Elect Steve Jobs President of the United States

Will Foster writes "There is a groundswell of support for electing Steve Jobs President of the United States." I'll vote for him if I can write in my vote -- with a Newton stylus!

Comments

Stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a stupid idea. Why not form some of your own political views and act on them?

Re:Stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not form some of your own political views and act on them?

Because that's not the way American politics works. The general population never votes on issues, just representatives. At least on the federal level.

Eat up martha

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that would give you reasonable odds of voting in Albert Gore.

Re:Eat up martha

[cioxx]

it's not what he has done. It's what he will do.

I can see it now: Fiscal iBudget, Cute (but slow) Warplanes, State of the Union adress will attract more geeks and will spring rumor sites discussing possible announcements about lowering crime, spending more money on education, etc.

Wrong Steve

[Servo]

I wouldn't vote for Steve Jobs for president, but I would definately vote for the "Woz". Something tells me that Jobs would actually make a better figurehead president than Woz though.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Forgotten]

Only if you quaintly assume that being president has something to do with having a bountiful clue, or being a kind reasonable person.

Woz would make a great technical or education advisor, but probably a lousy president.

Re:Wrong Steve

[dublisk]

Remind me again - what's the difference between a figurehead and a president?

Re:Wrong Steve

[nomadic]

A large one. Anyone who thinks the President doens't have real power hasn't been reading the news lately. Or ever.

Re:Wrong Steve

[YourMissionForToday]

What about Jimmy Carter? Presidents can be nice, too, you know...

Re:Wrong Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

How would watching the news inform one as to whether the president was in charge, or acting as a puppet to other interests?

Re:Wrong Steve

[nomadic]

Except when the president is an idiot. Or an actor with alzheimers. Or some damned cowboy more interested in his ranch than his republic. Am I repeating myself? Sorry.

Listen, I -wish- the current President was more of a figurehead nowadays, but it's just not true. He gets these fool notions in his head, and he acts on them. That's power.

Re:Wrong Steve

[nexex]

you obviously are an expert on history. better to be interested in a ranch than getting head

Re:Wrong Steve

[njchick]

better to be interested in a ranch than getting head

Better for the First Lady. Worse for Saddam.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Earlybird]

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. (Douglas Adams)

Re:Wrong Steve

[syukton]

it probably won't, because the media is probably being puppeted to the same "other interests" as the "figurehead" is.

Re:Wrong Steve

[banzai51]

You obviously didn't live through the Carter administration, did you?

Re:Wrong Steve

[Un pobre guey]

Score:5, Insightful

You guys must be kidding! Insightful? The guy thinks Dubya is up there doing "leadership"?

No doubt we're going to invade Iraq to free their people and bring them democracy, right? And clamping the international price of petroleum forever has nothing to do with it, right? And funneling several hundred billion dollars through the defense industry while ignoring the growing crowds of unemployed has nothing to do with it, right? And giving the top 5% income bracket lots of new tax breaks and only giving the rest of us a few hundred bucks has nothing to do with it, right? And imposing the Christian version of the Taliban on us has nothing to do with it, right? And suspending our rights to privacy and due process so we don't get in their way has nothing to do with it, right? And, and...

Dude, pass me the fucking pipe!

Re:Wrong Steve

[Stonent1]

Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. (Douglas Adams)

And then there's

I would never be a member of a club that would have me as a member - Groucho Marx

Re:Wrong Steve

[kir]

You know... I read a post like this and wonder if these thoughts are really his own or if he's just regurgitate someone else's rhetoric. And then I read this...

Dude, pass me the fucking pipe!

Jesus.

Re:Wrong Steve

[superyooser]

Yeah, like he gets these fool notions in his head that there are "terrorists" out there. What planet is he on? I've personally never seen a terrorist in my life. We're in danger from people in the Middle East?? That's got to be a tale as tall as the WTC^H^H^HEmpire State Building.

</sarcasm>

Re:Wrong Steve

[dreamchaser]

The sad thing is I think you really believe what you are saying here. The government's primary job is defense, not to give jobs to people, and those 5% that you cite pay 90% of the taxes already, so they SHOULD get a break. Sadly, you are the product of too many years of badly run public education.

Russia has far more oil and is more than willing to sell it. Iraq's oil reserves are not the largest in the world, and oil has little to do with the current situation. Or are you suggesting that we let a crazed dictator who is more than willing to gas his own people give the same capability to the various terrorist groups he's supported over the years?

I'm not a huge fan of the current administration, but it's a lot better than the last one. Bush might not be as pristine in character as his PR folks try to make him look, but he's lightyears ahead of his predecessor in the departments of ethics and moral character.

Re:Wrong Steve

[shri]

reported this morning (Hong Kong time) on Drudgereport.com

PAPER: U.S. begins secret talks to secure IRAQI OIL FIELDS... developing...

Re:Wrong Steve

[Servo]

You guys must be kidding! Insightful? The guy thinks Dubya is up there doing "leadership"?

Uh, what part of what I said anything about what I thought of our current President. I didn't vote for him, and I dislike him more and more very day since he was elected.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt we're going to invade Iraq to free their people and bring them democracy, right?

Bush let the congress decide, and they decided to let Bush decide.

And clamping the international price of petroleum forever has nothing to do with it, right? And funneling several hundred billion dollars through the defense industry while ignoring the growing crowds of unemployed has nothing to do with it, right?

Lowering Oil price will help the war on terror by hurting Saudi arabia (our real, not-so-secret enemy). It will also help the unemployed by helping the economy.

And giving the top 5% income bracket lots of new tax breaks and only giving the rest of us a few hundred bucks has nothing to do with it, right?

It was the same % across the board, it was a proportional tax break at worst, and therefore didn't "favor" the rich. Also note that this was approved by the democrats in the senate.

And imposing the Christian version of the Taliban on us has nothing to do with it, right?

where has the bush administration abused its power (show me reputable news articles, not hair-brained conspiracy theory)?

And suspending our rights to privacy and due process so we don't get in their way has nothing to do with it, right? And, and...

The largest violation of our civil liberties in the past 2 years was the patriot act. The patriot act was approved by 320+ congressmen and opposed by 42. In the democrat-controlled senate, it was voted 99-0 (I think Jeffords abstained). Please note this important fact about the patriot act: Some of the language of the act was written under the clinton administration. Biding their time, I suppose, for reason to instate it, or sneak it into another "crime bill".

The 2nd largest violation of our personal privacy was this new-fangled homeland security bill. This doesn't take that many more civil liberties away, it simply provides facilities to process the unconstitutionally-collected information about you and me. I'm amazed this bill got more press than the patriot act, being as how it pales in comparison.. Then again I'm not really amazed, the patriot act was shortly after 9/11/01. Your bi-partisan, legally-elected, deceitful, and lying representatives used this tragedy to blind you while they stole your freedom out from under you. Kind of makes you wonder what those poor people really died for...


I'm no republican, but I still don't see where Bush has done anything legally wrong. Morally, I think his signing of the Patriot Act was wrong, but no moreso than the overwelming bi-partisan support it obtained. It makes me sad to think that ousting 1 man wouldn't solve the problem with power-hunger and corruption in the US government. Not even the removal his whole administration or his whole party would fix it. Both parties must go.

One thing Republicans and Democrats will always agree on: Third parties are their worst enemy.

Vote Libertarian

(posted anonymously to avoid possible investigation)

Re:Wrong Steve

[deranged unix nut]

Why is this funny?

Just because Douglas Adams wrote it? I see a lot of wisdom in that. Don't give power to those hungry for it, give it to someone who will treat it with the appropriate level of respect.

If they are capable of getting themselves made President, they already have too much power. They need to have the trust of the people, if they have control of the people then it is a dictatorship.

Re:Wrong Steve

[nomadic]

More like the idea that Iraq is more dangerous than North Korea because Iraq may develop nuclear weapons and may use them to attack the US. Meanwhile North Korea HAS nuclear weapons and has THREATENED us with them explicitly, but that's apparently no big deal.

What other idiotic things has he thought up? Ah, how about trying to fix the economy with massive tax cuts for the top 1% of the economic ladder? And note to slashdot posters: You are not in this 1%. Yes, I know you're proud of your paycheck, and convinced that you are part of this 1%, but you're not.

Re:Wrong Steve

[nomadic]

The guy thinks Dubya is up there doing "leadership"?

Are you referring to me? Because I most certainly didn't say "leadership". I said "power".

No doubt we're going to invade Iraq to free their people and bring them democracy, right? And clamping the international price of petroleum forever has nothing to do with it, right? And funneling several hundred billion dollars through the defense industry while ignoring the growing crowds of unemployed has nothing to do with it, right? And giving the top 5% income bracket lots of new tax breaks and only giving the rest of us a few hundred bucks has nothing to do with it, right? And imposing the Christian version of the Taliban on us has nothing to do with it, right? And suspending our rights to privacy and due process so we don't get in their way has nothing to do with it, right? And, and...

And being able to do these things is an expression of...

(drum roll please)

POWER.

