Poor can't eat but they can get a TV?
Okay I'm getting tired of hearing people talk about internet access as if it were some sort of rich kid's furniture.
I got my last job because I could write about internet technologies.
I was able to eat because of that job.
I was able to get a variety of biased news that had enough substance I could pick apart to get to the truth. Oh right, sorry... taking some responsibility for the content you receive is you know weird... I' always forget that.
I was able to get into a college because I was already involved in a couple of business pursuits.
I did this with a 28.8k modem ($10), Internet access ($20/month), a 4 year old computer ($200 by today's prices), and the knowledge I gained because my parents had the foresight of getting me a TRS-80 when I was 8.
Now which would you choose?
1. Work your ass off for shit
2. Spend it on a TV cigarettes
3. Spend it on a hundred conveniences
4. Never learn a thing
5. Repeat
Or
1. Work your ass off for shit
2. Eat healthy
3. Rent-to-own a cheap computer
4. Get net access
5. Get a newspaper
6. Shoot your neighbor's TV set to appease the Net Gods
7. Learn about the net
8. Get an online education
9. Rip the site using wget and a few scripts
10. Cancel online education
11. Move next door to Borders
12. Read everything
13. Buy nothing
14. Couple of years later send anonymous donations for all the stuff you ripped off
It's all about attitude. The net's no good if all you do is vegetate.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Yo uare touchign on much deeper trhuths abotu human beings that color any mass human endevoiur 9incouding Slashdot.)
(1) Human beings are fundementally herd animals. Most humans happily and blindly follow the pack, and apply social (or soemtiuems physical) pressure tovothers who don't. the afct that social pressure has an effeft even in "free thinkers" (even if just to upset them) again shows the pack nature.
(2) People are lazy. Thinking is work. The avergae man would rather not think. Said but true, the single biggest root cause of al lthis is simple intellectual laziness-- being unwilling to challenge one's own preconceptions. (Again, looka round Slashdot, we certainly aren't immmune to this, either.)
(3) Pleasure/pain response. At the end of the day, most people choose the easiest solution that 'feels the best'.
Some peopel don't fall into tehs etemptation and approach their religion, or politics, or other life decisions with a self-critical eye, and the prenoucnements of "auhtorities" with suspicion, but they are in the end very rare.
The rest, are sheep.
JK
"Four legs good! Two legs bad!"
The sheep- Animal Farm
The only way out of this mess is to support any and all candidates who are NOT part of the political power base. This is why I'm willing to support Libertarians, even though I completely disagree with their philosophical base. Let's be clear here, the reason why I support the Greens first of all is because I agree with their platform.
Because I agree with their platform. I said in the previous post that I don't mind paying taxes for services in the public benefit. I'll gladly pay 50% taxes for national health care; universal head start and pre-school; national infrastructure including public transportation, roads, bridges, and telecommunications investment; a military which focuses on the defense of our national borders (though I'm not anti-immigration, just anti-overdeployment); free college tuition for everyone who pulls a good GPA; and even targeted tax cuts to push a semi-social agenda such as supporting solar power for homeowners.
I believe that government is most useful when providing services that the entire population needs. That is, it makes no sense to me for private corporations to split apart and profit from our society over basic survival requirements such as health care. However, I don't want our government manufacturing shoes, steel, cars, or other commodities. When the citizenry's lives are at stake, the government should step in with either regulation or services. That's my belief.
Re: your plug for Libertarian... forget it. I think Ayn Rand was a terrible hack of a writer, and her philosophy is as wide reaching in scope as it is shallow in practice. It's yet another utopian fantasy that attempts to shoe-horn a philosophical stance into unworkable policy. JMNSHO.