Note that power is a value-neutral thing. It means simply the ability to do certain things, and does not imply any morality or lack thereof. I assure you, however little you think of the current US president, I think even less.

Re:Wrong Steve

[kevinank]

Hmmm. I still think I'd take odd-even days and stag-flation over imperialism. (Then again, I drive an NGV for commuting so gasoline lines wouldn't really effect me anyway.)

Somehow though I find it easier to blame GW for his foreign policy, than to blame Jimmy Carter for his national policy. Maybe if I were more hawkish I would rationalize the other way though -- we could have started bombing OPEC members for example, until they agreed to lower their oil prices.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Hugonz]

>but he's lightyears ahead of his predecessor in the departments of ethics and moral character.

Should I assume you're saying this because Clinton got a blowjob while Dubya has to ask Bush Sr. for permission first?

Re:Wrong Steve

[Hugonz]

War on terror? Saudi Arabia? Save yourself some billion dollars and solve the War on Terror by not spending billions helping Israel fuck Palestinians, most of the muslim hatred towards the USA will be gone.

Re:Wrong Steve

[kac5]

And imposing the Christian version of the Taliban on us has nothing to do with it, right?

where has the bush administration abused its power (show me reputable news articles, not hair-brained conspiracy theory)?

Well for one...how about today's The Age Editorial , which states that George Bush is pushing his Christian views against abortion through the courts by appointing judges that are pro-life and refusing to sign UN documents that may encourage abortion or the use of condoms to help eradicate the spread of AIDS? Isn't that exactly what the Taliban did to Afghans but Islam not Christianity?

One thing that annoys the hell (oops that's a bad word in the states isn't it?) out of me is when a Liberal govt is in power here in Australia, foreign policy tends to be directed by the American President, however WE cannot decide who the American President is...as we are not American citizens.

Ok that's my ramble for the day

Re:Wrong Steve

[toriver]

Wasn't it Ulysses S. Grant who, when suggested as presidential candidate after the U.S. Civil War, refused, saying:

If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve?

Re:Wrong Steve

[superyooser]

More like the idea that Iraq is more dangerous than North Korea because Iraq may develop nuclear weapons and may use them to attack the US. Meanwhile North Korea HAS nuclear weapons

Nomadic, the answer to your confusion is in your very statements. It's too late for anybody to deal with North Korea the way we're dealing with Iraq for the reason that N. Korea already has nuclear weapons. The U.S. is going after Iraq now to prevent there from being two N. Korea situations in the future. Saddam is grasping for nukes and any kind of WMD he can get his hands on. Once Iraq is in the nuclear club, there's no turning back. What's more dangerous about Iraq getting nukes than N. Korea is that Saddam has been supporting and possibly collaborating with Islamic terrorist groups which have carried out major terrorist bombings in all six inhabited continents. Saddam may not be Muslim himself, but he shares their hatred for the non-Islamic world. AFAIK, N. Korea has not been supporting Islamic terrorists.

Why is the world pushing the responsibility of dealing with N. Korea soley on President Bush's shoulders? I thought the world didn't want the U.S. to take action unilaterally. N. Korea is a problem that Asian countries or the U.N. should have to deal with. I say this is a job for Moammar Gadhafi, the new chairman of the U.N. Security Council. :-)

What other idiotic things has he thought up? Ah, how about trying to fix the economy with massive tax cuts for the top 1% of the economic ladder?

Ah, that that were true. That would be a good idea since the top 1% pays most of the taxes anyway. Tax cuts for the top 1% would be more beneficial for the economy than tax cuts for any other percentile. The more money that is in consumer's hands, the better the economy.

However, it's not just the top 1% getting tax cuts. The truth is that every, single, solitary citizen who pays a nickel in taxes will get a tax cut. Democrats are lying through their teeth about this. IMHO, the rich should be getting bigger tax cuts than they're going to get.

Tax cuts are a proven method of stimulating the economy. It is nearly a scientific fact. The tax cut experiment is repeatable and its results verifiable. Of course, it's not truly scientific since we can't control the countless external variables, but tax cuts have worked in every configuration of variables they've been tried. The probability of producing higher revenue for both the government and citizens is very high and beyond reasonable doubt. Even if other negative factors conspired to pull the economy further downward, the country would be better off with lower tax rates than we currently have.

IN (ex-SOVIET) RUSSIA, they have lower taxes than the U.S.! And it's a flat tax! During his presidential campaign, Steve Forbes was laughed at by liberals as a capitalist whore (or some such derisive label), but now even the somewhat-reformed Marxist, ex-KGB man Putin has seen the light that tax cuts are good for his country, and they've worked! As they always do. Russia: Changing 12, 20, 30 percent tax rates to single 13% flat tax produced higher revenues. It's incredible, even Russian Communists now understand capitalism better than American and Western European liberals.

I know you're proud of your paycheck, and convinced that you are part of this 1%, but you're not.

I'm unemployed.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Malcontent]

"those 5% that you cite pay 90% of the taxes already, "

The top 5% don't pay 90% of the taxes. They do however make more then 90% of the money. I think the top 5 (or the 10) ought to pay same percentage of the taxes as they make the income.

"Russia has far more oil and is more than willing to sell it. Iraq's oil reserves are not the largest in the world, and oil has little to do with the current situation."

The US is acting in a typical bully fashion. We can't attack north korea because they might actually hit back. We hit the smallest kid in the school and take his lunch money instead. Iraqs oil reserves are not the largest in the world but they are certainly enough for the US to use for a long time. If you can beat up a 90 pound weakling and a million dollars then you'd do it even in other people had more money. Attacking Iraq cost us nothing, no casualties, no lost investment in the US economy, no serious repercussions of any sort. We have been bombing them pretty steady for the last ten years anyway and most of them are starving.

"Or are you suggesting that we let a crazed dictator who is more than willing to gas his own people give the same capability to the various terrorist groups he's supported over the years?"

Crazed dictators are dime a dozen are you seriously suggesting that the US attack every country in which a crazed dictator lives? As for the gassing of his own people we didn't mind it then why are you upset about that 10 years later? In fact the US sold them those chemicals and the knowhow. Finally if you are going to attack every country who committed some sort of atrocity in the last couple of decades you will be pretty damned busy and the worst thing is you'd have to start with Israel. Of course they have weapons of mass destruction and are in violation of numerous UN security resolutions and kill a thousand palestenians a year so there can't possibly be any reason to attack them.

"Bush might not be as pristine in character as his PR folks try to make him look, but he's lightyears ahead of his predecessor in the departments of ethics and moral character."

If you think that lying about where your cock has been is worse then killing tens of thousands of innocent iraqui civilians, stipping liberties from US citizens, assasinating US citizens abroad, locking up us citizens without trial or lawyers indefinately, invading the privacy of every US citizen, making backroom deal with oil companies, loosening just about every enviromental regulation then your moral character is zero.

What the hell do you care about where Bill Clinton put his cock? I don't give a shit about his cock, I don't think about his cock, I don't ask about his cock, I don't talk about his cock (well I am now but that's because you brought it up). To me losing my rights and my money is more important then bill clinton's cock. How come bill clinton's cock is more important to you then the economy, losing your rights, the environment, or anything else?

Re:Wrong Steve

[stephanruby]

"I'm no republican, but I still don't see where Bush has done anything legally wrong."

Legally wrong? We shouldn't judge our leader by the laws he has "not broken". That's a louzy way to judge a leader. Besides, Bush has broken plenty of international laws, correction, Bush has arrogantly decided what is legal and what is not legal (i.e. illegal combatants, the Geneva convention, disarmement treaties, interrogation techniques, etc.). Eventually, many of his decisions will be deemed illegal, but that will take time -- time to uncover and time to adjudicate. Saying that he has not done anything illegal does not say much. Our President is immune to international laws since he is doing the illegal activities under the banner or our country and he is also immune from most of our national laws since in the end he can pardon pretty much whomever he wants.

Re:Wrong Steve

[sysiphus]

Thank you. Every time I start to consider swinging towards becoming more of a liberal, someone like you comes along to keep me a firm moderate. It amazes me how as people swing further and further towards liberal and conservative mindsets, they actually start looking and sounding more and more alike.

Really, does this remind anyone of a typical knee-jerk reaction to, say, a story about a judge ordering a school to take down the ten commandments? The only difference I see is in the content being expressed; the tone, style, and quality of arguments is the same. Please note that this is a meta-comment about the argument style, not an agreement or refutation of the argument.

Sysiphus

Re:Wrong Steve

[ThaReetLad]

You mention that Russia has a flat tax system and lower taxes than the US and that its working. Can I ask you one question? Have you ever been to Russia? I was in Moscow in November and I can tell you it is NOT working. OK some people are rich, mafia, politicos, top businessmen. But most of them can afford fancy accountants and bribes so they don't pay any tax. The vast majority of Russians live in total abject poverty. It is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, and there is no such thing as a russian middle class. You're either rich or poor. There are no "comfortably well off" people. Having been there I can say this with some authority. Give me a nice friendly social democracy anyday over an ultra capitalist one. The lesson is this, the success of a country can be measured more in the happiness of its citizens than by the wealth of its government. After all, if a government is by the people, for the people, why should it be doing anything other than seeking the best for the WHOLE of the people, rather than just the top 1%.

Re:Wrong Steve

[NeMon'ess]

Plenty of what the common people in the middle east hear is propaganda, half-truths, and lies spread by the private and state-run media. Much of this hate comes from the media there.

If Israel ceases to exist, will the common people suddenly decide to overthrow the Saudi monarchy that prevents the people from deciding if they should live under strict islamic law? Israel is not always the problem. It makes a good scapegoat, but you should question the corruption and non-democratic governments in the middle east that allow hate to foment.

Re:Wrong Steve

[nomadic]

Nomadic, the answer to your confusion is in your very statements. It's too late for anybody to deal with North Korea the way we're dealing with Iraq for the reason that N. Korea already has nuclear weapons.

In other words he's been outmaneuvered by North Korea. Suffice it to say lumping North Korea in with Iran and Iraq as part of the "Axis of Evil" was a stupid thing to do, eh? That is the point of the conversation, which you've seem to have forgotten.

Ah, that that were true. That would be a good idea since the top 1% pays most of the taxes anyway. Tax cuts for the top 1% would be more beneficial for the economy than tax cuts for any other percentile. The more money that is in consumer's hands, the better the economy.

Doesn't work that way. If someone making $700,000 a year gets another $10,000 or $20,000 off their taxes, it doesn't change their lifestyle. They don't consume much. If instead of giving $20,000 to one wealthy person, you gave $5,000 to 4 middle class people, you'll get more spending.

Of course, it's not truly scientific since we can't control the countless external variables, but tax cuts have worked in every configuration of variables they've been tried. The probability of producing higher revenue for both the government and citizens is very high and beyond reasonable doubt.

Wrong, they haven't. The last tax cut has failed miserably.

As the other person eloquently debunked your ideas on Russia, I won't say anything about it, beyond responding to this:

It's incredible, even Russian Communists now understand capitalism better than American and Western European liberals.

Russia is an incredible failure in capitalism; hell, people were starting to support Communist politicians. Do you know how bad things have to be for someone to remember fondly a brutal, totalitarian state?

Re:Wrong Steve

[sql*kitten]

No doubt we're going to invade Iraq to free their people and bring them democracy, right?

Actually, I think so. Sure, it may only be a side effect, but I think it will happen, and I think that it is actually in the West's long-term strategic interest to do so. The whole Middle East is full of disenfranchised people held in line by a combination of propaganda blaming infidels (the carrot) and secret police (the stick). It's a powder keg waiting to go off. A truly democratic regime in the region will bleed off a lot of the pressure.

And clamping the international price of petroleum forever has nothing to do with it, right?

I got news for you: jacking up the price of oil is the economic equivalent of sending the Navy to blockade a port. Both are forms of economic warfare, and both are a threat.

And funneling several hundred billion dollars through the defense industry while ignoring the growing crowds of unemployed has nothing to do with it, right?

So, let's see what you're saying here, Dubya is bad because he's ignoring the economy, and Dubya is bad because he's trying to see off a far worse economic threat. Which is it to be? Or have you made up your mind that anything he does is wrong by definition?

Personally, I'd rather see the money spent on a way to make the West independent of the Middle East for energy (like fusion research), but even you cannot deny that defense spending creates jobs. That's a historical fact.

And giving the top 5% income bracket lots of new tax breaks and only giving the rest of us a few hundred bucks has nothing to do with it, right?

I read in the Washington Post that the top 5% of earners pay 41% of the total Federal tax collected annually. That's an awful lot. I think those folks have been carrying more than their fair share of the tax burden for a long time. BTW, those on $30k/year or less effectively pay no Federal tax at all.

And imposing the Christian version of the Taliban on us has nothing to do with it, right? And suspending our rights to privacy and due process so we don't get in their way has nothing to do with it, right?

Yeah, I agree with you here. The moral of the story: if you want to be critical of someone, and be taken seriously yourself, criticise them for what they actually have done, don't go off on an unsubstantiated rant about irrelevant issues.

Re:Wrong Steve

[danro]

That, sir, was one hell of a rant.
I wish my ranting abilities was up to the standard of your last few paragraphs.

Re:Wrong Steve

[nich37ways]

You may not have voted for him; but did you vote against him.

If you don't vote you don't have the right to complain because you are saying you don't care who is elected.

Im not American btw and I am not trying to attack you, just trying to make a point

--

nich

Re:Wrong Steve

[Zog The Undeniable]

Or are you suggesting that we let a crazed dictator who is more than willing to gas his own people

This is vaguely ironic...or do they use lethal injection in Texas these days?

Re:Wrong Steve

[Rocketboy]

Presidents can be nice, too, you know

What does 'nice' have to do with Steve Jobs?

Re:Wrong Steve

[thebiss]

Let me be certain I see this clearly: Post the leftist view and +5 your karma. Post something conservative, and get modded down.

Yup, perfectly clear.

Re:Wrong Steve

[The AtomicPunk]

Well,gosh, when the top 5% income bracket pays 95% of the taxes, it stands to reason that a tax cut benefits them.

How horrible, letting people keep more of the money they actually earned. Whoever came up with such a ludicrous idea?

The only difference between you and "Dubya" is that he wants to take our hard-earned money and use it for his projects, and you want to take it and use it for yours.

Re:Wrong Steve

[doggo]

Amen. Two words: Petro Fascist. The entire cabinet is made up of ex oil executives. Is it any wonder that we want a "war" with Iraq? And what about the big push to restrict our personal freedoms, Ministry of Homeland Security? Total Information Control. Don't be surprised if elections get cancelled because of a National emergency because of the "war".

Re:Wrong Steve

[BFaucet]

Bravo!

Re:Wrong Steve

[PhipleTroenix]

Bush might not be as pristine in character as his PR folks try to make him look, but he's lightyears ahead of his predecessor in the departments of ethics and moral character.

So presiding over more execution in Texas than the rest of the civilized world combined shows good character. Don't even get me started on having his brother steal the election in Florida for him...

Re:Wrong Steve

[Cally]

> The government's primary job is defense,

Wrong. Noam Chomsky said it best:

"THE COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE PRIMARY ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM THE MAJORITY - AND SO IT REMAINS." - Chomsky, as sampled on the #1 hit single "The Masses Against the Classes" by the Manic Street Preachers.

Re:Wrong Steve

[pcb]

Every time I start to consider swinging towards becoming more of a liberal...

OK I'm going to rant! WTF is wrong with being liberal.

LIBERAL (adj.): (1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. (2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Both these definitions are good things to be. Every time some semi-political article appears on Slashdot, somebody goes on a rant about how the media being liberal, or some politician is being liberal, on to ad nauseam. The American right is always twisting the meaning to be something negative. Just because a person leans economically towards the right, does not mean they must be socially conservative (think John Kenneth Galbraith). Conversely, a person who leans towards the left economically, is not always liberal minded (think Joseph Stalin).

Is being open minded not a good thing? Is being tolerant of others not a good thing? Would you rather be close-minded and intolerant? Could some social conservative please explain this to me! Only in America.

-PCB

Re:Wrong Steve

[Sinus0idal]

"and I think that it is actually in the West's long-term strategic interest to do so"

Yes, it may be in OUR strategic interest to do so... but is forcing our culture upon them in THEIR interest and the interest of the REST of the middle east / world?

Re:Wrong Steve

[Carmody]

How horrible, letting people keep more of the money they actually earned.

"they actually earned"?

You mean "inherited" don't you? Their grandparents "earned" the money.

Re:Wrong Steve

[chef_raekwon]

please do the math

5% of richest, do NOT pay 95% of the taxes. this is a MYTH.

nb- if this were the case --- Bill Gates would probably pay more taxes than the rest of America combined. Or, atleast more taxes than all middle/lower class combined, which infact, is about 280 million people.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Surt]

Yeah! I'm tired of hearing just about every week about how some Israeli blew up a bunch of palestinian civilians.

Wait, is that what happened?

Re:Wrong Steve

[nathanm]

Hmmm. I still think I'd take odd-even days and stag-flation over imperialism.

What imperialism? You surely don't mean the US, I hope. We do not have an empire, or even imperialistic ambitions. In fact, throughout our history, we've been instrumental in the downfall and destruction of every remaining empire.

Before you reply, please read this argument, which is much more well written and cogent than I could ever write.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Fig, formerly A.C.]

2 things here:

1) Thanks to the electoral college, our vote does not matter at all. None. Nada. Zip. This is a republic, bub. We don't get a direct vote on high level stuff. Originally put in place because counting and communicating all those votes over that distance was unfeasible in a timely manner, the electoral college now just affirms the fact that the government thinks the masses are too stupid to vote for the president. But they are happy to let us THINK we are voting.

2) Thanks to the two party system combined with the electoral college, we get to "choose" between only 2 candidates. We don't truly have a CHOICE.