Finally, WRT my stance on paying down the national debt: From reading my positions you would probably label me as a "Liberal" voter, as I might view your beliefs "Conservative". However, I think BOTH of us agree that paying down the national debt is in the best interest of all citizens. We're paying a good third of the tax revenue in interest on the debt. Don't you think that $300 Billion or so could better go to schools, roads, bridges, or even a tax cut? I'm NOT opposed to a tax cut after we pay down our debt, I'm just opposed to the outright stupidity of promoting one with a $6 Trillion dollar debt to pay off. Again, JMNSHO.
Some equal time with two jokes, one for eahc candidate, both of which are clearly true...
Al Gore:
Q: What does Tipper like most about being married to Al?
A: She gets to sleep with a differen't man every night.
GW Bush:
(This was part of a Jay Leno routine)
Jay ( to band leader): I've been loking at your crossword puzzle and its all wrong. Here it says " a four letter word for a container for narcotics, starting with B", you put down "Bong".
The right answer is Bush.
(My add on.)
Hey he smelled, but he didn't snort, right?
Don't succumb to this great 'myth' of the crumbling of american politics that we haven't shook off since the Nixon administration.
How many of you watch CSPAN? How many participate in politics actively? How many of you are unsatisfied with the way government has treated you?
I'm not saying there aren't problems, but there is a process, and a system that seems to work pretty well when you cut through the trendy whining that abounds on the net.
So if your angry, do something about it. We have a small voting population compared to most democracies, your vote counts more here than in other countries. Just THINK before you vote.
"Maybe it is time to blow the hell out of this country. "
No real offense meant dude, but if that's how you really feel, then I really would rather that you just leave.
Do us both a favor and just go. When you get tired of corruption, etc. elsewhere maybe you'll see that you're just playing the part of "frustrated victim" for its own sake, and not for any real purpose.
The moment US government becomes efficient, is the moment when I'll be fighting to get out too.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
Actually, yes ;-)
The difference is, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, that the malicious at least sleep. Those who mean well never rest.
Gore's position is to give "targeted tax cuts" to things he likes. Nader wants to tax "things he doesn't like". Both are using the power of the state to micromanage individual behavior.
Given the choice, I'd vote Browne. But given that Browne's not gonna win, I'll take Bush. A fool? Sure. Malicious? Perhaps. But at least malice sleeps at night. Those with good intentions never rest.
Hey, I'm all for owning a tool. (My personal collection will hopefully consist of a Mauser Broomhandle, a Luger, and a Mauser rifle. The new ones look fantastic.)
:)
However, no one (yet) can claim Terra as their nation of alliance. There are too many fish in this small pool.
And most refuse to be eaten.
Would a unified Earth government be good? Questionable. (Look at Babylon 5. J. Michael puts in the scary concept of a corporate lawsuit bringing problems aplenty to the station.) Near term, meaning next 50 years, I say it would be bad. We need the next depression to hit. (Maybe those of us with tech skills could band together and destroy the Evil Empires' information infrastructure.)
I'm blasted, so moderate at will
And a very Stoned Halloween to you, too.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
It is common knowledge that anyone who has anything legitimately constructive to say will not do it as a Coward.
This issue has been put to rest any number of times. Several readers have posted linkage to an open letter from two of the early developers of ARPAnet. In this letter they state that Gore is not altogether incorrect in his assertion that he "helped create the internet".
Please cease your ill-informed prattling, just because the media says something does not make it so. Are you going to vote for someone that everyone says is a moron?
...
You forgot to mention the international zionist conspiracy.
Okay; the post wasn't a troll, and isn't simply conspiracy theory, and to attempt to equate it to some kind of racist mentality is just wrong.. Pick up any economics textbook and read up on Fractional Reserve Banking. Here are some slides used in Economics classes at Ohio State. Try a class from Missouri. Or Colorado. Or Columbus State. Don't like those? Try the Britannica. Go the the Fed's website and read about how it works (prepare for reading a LOT). Read about expansion of the money supply in "Money Supply for Dummies ". Pick up a copy of William Greider's Secrets of the Temple -- his book was issued to MBA students at the MIT Sloan School of Business and describes the process which I outlined in my post. For another view, refer to the words of Representative Jack Metcalf.