This "don't complain if you don't vote" crap is like asking "Do you want to get punched in the face or kicked in the balls?", and then saying "if you don't choose one then you have no right to complain." What happened to the option of not getting abused in the first place?

Re:Wrong Steve

[QuackQuack]

The top 5% don't pay 90% of the taxes. They do however make more then 90% of the money. I think the top 5 (or the 10) ought to pay same percentage of the taxes as they make the income.

If, as you say they make 90% of the money, how can they not be paying at least 90% of the taxes? Do the math, the income tax is still progressive.

And don't give me that bull that the rich get all the tax breaks, many of the breaks get phased out over certain income levels, and you also have to start dealing with the AMT

Re:Wrong Steve

[Fjandr]

Unfortunately, it's a common symptom of public education. They just don't teach anymore, whether the subject is math, history, economics, or just good old-fashioned critical thinking skills.

I doubt that it even occurs to most people who propose class warfare (which is what the whole rich-poor taxation arguments amount to)that the income tax is a) a wartime measure b) most Americans don't have a fsking clue which war it's from and c) don't even know that it strips them of their fundamental right to own property. For those who don't understand the last part, the power to tax something means the power to tax at any rate, without any limits, even 1000%. This means that, anything that can be taxed, can be banned.

Since your own hands and mind, and hence the work you do with them, form the basis of the creation of property, taxing the production connotes the power to prevent any use through excessive taxation, or, the ability to destroy the property rights of any or all.

It's too bad Americans by-and-large don't have the attention span or critical thinking skills to understand anything more in-depth than a Seinfeld episode, so they'll get fleeced until there is enough critical mass to either make change peacefully, or violently.

Re:Wrong Steve

[pianophile]

>Wasn't it Ulysses S. Grant who, when suggested
> as presidential candidate after the U.S. Civil
> War, refused, saying: If nominated I will not
> run, if elected I will not serve?

No, LBJ said that when he decided not to run in 1968.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Alan Partridge]

surely you jest? If having military garrisons stationed all over the world isn't imperialism (never mind the NATO pax americana or the cultural imperialism) then what the fuck is?

wake up you dolt!

Re:Wrong Steve

[raju1kabir]

If Israel ceases to exist, will the common people suddenly decide to overthrow the Saudi monarchy that prevents the people from deciding if they should live under strict islamic law?

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, but just to make it clear:

The monarchy in Saudi Arabia - for which I otherwise have very little sympathy - is the only thing seriously standing in the way between the medium-strict version of sharia in place now, and a full-on hardcore cleritocracy of a sort that would send those lightweight weekend jihadis from the Taliban and revolutionary Iran whimpering to their mommies.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Alan Partridge]

Defense!

Let's check THAT one out - when America was ACTUALLY UNDER ATTACK (from WITHIN, of course) your wonderful "defense" was paralysingly ineffective to the point of invisibility. However when "defending" Vietnam you managed to drop more ordnance than had been dropped during the entirety of WWII, then went and "defended" Iraq to an even GREATER extent. You name call half of the sovereign nations on earth for their evil possesion of WMD, yet have the LARGEST stockpiles and the ONLY record of first strike use.

Truly, the US government has redefined what it means to be hypocritical, and you blubberous fuckwits spoon the horseshit that they feed you down and ask for fucking seconds. You're worse than the fucking Chinese.

Re:Wrong Steve

[uk_greg]

Not quite - LBJ's quote was " I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President."

Listen to it at this site

Re:Wrong Steve

[JimFromJersey]

You stupid fucking god-damn twit. Hey assface, those garrisons are there with the consent of the country. If they don't want us there all they have to do is ask us to leave. I'm sorry if your socialist shithole of a country is impotent on the worldstage. Guess what, too fucking bad, you fucking polesmokers had your chance and blew it, now it's our turn. Fuck you very much.

Re:Wrong Steve

[clarkc3]

The government's primary job is defense

The goverment's job is to look after its people and to do what's best for them. Defense is only a part of that. Things like living conditions, enforcement & creation of laws, education, are also parts of that.

he's lightyears ahead of his predecessor in the departments of ethics and moral character

I dont know about that - neither of them is something I would call a person of high moral character. One of the problems I see is dubya's supporters seem to think if you dont like the job he is doing or dont agree with his views, you are unpatriotic, and that is one of the things that angers me most.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Hugonz]

You don't hear about an isolated Israeli (at least now, look back some decades though) blowing up several civilians, you hear about the government demolishing the families of the dead Palestinian terrorist's relatives. Remember it's the Israeli government, supposedly civilized, who ordered this.

From time to time, the houses are demolished with people inside. From time to time a missile is fired inside a crowded market or into a residential building by the Israeli government.

Re:Wrong Steve

[squiggleslash]

Let me be certain I see this clearly: Post the leftist view and +5 your karma. Post something conservative, and get modded down.

So, now the media is so right-leaning it's impossible for all but the most extreme freeper wingnut to protest about "liberal bias", you're now resorting to moaning about Slashdot!

Given the moderators are a cross section of Slashdot readers, would it be fair you're going to complain about your freaks list next?

Re:Wrong Steve

[Goldsmith]

And the fact that he's managed to convince a large part of the government to follow him shows that he has no power?

I don't get it, you complain that Bush is not "leading" anything and then list a string of issues that would not exist were he not to lead them.

No one said he's being agreeable, they're just saying he has a lot of power and he's doing something with it.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Alan Partridge]

and what - exactly - do you mean by we? America has "freed" countries in much the same way the British and Roman empires did, but at least they realised their imperial responsibilities.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Alan Partridge]

well, you're blowing it pretty fucking good right now. Your cunt president is lining y'all up to be royally aresefucked by someone - quite why you want him to destroy you is anyone's guess.

Re:Wrong Steve

[The LowTech Swede]

Hey assface, those garrisons are there with the consent of the country. If they don't want us there all they have to do is ask us to leave.

Do you SERIOUSLY believe this to be true? Take Cuba for example: Do they want american bases, do they want to live under US of A's ongoing threats and trade limitations? Do you fail to see the correlation beween not being "impotent on the worldstage(sic)" and being imperialistic? Your tone does not seem to indicate that you argue very well, or even think very well, but please use what you've got up there.

In the mean time, I am happily enjoying my cuban cigars, thank you very much!

Re:Wrong Steve

[kevinank]

What imperialism? You surely don't mean the US, I hope. We do not have an empire, or even imperialistic ambitions. In fact, throughout our history, we've been instrumental in the downfall and destruction of every remaining empire.

Feel free to substitute neo-imperialism for imperialism if that makes you feel better. Quibbling over semantics is boring, so I won't stand on the word.

Conceptually the US holds most of the world's nations in thrall. US law supercedes the laws of Guam and the US Virgin Islands even though those nations have no vote in the US. US law reaches into most of the world's countries -- from countries that would fail without being propped up by US military support, to indictment of foreign citizens who have no business interactions with the US over violations of US law, to coercion through fear and threats of force to stances on foreign policy, the US interferes with other countries sovereignty. In the sense that empires remove from their occupied countries the right to self determination, there are very few countries in the world that aren't subjugated to US neo-imperialism.

If I call that imperialism, rather than neo-imperialism, then it is only because the latter is more difficult to write.

Re:Wrong Steve

[sysiphus]

Well, I'm not a social conservative, so I am not the one to explain that viewpoint. Perhaps you mistook me for one by my post; if so you missed the part where I said "someone like you comes along to keep me a firm moderate." Either way, you missed my point.

The point of the whole thing was that Un pobre guey had gone off on a rant that represented an American political "liberal" viewpoint. That rant (the word can frequently be used as a synonym for "troll") may have had "liberal" content, but is identical in style to the rants by "conservatives" that you complained about.

I agree with you about the whole open minded bit. By the dictionary definition, I am actually quite a liberal. However, I was referring to becoming more of a liberal in the american political sense. Do you really think Un pobre guey is open minded about his stance? Do you think that NOW is open minded about empowerment of women? Again, I'm NOT making a value statement about the position, only that they appear quite firm-minded in them. I find NOW to be no more open-minded than, say, Rush Limbaugh. They are both equally firm in their respective positions, despite the difference in those positions. I have found that any truly open-minded person that I have met is a moderate, for only they can see the strengths and weaknesses of both "liberal" and "conservative" positions. (Also note that I have not found all moderates to be open-minded; many are simply follow th crowd.)

All that having been said, you may be surprised how many of Un pobre guey's points I agreed with. I simply abhor the knee-jerk troll method in which it was presented.

Sysiphus

Re:Wrong Steve

[The LowTech Swede]

I don't care the least who the president fucks, and in which cavity he puts it as long as he's a good president. Bill was far better than Dubya as leader of the world's only current super power.

Re:Wrong Steve

[quax]

Unfortunately as was already pointed out in another reply the USA have a very bad track record when it comes to nation building. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the last time it worked post-WWII Germany? And there you were able to count on some surviving democrats from the 1st German republic.