You can even read the words of a Fed Chairman (William Poole, President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis):
Before 1933, the Federal Reserve did conduct monetary policy by adhering to an external standard-the gold standard. Now, the U.S. dollar is pure fiat money, whose purchasing power is determined by the Fed's decisions and their interactions with the U.S. and world economies.
America DOES have debt-based fiat money, and the elimination of debt eliminates money. It is that simple.
Not a troll. Just the facts.
________________________________________
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
What about the third amendment? Quartering soldiers in peacetime? Does anyone really think this applicable to the 21st century?
Before the third amendment was enacted, it was a common practice among governments to subdue their populaces, not merely by forcing them to support and house soldiers, but by exposing them and their children to rape by those same soldiers. It's bad enough that such things happen during wartime (and classified as warcrimes); I'm proud that our constitution specifically addresses it in the Bill of Rights.
Today, rape still occurs among military personel (especially in retaliation to gender-integration), but for the most part, it occurs in barracks or on ships and away from civilians (though our Japanese friends living near navy personel stationed in Osaka may disagree).
-- Anne Marie
Just took a quick look. I can't debate it's
contents just yet as I haven't given it a real
read. But it looks interesting enough to puruse,
even though I doubt I'll agree with it's
conclusions. Thanks for the link.
"The skirmish between AOL/Time-Warner and Disney over cable domination..."
I noticed something strange the other day when I accessed ESPN's website, namely the fact I got redirected to espn.go.com. Now, go.com is controlled by Disney, and Turner (who founded Turner Broadcasting which runs ESPN) has a large stake in AOL/Time-Warner. Am I missing something, or are these two monopolistic companies working together?
Guess I just set my standards a little higher than that "99%".
0x0000
"The Internet is made of cats."
These corporations that you hate and fear and not nearly so nimble and mobile as you believe. Witness the harassment of Microsoft by the US Federal government (justified or not): if large conglomerates like Microsoft are so much more powerful than governments, then why did Bill Gates not simply move his business to Canada?
It is not that easy.
No corporation in the world is as powerful or dangerous as an evil government. How can a corporation affect you at all -- through lawsuits, or by pushing for anti-freedom legislation? Both of these are fundamentally governmental functions.
Some of you may believe that corporations operate death squads in foreign countries (I won't ask to see your proof). If so, who allows this to happen? Corrupt governments.
Speak to me not of democracy. Democracy is not a panacea. Adolf Hitler was chosen by a sizeable majority in a democratic election. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance -- democracy is nothing in a nation of sheep and slaves.
HJ
-- A New World, Unordered http://www.anwu.org/
I heard you suck dick for a living. Can't be a lie, since I'm just repeating what I heard. I think I'll go post stories about you to all major news outlets.
Let's see, we have one candidate who recognized the potential of the net years before most people had even heard of it and who took steps to see that the development of the net was properly funded. The same individual also pressed to fund the federal laboratory which begat Mosaic, which begat Netscape.
Opposing him is a man who probably has difficulties operating a microwave, let alone a computer. The same individual who thinks that the internet is a great threat to our energy supply since it's currently consuming 8% of the nation's power.
Guess which one I'm voting for?
P.S. bo nus Doonesbury cartoon
What does it matter if 1 vote is valid and non of the rest are? I didn't evne know there was onliy once choice until i got the ballot (absentee).
Well, i didn't find out until too late that therew as only one. And being out of state for college kinda rules that out for me. Besides, i wouldn't get elected, i would try to actually fix things, and that would only piss people off :)
Interesting point of view. What does "politics" mean ? Russ Nelson seems to use it to mean "that thing which happens in Washington". Its only from this perspective that "secure private property rights" can be seen as an alternative to politics. I'd take a much broader view: politics is about power, and the organisation of society. The two things are deeply intertwined, as power is needed to orgnaise society, and secure private property rights are a form of power that leads to certain (relatively successful) forms of political organisation.
There is a view which says you can eliminate power, and thus politics, from a society, but fundamentally I cannot believe this. It tends to be anarchists (all stripes), anarchocapitalists and libertarians who suggest that this is possible. Inherently though, people will always be able to do things other people want, and people will always be able to hurt each other. Thus there will always be power, and thus there will always be politics.
Its interesting that we tend to use 'politics' these days to mean democratic politics. I consider this to be quite a feat of brain-washing. There are plently of sources of power that are not accountable to the electorate, and there are a lot of things we can do politically other than vote in elections. Quite a lot of the 'boredom' everyone expresses with politics is really because democratics politics is very limited in its scope. Politicians cannot change many of the things people would really like to change in the way society is run, and their scope for action is falling all the time.
As to the ad's, which are not Nader ads but anti-Gore ads, what would you have him say?
While Ralph is not a member of the Green Party, he has stated that any federal funding he get's will go to the greens. I place much more trust is his statement than yours, you coward.
suffering from pronoia
Sorry, I know I'm posting too much today, but I can't let that pass.
I'm really, really tired of the morally-superior tone coming out of the Nader camp. I don't want to hear any more about Nader's love of the truth until he stops spewing the greatest lie of this campaign -- that Bush and Gore are identical.
But even that isn't what really pisses me off about Nader. It's more the fundamental betrayal of his own people and the very movements he claims to endorse.
It's instructive to look at his counterpart on the right, Pat Buchanan. Buchanan is also running a highly ideological campaign that is siphoning votes from the mainstream party. But Buchanan is doing it in the least destructive way possible, because he's keeping his eye on the greater goal and doesn't want to help Gore win this election.
Buchanan is spending his money to attract Bush voters in states that Bush has already lost. The argument goes, "Your vote is meaningless anyway, so vote for me, and maybe I'll get enough of a popular vote that I'll get funding for the next election, where I'll continue to fight the damn liberals for you".
Nader is doing precisely the opposite. He's putting all his money into swing states, actively doing whatever he can to destroy Gore's chances of winning. You might ask why he's doing this, since he's going to lose all of his natural allies and also help elect the man who most strongly opposes the environmental movement as well as the anti-corporate movement.
The only answer I've been able to come up with is because Ralph Nader values his own advancement more than he does the very causes he pretends to champion. What does Nader care if George W. wins, as long as the spotlight is on him? He just wants the ego boost from those extra votes in the swing states. He likes seeing his face on TV.
What you folks currently supporting Nader need to realize is that this is a betrayal. Bush will rape the environment, as he did in Texas, increase free trade, and limit the power of unions in any way possible. Supposedly you care about these things, or you wouldn't be supporting Nader. Maybe some of you should ask your leader why he's doing everything possible to throw this election to your mortal enemy.
Maybe you should also ask yourselves why you're supporting a candidate who has so far demonstrated that he's less ethical than Pat Buchanan.
Well. I for one am not going to vote. The main reason is: I and millions of others didn't even get a chance to affect the outcome of the primary elections. Back during the primaries, I lived in Kentucky. Kentucky has its primary election later than many other states. Indeed, by the time the Kentucky Republican primary had rolled around, the GOP nominee was a foregone conclusion. There was no longer any reason for me to go vote. Nothing I could do would affect the outcome in any way.
So now I'm faced with a "choice" of two candidates, neither of whom I feel is qualified to be president. It's like having to choose from between two retards: one with an 80 I.Q., the other with an 82. I guess one is more qualified, but really neither is a good fit for the job.
The tenth amendment concerns the abrogation of state powers by the federal governemnt, whereas the line-item veto is about the balance of powers between coordinate branches of the federal government. The two have nothing to do with each other. Please reread Raines v. Byrd and Clinton v. City of New York.