The 1st Gulf war offered a golden opportunity to remove Saddam from power. You can not recreate this historic opportunity. The former rebel fractions have not forgotten that the USA abandoned them after they were made to believe that the US force were to assist their struggle.

The strong anti-American sentiments of the vast majority of Arabs stems from how the US handles or rather doesn't handle the Palestine/Israel conflict. US forces would have been regarded as liberators (at least by a large percentage of Iraqi people) if they had occupied Iraq in the 1st Gulf war. This time around this is very unlikely to happen.

It looks like Bush jr. will move in. I think it will be a disaster. I desperatly hope that I am wrong.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Rick BigNail]

There is nothing wrong with Liberal for sure.

I don't see anything wrong with Conservative either.

In my mind the good sense of conservative is:

Moderate; cautious

What's wrong with that? I like progress. Most people like that. That's called Moderate.

The point of arguement is how fast. If too fast, like Cultural Revolution in China, people suffer. If too slow, like the 'American Right', people suffer as well.

It's time for everyone get away for rhetoric, stay calm and do what's best for everybody after healthy debates.

Re:Wrong Steve

[kalidasa]

In Songs of Distant Earth, Clarke makes the ambition to become president the one thing that disqualifies one for the job.

Re:Wrong Steve

[banzai51]

Not really. They have every right and the ability to pull out. Cuba has done it, Soviets tried it, China recently dumped it, and most South American coutries do. (Stay out that is.) No one is putting a gun to their heads to do business with us. Hell, look at the Saudis. They get rich off us and support the very groups tring to bomb us. When Euros demontrate against the USA, does the USA roll in the tanks? Ask some oldtimers in the East Bloc what imperialism really is. The US many not always do the popular thing, but we most certainly are not trying to expand our borders.

Re:Wrong Steve

[banzai51]

Carter was a complete failure as President. Many of the problems we had with OPEC at that time were because he (and Ford) couldn't handle the office much like the problems we have now are because Clinton and Bush can't handle it.

And if it was my choice, I'd take a robust economy without bombing the piss out of everybody, thankyouverymuch. You can have your stagflation, but you'll never get your OPEC embargos again.

Re:Wrong Steve

[The AtomicPunk]

Yeah, Bill Gates inherited all his money, like all rich people.

Please, continue to convince yourself that NOBODY becomes rich through hard work or brain power. That way, you won't feel so bad about not being rich.

Jealousy sucks, huh?

People with character just aim higher, people with no character try to drag everyone down to their level. You're not rich, so why should they be ?

Re:Wrong Steve

[The AtomicPunk]

Yeah, I exaggerated. So I looked up the actual data:

The top 25% paid 84% in 2000.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html

Real fair. Nothing like punishing the successful.

Leave it to the left wingers to come up with asinine plans like "tax credits" to people who don't even pay taxes.

Re:Wrong Steve

[nomadic]

Let me be certain I see this clearly: Post the leftist view and +5 your karma. Post something conservative, and get modded down.

Oh give me a break. 90% of slashdot posters are raving conservative right-wing libertarians.

You're in the majority here, but you'd hate to admit that because you want to be considered the underdog.

Re:Wrong Steve

[jafac]

"Personally, I'd rather see the money spent on a way to make the West independent of the Middle East for energy (like fusion research), but even you cannot deny that defense spending creates jobs. That's a historical fact."

Considering I got laid off at my spiffy dotcom job last year, and now I'm working for a defense contractor, it's hard not to disagree with that.

"I read in the Washington Post that the top 5% of earners pay 41% of the total Federal tax collected annually. That's an awful lot. I think those folks have been carrying more than their fair share of the tax burden for a long time. BTW, those on $30k/year or less effectively pay no Federal tax at all."

Considering that if the US was invaded by the commies (TM), the lives of the BOTTOM 5% of earners would scarcely be affected by the new regime, I think that it's just fine that the people who are in a position to benefit the most from government spending (the super-rich who get government-enforced patent monopolies, government-built roads to support their businesses, who profit from government-funded r&d, who keep their workers in line with government-enforced laws) - are all that much more responsible for funding the spending.

Professional Sports:
Gee, I wish *I* owned a business where the government built my infrastructure (sports stadiums) and the News Media gave me free advertising on all channels daily (Sports News).

Re:Wrong Steve

[jafac]

Fuck Noam Chomsky,
Here's the REAL reason the country was founded:

". . . in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, promote the general welfare and, secure the blessings of our liberty, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Again, I say, FUCK Noam Chomsky. He's talking about an entirely different country altogether. Although I think we've got a long ways to go on that "establish justice" bit. . .

Re:Wrong Steve

[jafac]

trust me on this, as long as we're not bowing to their mullahs and putting veils on our women, they'll FIND more reasons to hate us.

Re:Wrong Steve

[Carmody]

Please, continue to convince yourself that NOBODY becomes rich through hard work or brain power. That way, you won't feel so bad about not being rich.

Please tell me when I said "nobody." And I wasn't talking about "rich" I was talking about the top 5 or 1 (don't recall) percent.

I would say that the majority of people in the top 1% were born wealthy. And you probably would agree. Bill Gates got there the old fashioned way. But GWB certainly didn't get there through brain power (and lest you accuse me of being liberal, neither did William Kennedy Smith)

Re:Wrong Steve

[Malcontent]

" If, as you say they make 90% of the money, how can they not be paying at least 90% of the taxes? Do the math, the income tax is still progressive."

It's because the tax laws are not simple. Surely you know this. The federal tax code could fill up a few rooms in your house. You can't afford a lawyer or an accountant who knows the tax laws that well but the rich folks can and do. They very carefully manage their "income" to make sure a ton of money comes through the backdoor. Look at how much shit Jack Welsh was getting for "free" instead of cash. These people are not idiots. If a rich person like Jack Welsh or Rush Limbaugh can shave even a half a percent in taxes it adds up to another ferrari.

Re:Wrong Steve

[kevinank]

Carter was a complete failure as President. Many of the problems we had with OPEC at that time were because he (and Ford) couldn't handle the office much like the problems we have now are because Clinton and Bush can't handle it.

Q. E. D.

Re:Wrong Steve

[nathanm]

Feel free to substitute neo-imperialism for imperialism if that makes you feel better. Quibbling over semantics is boring, so I won't stand on the word.

Neo-imperialism? WTF? That's a new one, did you just make that up?

Conceptually the US holds most of the world's nations in thrall. US law supercedes the laws of Guam and the US Virgin Islands even though those nations have no vote in the US.

The laws of Guam and the USVI are US law, because they are US territories. You're correct they don't vote for President, but their inhabitants are US citizens, and they pay no federal income taxes. If they wanted their independence, they could. The Philipines, the Federated States of Micronesia, and others used to be US territories, but they voted to become independent, so we let them. The issue comes up in Puerto Rico regularly, but they vote to remain a US territory.

US law reaches into most of the world's countries -- from countries that would fail without being propped up by US military support,

What does foreign aid, military or otherwise, have to do with US laws?

to indictment of foreign citizens who have no business interactions with the US over violations of US law,

If you're talking about Dmitry Sklyarov, I agree that was incredibly ridiculous on the part of the US, but I think that was a rare case.

to coercion through fear and threats of force to stances on foreign policy,

Besides terrorists and Saddam Hussein, nobody else in the world is afraid we'll use force against them. America has been very reluctant to use force throughout our history.

the US interferes with other countries sovereignty.

Give me one good example.

In the sense that empires remove from their occupied countries the right to self determination, there are very few countries in the world that aren't subjugated to US neo-imperialism.

Name just one country that's subjugated to our control.

If I call that imperialism, rather than neo-imperialism, then it is only because the latter is more difficult to write.

It may be more difficult to write, but it'll be that much harder to persuade anyone if you keep making baseless accusations, then back-pedal and say you meant something else, i.e. a term you invented.

Re:Wrong Steve

[nathanm]

surely you jest? If having military garrisons stationed all over the world isn't imperialism (never mind the NATO pax americana or the cultural imperialism) then what the fuck is?

Our military garrisons are there at the request of the host nations, or the UN. If they asked us to leave, we would. When France withdrew from NATO and asked us to leave, we did. When the Philipines asked us to leave in 1992, we did.

This Pax Americna is surely better than Pax Romana or Pax Mongolica. Unlike the latter two, we'd be content to stay at home if the peace (pax) weren't threatened by terrorists or madmen with weapons of mass destruction.

As far as so-called cultural imperialism is concerned, nobody has a gun to their head, being forced to eat McDonald's or drink Coca-Cola. We export our culture because the rest of the world keeps buying it.

Re:Wrong Steve

[NeMon'ess]

My response wasn't clear. I mean that the arab media distorts the truth about everything american and israeli. http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/ storyid/179940.html

Al-jazeera is supposedly the least biased news source in arab media, but as you can read, it is hardly truthful. The text of the link above is below.