-- Anne Marie
I've read Greider's Secrets of the Temple as well as other books covering the Federal Reserve and money supply. You're correct in that what you cite does indeed refer to Fed policy, though I completely disagree with your conclusions. Nor do I think that either Grieder (or Friedman for that matter) would consider moving back to the Gold or Silver standard a rational course. Friedman argued for pegging interest rates based on arbitrary M2 levels throughout the economy, not for the Gold standard.
/., and moderators who can't tell the difference should have their privs yanked.
That said, I think the Troll moderation was completely off base. If I see it come around in Meta Moderation I'll vote "Unfair"... hope someone else does too. We need more informed debate on
The wealth of the world is becoming more and more concentrated: a few thousands of people (most of them Americans) hold ~80% of the entire world's wealth, while about half the world's population (that's like 3,000,000,000 people) works for less than $5 a day. Nearly a Billion people are under-nourished; about 20,000 people die of starvation every day. Even in the U.S.A., whose inhabitants hold near 50% of the global wealth, 45 million people are without health insurance.
Us techies, my friends, are but a small minority who gets to enjoy high standards of living, either because of the type of work we do (high tech, good for making even more money for rich), or the country where we live (you have a good chance at comfortable life if you live in Europe or the US).
If I were to walk up to one of the filthy rich, a person who can really stand to make some serious spending, and tell him: "Hey, man, let's distribute food and medication in Africa and Asia!" he'd answer "Where's the profit in that? I'd rather develop some new tech contraption and sell it to the rich 20% of humanity for loads of money." It doesn't really bother the likes of him that the money he's carrying is but the representation of the product of the work of many people, most of them probably third-worlders...
Which brings us to politics. Without making any personal accusations of this person or another, we can see that the world's governments, which were supposed to act on our behalf ('our' meaning the world's population) have acted so that a minority of people could become ever richer. In fact, some even argue that governments are designed to benefit only a small ruling class. Want an example? James Madisson, one of the drafters of the US constitution, is known to have said during the constitutional debates that the constitution must provide means of preventing the poor masses from pludering the opulent few... and, in retrospect, I suppose that it does.
As a final note, just remember that our actions as inhabitants of the globe are not always reversible to a better state of affairs - global warming, pollution, depleted natural resources - they're only going to get worse unless we learn to sometimes turn away from the monitor and look out the window.
Check out a more detailed analysis of the global socio-economic system at ZNet magazine
I do not wish to remove from my present prison to a prison a little larger. I wish to break all prisons. -R.W. Emerson
As multinational corporations dominate the world we live in, they generally must operate on consumer demand. American politics, in its current state, operates moreso on personal interests than on demands because corporations are smart enough to lobby. If we're to pick the lesser of the two evils, the new capitalism/corporatism at least has this much going for itself
1) It has improved efficiency.
2) It has created jobs.
3) It has raised the standard of comfortable living in general, even if that means longer hours.
4) It has attempted to improve its efforts towards environmental-friendliness.
Meanwhile, American politics offers scandals and mostly outdated, misguided legislation.
If there is blame for the current corporate-political system, it is in the hands of the public who technically run the new capitalism. Corporations cannot take completely the blame for what they do: they operate on the bottom line. Punch them in the pocketbooks if you want change. Kudos to Katz for a guided effort to rejuvinate interest in this needing-tweaking system.
The Electoral College comes from concerns about retaining "local control".
The states wanted to retain some control over the overal direction of the federal government and did not want to be steamrolled by larger states. It's also why we have the Senate.
I like Jon's work, but a paragraph has me thinking. To paraphrase, he said that the new political paradigm involving the Internet will replace the old. This leads me to wonder: If the new paradigm takes over completely, and the 'Net experiences a catastrophic failure, what then? Do we blindly shift back to the old ways, or try to use the new ways in an analog fashion? Also, if we have recurrent failures, spaced out over, say, a year, how will this affect politics? In addition, let's talk global politics, not just 'Merican.
We're through being cool! Eliminate the ninnies and the twits! -Devo
You used quotation marks to falsify his statement. That is dishonest and unethical.
What Gore said, and what should have been in your quotation marks, was "IN THE CONGRESS I took the intiative in creating the Internet." Which is exactly what he did IN THE CONGRESS.
Even Newt Gingrich acknowledges that this is exactly what Gore did.
This is how Bush might win the election - falsifying quotes and lying.
Wrong. Each state determines how the electors vote. Most states are winner-take-all; however, some are not. Yeah, the EC is fuckedup and should be abolished, but you're still wrong about this.
Then check out
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
ah, but oh so entertaining (you posted, didn't you)
Politics suck. There is no question about that. However, it is politicians who make laws, and lawyers who interpret laws. As long as technologically literate people avoid politics, laws and rulings will continue to be made in favor of big business and against movements such as the open source movement. I plan on going to law school after getting my masters (in computer science). When I say this, people look at me as though I have gone to the dark side. I feel, however, that trying to fight the system from the outside has proven to be almost entirely ineffective. We need more people who understand the technology fighting for our rights. Thank you for posting the why politics matter.
The only purpose of politics is to provide for the unhindered growth of individuals - Einstein
As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; --let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. - Abraham Lincoln
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. - Thomas Jefferson
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. - Thomas Jefferson
/././././././././././././././././././././.
If you are not involved in the politics of your nation, you denounce your oath and remembrance of the constitution.
As a citizen of this nation, if you forget about the constitution, you forget about those who died to create and protect it for our own good.
Read the constitution, understand it, and then gradually welcome certain elements of politics into your thoughts... remember to start small - One cannot fly into flying, you must learn to crawl then walk then run then...
Nurture your minds:
* http://www.usconstitution.net/
* Connexity by Geoff Mulgan
* The Lexus and The Olive Tree by Thomas Freedman
Every rule has an exception. The exception to this rule is God.
...I don't have enough faith to believe in the "big bang"...
So what if X-Ray lasers or other pulse laser toys can destroy a warhead in space? How the hell are you going to target hundreds of decoy warheads all coming in at once with this technology? Decoys and real warheads look the same in orbit; it's not possible to tell them apart until they enter the atmophere. And at that point: TOO LATE, better bend over and kiss your ass goodbye. SDI is NOT the solution to weapons of mass destruction... fixing broken policy is. BTW: how is SDI going to prevent a terrorist from walking a nuke into the US in their briefcase? What about biological weapons? I would argue they are far more dangerous than nukes at this point.
Don't just consider if one aspect of the technology works... consider the whole policy and whether the entire system meets it's stated goals. SDI FAILS under that presumption.
I was talking about Harry Browne. Who rocks.
I do believe Nader is a man of convictions however, but I don't share those convictions. I don't want to move us toward bigger governement.
And once again you buy into the belief that only a repub or dem could win, that only Gore and Bush are candidates. If this were the simpsons and homer ripped off their masks to reveal that they were actually martian invaders disguised as our candidates, I am sure that you would start arguing about whether it would be better to have citizen Kang in charge versus citzen Kodo, because of course, a third party vote is a wasted vote. It's mental judo. Nobody actually wants gore or bush. How is it then that millions will be fooled into voting for them? Because they believe the lie that they have no choice, that they have no actual control over who wins. The very first election where people stop believing this fiction will be the election that a third party candidate wins. I'm voting for Harry Browne because that's who i want to be president. If you are voting for someone for a different reason, then you have misunderstood how democracy works. If everyone votes for the person they actually want, we will get the leaders we want. If we let ourselves be tricked into voting for scum, we will continue to have scum. Why would Nader care if Gush wins? Gush is the same as Bore, Bore is the same as Gush. They represent the status quo.
"I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs."
"I think the puppet on the right is more to my liking."
"WAKE UP! IT'S THE SAME GUY HOLDING BOTH PUPPETS!"