Live From Qatar: It's Jihad Television
Posted Feb. 11, 2002
By Kenneth R. Timmerman

Al-Jazeera repeatedly has broadcast bin Laden diatribes to its primarily Arab audience.
Media Credit: UPI
Al-Jazeera repeatedly has broadcast bin Laden diatribes to its primarily Arab audience.
For once, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher didn't mince words. "We've expressed our concerns about some of the kinds of things we've seen on their air, particularly inflammatory stories, totally untrue stories, things like that," he said at a daily briefing in early October 2001. "We would certainly like to see them tone down the rhetoric."

Boucher was not talking about the old Soviet Union, whose active-measures teams dreamed up wild conspiratorial stories about U.S. domination of the Third World and fed them to disinformation agents as "news." The culprit he was speaking of was the al-Jazeera TV satellite network, the proud creation of the emir of Qatar -- a U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf who has agreed to host U.S. Marine Expeditionary Units and allow U.S. fighter jets to base combat missions in his territory. Yet he finances the most vile anti-American and anti-Semitic propaganda imaginable.

During the first month after Sept. 11, al-Jazeera rebroadcast excerpts from a 1998 canned interview with Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden dozens of times -- sometimes several times in a day -- in which bin Laden called on Muslims to kill Americans, Christians and Jews. The prominence given to the bin Laden statements prompted an unusual public scolding from Secretary of State Colin Powell on Oct. 8, 2001, during a visit to Washington by Sheik Hamad bin-Khalifa al-Thani, the emir of Qatar. The emir shrugged off the criticism, claiming al-Jazeera was part of his plan to create a parliamentary system for his kingdom.

Al-Jazeera's Washington correspondent, Hafiz al-Mirazi, had a similar response. "When you have a 24-hour broadcast, there are a lot of empty holes," he tells INSIGHT, explaining the frequent replays of the bin Laden interview. "Many people didn't know who bin Laden was before September 11. We do no propaganda for bin Laden. When you put President [George W.] Bush on live television at a memorial for one-and-a-half hours, it's the same thing," he adds.

While few Americans would agree with that equivalence, al-Jazeera's record does not tally with al-Mirazi's account. Prior to Sept. 11, the satellite-TV network prominently featured bin Laden in its broadcasts, and regularly invited bin Laden friends and sympathizers onto the air. "They had become jihad television," says U.S. scholar of Islam Daniel Pipes.

Consider this July 10, 2001, broadcast called Opposite Direction, one of many al-Jazeera talk shows touted as presenting "balanced" opinion and "fair" comment. Host Faysal al-Qassem called the program "Bin Laden -- The Arab Despair and American Fear," and opened it like this:

"Good evening, dear viewers. Do you know how much Osama bin Laden weighs? That's what one of the Arab leaders at the recent summit in Amman asked. The answer is: No more than 50 kilograms [110 pounds]. In contrast, the average weight of the Arab leaders is at least 80 kilograms [176 pounds], not to mention the weight of the [Arab] armies and the huge budgets. Nevertheless, the slender bin Laden has made the greatest power in history shudder at the sound of his name, [while] the physical and material heavyweights arouse only America's pity and ridicule."

Balancing this view was Abd al-Bari 'Atwan, editor in chief of the pro-Iraqi London daily Al-Quds al-Arabi. The United States is "a terrorist regime that has killed innocent people since 1945 to this very moment," 'Atwan instructed viewers. "Bin Laden is a legitimate jihad fighter. Bin Laden has a work plan ... to harass the U.S., to harm its presence in the region as much as he can."

The first caller to reach the "open" phone lines of the show happened to be al-Qaeda spokesman Suleiman Abu Gheith, calling from somewhere in Afghanistan. After a 10-minute speech in praise of his boss, he ended with a call for volunteers for "the holy jihad against the Jews and the Christians."

During the first two months of the war, al-Jazeera's Kabul correspondent -- a Syrian named Tasyeer Alouni, who traveled on a Spanish passport -- was the only foreign TV correspondent allowed to operate in Afghanistan by the Taliban. His wild-eyed reports alleging massive civilian casualties from the U.S. bombing campaign fed the Arab conspiracy mills and were picked up by CNN and other U.S. networks. The Pentagon says most of his claims simply were false.

Alouni's close working ties to Taliban leaders and al-Qaeda did not go unnoticed. The Kabul office was destroyed by rockets launched from U.S. warplanes. When Alouni reappeared on the air the next day, he whined that he had witnessed "scenes that, I'm sorry, I couldn't describe to anybody," and that he was "in deep psychological shock."

Al-Jazeera -- which translates from Arabic as "the peninsula" -- was set up in Qatar by Sheik Hamad in 1996, barely one year after he toppled his father in a palace coup. In what appeared to be a daring move, the young emir abolished the Information Ministry and granted an annual $30 million subsidy to establish an "independent" news channel allegedly modeled after the British Broadcasting Corp. The 24-hour satellite news channel today reaches 35 million Arabs, including an estimated 150,000 in the United States. Despite climbing advertising revenues and the millions of dollars earned from syndicating its "exclusive" reports from Kabul and the bin Laden interviews (which go for $250,000 a pop, according to Managing Director Mohammed Jasem al Ali), the network remains financially and politically dependent on the emir's patronage.

During the last five years, al-Jazeera has tweaked the noses of Arab leaders from Kuwait to Algiers, but never Qatar, which does not allow its 200,000-odd citizens to have satellite dishes to receive critical views, but pipes al-Jazeera by cable into most homes. To some, this willingness to shock has spread a breath of freedom throughout the Arab world, which is used to controlled media and stale government propaganda. It also has enhanced the clout of the otherwise obscure emir, whose kingdom shares a massive offshore natural-gas field with Iran and is linked by a land bridge to Saudi Arabia. And it has won him protection from radical Islamists who might otherwise view his sheikdom as a ripe target.

Al-Jazeera also has gone easy on Saddam Hussein while whacking his opponents, in line with the emir's pro-Iraq line. Since taking power, the emir has encouraged wealthy Qatari citizens and royal relatives to make large donations to Iraq, including a business jet given personally to Saddam, according to former U.S. intelligence officers.

Shafeeq Ghabra, a Kuwaiti scholar who heads the Kuwait Information Office in Washington, felt the brunt of the network's political bias during a solo appearance he made on al-Jazeera after the short-lived "Desert Fox" bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998. For two hours he was berated by 'Atwan, the pro-Iraqi journalist, and by hostile callers. The mood became so ugly that the Qatari foreign minister personally telephoned the show and put an end to the "debate."

Despite that experience, Ghabra remains circumspect: "Al-Jazeera is catering to the Arab street. It represents how they think and is a good reflection of what's going on. There is a lot of sensationalism. The street is emotional, and al-Jazeera caters to that. But it has also raised the bar for discussion in the public debate. Yes, they have a bias; but so does Fox News."

The United States prides itself on a free press. So what do we do when some element of the foreign press turns against us? The answer: flood the airwaves. Phase one of the U.S. counteroffensive has been to make administration officials available for interviews. But even here, they had to swim upstream against al-Jazeera's inherent bias. In her first appearance on the network, just nine days after the bombing campaign began on Oct. 7, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was bombarded with questions about U.S. support for Israel and the U.S. "failure" to restart the "peace process" before a single question about Afghanistan was raised.

Since then, the State Department has called out of retirement former U.S. ambassador Christopher Ross, a fluent Arabic speaker, and has booked him almost daily on Arab media outlets and the Voice of America's (VOA's) Arabic service to explain U.S. policy. "Before September 11, we didn't spend that much time on outreach," says Matt Lucenhop, a spokesman for the State Department's newly revamped Arab Media Outreach Office. "Since then, we realize that we have to reach publics in the region directly to get our message across."

The administration also has increased funding for the VOA under the stewardship of new director Robert Reilly, a cultural conservative and VOA veteran (see Picture Profile, p. 36). And at the urging of Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) and others, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has launched a new Radio Free Afghanistan that has begun beaming local news directly into Afghanistan.

But what about al-Jazeera, which continues to spew lies and hatred? "We should bring pressure to bear on the government of Qatar to shut it down," Pipes tells Insight. "This must be part of an overall strategy that mobilizes all aspects of U.S. power -- military, economic, political, diplomatic, financial and economic. First, we must define the enemy, which is militant Islam. Second, we must define our goal, which should be to replace it wherever it exists, just as we did in Afghanistan."

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight magazine.

Re:Wrong Steve

[kevinank]

Neo-imperialism? WTF? That's a new one, did you just make that up?

Ah, I see that you are only interested in being argumentative, not in sharing ideas. Neo as a prefix has a well understood meaning when applied to a historical movement or social system, as I am certain you must know. Your demonstrated unwillingness to even attempt to understand anything but your own narrow viewpoint makes it unlikely in my opinion that you have any substantive ideas to offer. I might be wrong in this of course, you might be a very well read and well thought individual who never the less has no ability to communicate your ideas with even minimal grace, but my experience is that engaging in discussions with people who are determined to be argumentative is only very rarely worthwhile.

Re:Wrong Steve

[nathanm]

Ah, I see that you are only interested in being argumentative, not in sharing ideas.

Sure I'm being argumentative, by sharing my ideas.