Bush will rape the environment, as he did in Texas, increase free trade, and limit the power of unions in any way possible.
Duh.... and so will Gore. Vote for your conscience, not against your fear. If you don't, you've earned your shackles.
When's the last campaing promise you saw upheld?
Oh, never? Because Bush and Gore are both lying sacks of shit who refuse to answer truthfully. Neither one will change anything. They've both already been bought. If you knowingly vote for scum, you deserve what happens. The only reason that 'only gore or bush can win' is because you insist on believing its true. It's not a fact of nature. It's not a law. It's an idea put in your head 2000 times a day by a manipulative media, but it's just a much a lie as the idea that as soon as you start drinking Bud beer the swedish bikini team will appear and start frolicking with you.
An Open Letter from Moore to Gore
Dear Vice-President Gore:
Hi! How are you! It's been awhile since we've talked. Everything OK?
Sorry. Enough teasing. I've been getting a lot of calls from your friends and supporters. Man, are they freaked out! They actually think you are going to lose. Talk about no faith in the quarterback! Hasn't anyone told them that Bush didn't even win his OWN Republican primary in Michigan? "Swing state?" Ha!
According to your people, all Ralph or I have to do is wave a magic wand and the Nader voters will "come back to Gore."
Look, Al, you have screwed up -- big time. By now, you should have sent that smirking idiot back to Texas with a copy of "Hooked on Phonics" in his hands. You should have wiped the floor with him during the three debates. But you didn't. And now your people are calling ME, asking ME to do the job YOU'VE failed to do! Jeez, I've got enough on my plate these days, between work and the holidays coming up and the leaves I should be raking -- and now I'm supposed to save YOU? Unbelievable!
If you recall, I sent you a personal letter back in June asking you why I should vote for you instead of Ralph Nader for President. You sent me a four-page reply, thanking me for my "provocative letter," and outlining the VERY reasons that I knew would find you in the predicament you are in this week.
There is something I think you don't understand. You don't realize that it's YOU and the Democrats that are responsible for the possibility of Bush winning next Tuesday. Instead of being men (we aren't putting any women on the ticket yet, are we?) and owning up to your mistakes, you and your people are blaming some rumpled senior citizen lawyer who is only following his conscience. I mean, really! Ralph Nader has devoted his entire life to making the rest of our lives better. Because of him we have the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the EPA, OSHA, airbags and seatbelts, the Freedom of Information Act -- the list goes on and on. What have YOU done to save a few million lives?
Yet, you attack this decent man and those who support him. Let's get one thing straight -- we didn't leave you, YOU left us. You and your "New Democrats" abandoned the poor, the working class, and the middle class. Your support for NAFTA has cost hundreds of thousands of people -- your very supporters -- their jobs. In my hometown of Flint, 32,000 GM jobs have been lost since you and Clinton took office. That's 5,000 MORE GM jobs than were lost there during the ENTIRE 12 years of Reagan/Bush! Are you even aware that two-thirds of the school children in Flint live below the federal poverty level? And you wonder why the race in Michigan is so close! These people you left behind had nowhere else to go EXCEPT to Nader -- unless they choose to just stay home on Election Day, which is what the majority of them will do.
You and the Democrats have created the monster know as "W." There were more layoffs in the U.S. last year than in any year in the past decade. There were more family bankruptcies filed last year than any year in our history. The average family carries more personal debt now than any time since the Great Depression. And yet, you cynically take a bus ride through the Midwest calling it "The Great Lakes Prosperity Tour." Has it crossed your mind why the majority of the "swing states" where the election is too close to call are in the rust belt that begins in Missouri and extends to Pennsylvania?
Your attempts to scare Nader voters have only backfired on you. Once NARAL started running its anti-Nader ads in Minnesota, Ralph jumped up to 10% in the polls! People are not stupid. You can howl all you want about how "Bush will appoint Supreme Court justices like Scalia and Clarence Thomas." But we the people know who voted to PUT that right-wing nut Antonin Scalia on the court. It was YOU, Al Gore, the senator from Tennessee who stood up and voted "YEA!" the day Scalia was confirmed in the Senate! If we ever lose Roe v. Wade, YOU are the one with the blood on your hands, and those of us, including Ralph Nader, who fought the Scalia nomination, will never forget the jeopardy you and your fellow Democrats put women in with that vote. And when 11 of your Democratic senators voted to put Clarence Thomas on the Court, giving him the slim 52 to 48 majority he needed, your party (which was in control of the Senate at that time!) threatened every woman in America. For the love of God, do NOT have the audacity to come at us now with your scare tactics about how women may lose the right to chose. You have no credibility.
So, what do we do? One thing is certain -- George W. Bush MUST NEVER SIT IN THE OVAL OFFICE. Having met both you and George W. in person, and realizing that the two of you are in agreement on most issues, I did come away with the distinct feeling that there IS one difference between you and the governor of Texas.
George W. Bush is a banal, despicable, and corrupt human being.
And you, sir, are not. Don't get me wrong -- you believe in a lot of evil things (how sad I was to watch you during the debate as you sat there in silent agreement while Bush licked his lips at the thought of executing three men). However, as a human being, I believe you are a decent guy, a good father and husband, and somewhere deep down you have a heart and a conscience. I honestly believe that about you. So what happened?
I want Ralph Nader to get millions of votes on Tuesday. I have seen the response to Ralph at numerous huge rallies across the country. There is a progressive movement afoot in America and it needs to explode into a majority movement -- beginning now, not four years from now.
I truly believe Nader is closer to how the majority of Americans feel than either you or Bush. Go ahead, ask around. The majority of Americans want REAL health insurance, a living wage, a chance to be represented by a union, less money wasted on the Pentagon, and no one wants to wear clothes made by a 12-year old in an Asian "free trade" sweatshop. If the media and you hadn't just woken up to the Nader campaign, if you had welcomed him into the debates, we all would have been discussing THESE issues months ago -- and you would have quickly learned how Americans feel about them.
OK, so you missed an opportunity to do the right thing. Now you are asking us to pull you out of your mistake and prevent the reign of terror a Bush presidency will bring us.
How do you want to do this? What will you give the working poor and the young people who have decided to desert you next Tuesday? I am willing to discuss anything short of Ralph not getting 5% of the vote. He can obtain that goal AND Bush can be defeated. They are not mutually exclusive.
But the ball is in your court, not ours. I will not feel one iota of guilt should you screw up and lose on Tuesday. The blame I do share is that I voted for you and Bill in 1992. And I have spent the last 8 years doing what I could, in my own small ways, to try and stop the hemorrhaging that your administration caused.
Did I ever tell you the story about Buell Elementary in Flint? I helped build a computer lab there so that the kids (83% of them live in poverty) would have the same leg up as the students in the wealthier districts.
But you and the President eliminated federal assistance for millions of poor mothers. This year, one of those mothers, living near Buell Elementary, faced eviction from her home. She had to put her kids up at a relative's house so she could at least keep her "welfare-to-work" assignment. Under your watch, she became a victim of your policies, was loaded onto a bus each day and, for 12 hours, transported to and from a wealthy white suburb to work at "Dick Clark's All-American Restaurant." Her 6-year old, homeless, was forced to stay with his uncle. One day, last February, while his mother worked off her welfare payments at the All-American restaurant, that little 6-year old found his uncle's gun, took it to school, and shot a 6-year old girl in the neck, just as they were on their way down to work on the computers I had bought for them.
Have you had a chance, Mr. Gore, to hear the 911 call from the teacher as she was trying to stop the geyser of blood shooting out from that 6-year old girl's neck just before she died? You should hear it. She's the recipient of what you call "welfare reform."
I am reachable by phone or e-mail.
Yours,
Michael Moore
http://www.theawfultruth.com/
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
mmflint@aol.com