Neo as a prefix has a well understood meaning when applied to a historical movement or social system, as I am certain you must know.

Yes, as a prefix it means new (and somewhat different). But new imperialism is still imperialism, which America cannot reasonably be accused of.

Besides, terms with neo- as a prefix are usually either defined by their writer, or already in common usage. If I use the term neo-platonism, people would understand I'm referring to a specific, commonly known school of philosophical thought. Likewise, if I use the term neo-conservative, people would understand I'm referring to a specific, commonly known school of political thought. If you more clearly define what you mean by neo-imperialism, I'll be able to debate you on the issues, in a civil manner.

Your demonstrated unwillingness to even attempt to understand anything but your own narrow viewpoint makes it unlikely in my opinion that you have any substantive ideas to offer. I might be wrong in this of course, you might be a very well read and well thought individual who never the less has no ability to communicate your ideas with even minimal grace, but my experience is that engaging in discussions with people who are determined to be argumentative is only very rarely worthwhile.

I'll try to understand any ideas you bring up. Please do same for mine.

Re:Wrong Steve

[schaefms]

If we don't help Israel, Palestinians and Muslims will destroy Israel, then come for the US. I don't necessarily think that we should be in the business of global diplomacy, but it's stupid to assume that Islam's hatred of the US is solely due to our involvement in Israel.

Remember, in Islam, you kill the Infidels (non-Muslims) that won't accept your rule. Any Muslim that tells you otherwise is either lying or hasn't read his Koran. Same goes with Christianity. Any "Christian" who says that there are many paths to God is either lying or hasn't read his Bible.

Re:Wrong Steve

[kevinank]

I'll try to understand any ideas you bring up.

Please do same for mine.Very well. As imperialism denies citizens of a country their right to self-determination through some form of domination, neo-imperialism would have the same effect though through different means.

As I see it, historically empires were defined by the extent to which they had placed other countries under their rule, while not affording their inhabitants the rights of citizenship.

Today American subjugation of foreign powers is as pervasive and as interfering as any of the empires of old, even though the American 'empire' is not for the most part founded on occupation or military domination. During its rule of India, Britain extracted gold, spice, and tea from the subjugated nation.

As I understand your argument, the US involvement with foreign powers is an interaction of equals. Sovereign nations have the right to negotiate what ever trade pacts they wish, and most elect of their own will to trade with the US.

My argument is a difference of degree. The Sherman Anti-Trust act defines (in US law) certain behaviors as anti-competitive, but only when done by a company which enjoys a monopoly position in the marketplace. For companies which are not monopolies those same activities can simply be the tools of competition.

I would place the US in the same position as Microsoft. As the preeminent force in international trade, other countries have no real choice other than to abide by US law. India may complain that US companies have secured patents on the smell of Basmati rice, but they really can't do anything about it, including selling Basmati rice to Europe, to the US, or to any country which has collateral agreements to respect US patents. In essence India has lost one of its assets, to the benefit of the US -- is that so different from British occupation of India in the last century?

Bluntly, I think the rule of the world right now is: either you are friends with the US or you will fail. If you are friends with the US then you must abide by what the US considers fair, where 'fairness' is always tilted in favor of US interests. If you are not friends with the US then we will embargo you, or we will prop up your enemies, or hunt you down, or make war on you.

This new type empire of which I write exists in every rule for which we benefit at the expense of another nation, and in which they have no real choice to do better. Farmers from Spain may protest that the US refuses to import their tangerines while California develops a competing crop. The French perenially complain that the US levies 400% tarrifs on cheeses imported from that country. But all of them do business with the US only at our sufferance, however much they plead, or complain, or petition. We do not hold ourselves accountable to International law, to the United Nations, or to the Geneva conventions. And if we do not do so, then there is no one else who can.

Yes these are things that sovereign nations have done for centuries, but it is our position as the dominant player that makes them unfair.

Re:Wrong Steve

[kevinank]

I'll try to understand any ideas you bring up. Please do same for mine.

Oops. Messed up the inclusion of the quotation... the first two sentences of my reply should have been credited to you.

Re:Wrong Steve

[JimFromJersey]

by whom? Hmmm? The Iraqis? Haha that's funny. You euro-pee-ons? That's a joke. The North Koreans? The best thing that could happen to North Korea is to start a war with us. Some fucking rag head? Get a clue, were on top and were going to stay here.

Re:Wrong Steve

[JimFromJersey]

Hmmm. I'm sorry that Cuba is required to uphold the negotiations of the previous government. America's on going threats to Cuba? Do you live in the 70's? When the recent hurricane hit, who helped? Hmm was it Canada? Was it the EU? Was it your precious Sweden? No, it was America. Where is Cuba buying food from? Again the US. Cuba is free to trade with whomever they want to, the fact that they have nothing of value and that nobody is willing to invest there is not Americas problem. It must be nice to have a boogey man to blame all the worlds ills on.

Speaking of not being able to think well, take a stroll down to your nearest cancer ward sometime and if you think that only those evil american cigarettes cause cancer, think again.

Re:Wrong Steve

[JimFromJersey]

Do you really think the terrorists represent the ordinary individual? If by barracks you are refering to the bombing in Lebenon, it was carried out by Hezbollah, which is funded and controlled by Syria and Iran. If the citizens of a country have an issue with the presence of American troops, it is an issue for them to bring up with their government.

Re:Wrong Steve

[JimFromJersey]

Umm the Cole was not staioned in Yemen, it was there to refuel, with the permission of the government. If the citizens of a country want us to leave that is an issue between them and their government. Also, have any of these attacks ever been by nationalists? No you moron, they are done by religous fanatics. These terrorists do not speak for the citizens they pretend to represent. They represent a violent minority of Islam.

Re:Wrong Steve

[j-beda]

Cuba is free to trade with whomever they want to, the fact that they have nothing of value and that nobody is willing to invest there is not Americas problem.

What colour is the sky in your world?

From this FAQ and many others turned up in a simple search of "USA Cuba travel", it is clear that the US/Cuba reltionship is much more complicated than them having "nothing of value". It references in part: "For the most part, according to our government it is illegal for tourists to spend money in Cuba. As recently as October of 2000, the Congress again tried to ban travel to Cuba. "

It is generally illegal in the USA to do business with Cuba. There are few (if any) US investors in Cuban ventures, meaning that if you do get to visit Cuba you will see a lot of Canadian and German hotels, but not many US businesses.

If your world political opinions are based on similar levels of understanding as demonstrated by you knowledge of Cuba, I don't know how much I would trust them.

well. . .

[Rojo^]

Elect Steve Jobs President of the United States

well, the mac community is probably larger than the perot community. ;)

Re:well. . .

[Herkum01]

Yeah but the Perot community has larger ears so is more likely to "Hear" the call!

Ducks!

Re:well. . .

[8282now]

are they less nutty?

Re:well. . .

[bluethundr]

well, the mac community is probably larger than the perot community. ;)

If Jobs got to be the president of the USA, that would not be the first time that Perot got burned by Jobs. Perot was one of the largest investors in a little venture which was at one time known as NeXT.

Re:well. . .

[m00nun1t]

well, the mac community is probably larger than the perot community. ;)

Heck, the BeOS community is probably larger than the perot community.

website

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats one of the ugliest websites i've ever seen. I thought Apple-monkies were supposed to be kings of visual stuff.

Joke?

[btornado]

Please tell me this is a joke. There's no way he'd win!

Re:Joke?

[Penguinoflight]

Why? why would you vote for nader? he also doesn't have a ghost of a chance, and yet MANY MANY of slashdot users did vote for him (not me). I certainly wouldn't vote for jobs, even though he's cool, hes way to schitzephrenic (spelling?), one minute you think he's going to release OSX for x86, the next he puts out another stupid line of macs and says they're pentium toasters. Ick.

Re:Joke?

[usr122122121]

I certainly wouldn't vote for jobs, even though he's cool, hes way to schitzephrenic (spelling?), one minute you think he's going to release OSX for x86, the next he puts out another stupid line of macs and says they're pentium toasters. Ick

Two things I had to reply to:

1. Jobs never promiseed OS X for x86. That was the rumor sites... so to claim that he is schizophrenic over that is crazy.
2. The whole "pentium toaster" thing came from about the time when Macs were faster than PCs. (Ah, what a glorious time that was). As far as I know, Jobs hasn't made any assertions like that in a while.

Re:Joke?

[Penguinoflight]

I'm not going by what jobs personally says, but last time I looked at apple's site they were still claiming that based on Photoshop benchmarks, G4 was faster than P4, which was true by the benchmarks, but the P4 outdoes it in so many other things it's a very moot point.

He did never promise for OSX x86, but he was definatly going in that direction, and with everything undercover the way he always does everything, he must be Scitsophrenic :-)

Don't worry about it, I just dont like jobs.

Why?

[genka]

Why should I vote for him? Did he invented Internet?

Re:Why?

[Ponty]

Yes. It first appeared in 1998 with the iMac. What do you think the 'i' was for?

Re:Why?

[BWJones]

Why should I vote for him? Did he invented Internet?

No, but the internet browser was invented on one of his machines (NeXT workstation)

Re:Why?

[sg3000]

Al Gore never said he invented the Internet.

Jobs for president? The guy's a millionaire, but he still only takes $1 for his annual salary. He completely turned around Apple (with help of course, but I don't think it could have been done without him). He's a straight shooter (willing to fire people in the elevator down to the lobby, or at least he used to). We could do worse than Jobs.

In fact, we already are.

Re:Why?

[r00zky]

> I thought Al Gore invented the Internet? Well... i'm 200% sure Bush didn't

Re:Why?

[cheezedawg]

You are missing the whole point. Nobody thinks that Gore is delusional enough to actually believe that he invented the Internet, but his comments were so self-serving and clumsy that he deserves every bit of ridicule that he gets.

Re:Why?

[hype7]

You are missing the whole point. Nobody thinks that Gore is delusional enough to actually believe that he invented the Internet, but his comments were so self-serving and clumsy that he deserves every bit of ridicule that he gets.

Then Dubya got elected President.

Poetic justice, no?

-- james

Re:Why?

[SageLikeFool]

You're right. The last thing America needs is a President who talks clumsily and is self serving. The country sure dodged a bullet there by electing Bush Jr.

Re:Why?

[yggdrazil]

Why should I vote for him? Did he invented Internet?

Close. The web was invented on a NeXT box.

Bill Gates for President

[johndiii]

Get him out of Microsoft!

:-)

Re:Bill Gates for President

[klez23]

Get him out of Microsoft!

I correspond with a prisoner in Texas. Right after W "won" for president, my friend wrote me, "Sorry about the Bush thing, but we HAD to get him out of here. He wanted to kill ALL of us!"

Re:Bill Gates for President

[yintercept]

It would be a interesting twist. In most cases, being elected president increases one's power and influence in the world. In Mr. Gate's case, it would be a demotion.

Re:Bill Gates for President

[grandmofftarkin]

Bill Gates for President

Sounds like a great idea...

[DasBub]

He'll run the country without having any idea of how it actually works, fire anyone who doesn't follow his vision, steal ideas from other countries...

By God, he might be the best president yet!

Re:Sounds like a great idea...

[TekReggard]

Isnt that how the country's been run for generations though?

Re:Sounds like a great idea...

[onosendai]

Yeh, and every year the State of the Union address will be held at MacWorld where he'll announce budget figures and employment levels pacing up and down a stage with one of those boom-mics on his face, and in between announcing a speed-bump for the Powerbooks and a new version of iTunes.

Re:Sounds like a great idea...

[mackman]

Sounds familiar. Maybe change "steal ideas from" to "blow up". Ring any bells?

Re:Sounds like a great idea...

[The Zody]

oooh...i was worried that it would be different then if gates was president

Re:Sounds like a great idea...

[IdahoEv]

He'll run the country without having any idea of how it actually works, fire anyone who doesn't follow his vision

And this would be a change, you think?

And in related news

[AuMatar]

Microsoft offers their market leading CEO Steve Balmer. When asked about the news, Balmer replied by leaping around screaming "Voters! Voters! Voters!".

Rumors that Bill Gates will be a Cheyney style puppetmas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H vice-president have not been confirmed.

First Presidential Order

[Reality Master 101]

"I hereby declare that The White House will no longer be boring "beige", it shall be painted "Lickable Blueberry".

The Apple hoardes debate among themselves whether the country is now just "insanely" better, or "miraculously" better.

Re:First Presidential Order

[Andy_R]

Beige? It's not beige, you fool, it's WHITE!

Re:First Presidential Order

[s20451]

"I hereby declare that The White House will no longer be boring "beige", it shall be painted "Lickable Blueberry".

Bah! You do that, and first thing the next morning us Canadians will come and burn the place down again. Don't make us come down there!

Re:First Presidential Order

[the_real_tigga]

"....hmmmm, yea, and can we turn this thing into a cube too? I happen to like cubes..."

Re:First Presidential Order

[blincoln]

us Canadians will come and burn the place down again. Don't make us come down there!

Will you, please? It's okay with me if Emperor Dubyah and his Sith Lords are inside at the time.

Re:First Presidential Order

[Shalda]

And you better believe we'll have the hippest military on the planet. Including:

Glowing neon tanks that can stand up vertically to survey the battlefield.
Fighter jets with kickin' sound and 802.11g so you can easily upload all your iTunes
Assault rifles that can provide extra bass by firing in synch with your iPod.

And that's just what my feeble imagination comes up with. Imagine Steve-0 with the trillion dollar military budget. Jobs for president? I'd enlist.

http://www.jobsforpresident.org/

[SlightlyMadman]

Not to be confused with http://www.jobsforTHEpresident.org/, as I'd really like to see him get a new one.

<rimshot />

Re:http://www.jobsforpresident.org/

[happyclam]

Not to be confused with http://www.jobsforTHEpresident.org/....

That site had a TOTALLY different meaning during the last president's term. I don't care who we vote for as president, so long as we get Monica as vice president.

Typical stupidity

[InvaderXimian]

What kind of moron would vote for Steve Jobs? He can barely run a company, do any really think he would do a good job running a super power? I think not. I agree more with the following quote... bill gates for dictator. that way we have an excuse to kill him.

Wow! Great idea!

[mikerich]

Then he can run America just like he ran the Macintosh group at Apple!

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Wow! Great idea!

[JackRuby43]

That would mean he would verbally and maybe even physically abuse all of the morons in Congress.....and then fire them.

How is that not AWESOME?
; )

Re:Wow! Great idea!

[kubrick]

Running up the pirate flag... sort of like Dubya's attitude to the UN. I'm sure pirates would have been advocates of the whole "pre-emptive strike" theory. :/

Re:Wow! Great idea!

[bangzilla]

Yeah - the stars and stripes will be switched out for a skull and crossbones.

campaign

[QEDog]

"Think different"

Re:campaign

[FireBook]

"Vote Different (to who you thought you voted for)" (c) Bushco

The state of the nation...

[MrLint]

With Steve as president we might be some insanely great leadership, as opposed to the normal insane leadership we have now.

iHouse

[Big Mark]

If he gets in, won't his first act be to demolish all the important buildings and replace them with curvy, translucent, pastel-coloured plastic contraptions?

Carrying handles would be useful though. Threat of Al-Qaeda? Just move Washington to the praries, they'll never find them there!

-Mark

Well

[CableModemSniper]

Judging by the slashdotting, he could probably get enough votes to win.

Why bother?

[SuperMario666]

It's not like anyone will be able to beat Sharpton anyway.

Slogans:

[yunfat]

An Apple a day keeps the IRS away.

Jobs for everyone.

iAmerica.

Lets all take acid.

Re:Slogans:

[Brian Stretch]

Vote for Jobs: make 2004 way hipper than 1984.

(I'm trying to think of how they'd update the infamous "1984" commercial for a Jobs presidential run, but it's just not coming to me... help, anyone?)

I think, therefore, iVote

What would he wear?

[Offwhite98]

I am not sure it would be possible for him to change out of that blank turtlneck and bluejeans... but I can already see the slogans.

When you vote for Steve, you vote for Jobs.

Steve Jobs, the iPresident!

Re:What would he wear?

[DasBooties]

Well, he'd at least be better than the iDiot that's in the White House now...

Re:What would he wear?

[destiney]

Now _that_ was funny.. :)

Isn't he a deadbeat dad?

[glrotate]

That's the impression given by the Pirates of Silicon Valley movie. Not to mention the fact he's an all around asshole to his employees.

Re:Isn't he a deadbeat dad?

[Uart]

you obviously didn't watch the end of that movie where he lives happily ever after with his wife and kids (including the illegitimate daughter).

Re:Isn't he a deadbeat dad?

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Well, Bush was a drunken, crackhead jock. Surely this must be an imporvemnt even if you do believe everything you read or see in a movie about Jobs?

Re:Isn't he a deadbeat dad?

[green pizza]

Supposedly he began supporting Lisa and her mother after he left Apple (and started NeXT and Pixar). I also belive he's currently paying for her Stanford tuition. There was a blurb about this in an article awhile back, I think it was either Forbes or WSJ.

Re:Isn't he a deadbeat dad?

[stephanruby]

"Supposedly he began supporting Lisa and her mother after he left Apple (and started NeXT and Pixar)."

As Chris Rock would say. That's what the guy is supposed to do. Noone will give you props for something you're suppose to do. In any case, with the advent of DNA technology, it would have been really really stupid for him to keep on denying her existence.

It'd build interest in the military!

[Chester K]

After all, who could resist attacking another country to show off our nice Blueberry bombers, using our new Raspberry radar technology, and firing off our arsenal of iNuke X 10.2 ICBMs (with leopard print warheads). Military tech has been stuck in the same putrid earthy shades of green and brown for far too long!

Just gotta wonder how well those translucent plastic helmets will protect the heads of our soldiers....

Re:It'd build interest in the military!

[Bullet-Dodger]

After all, who could resist attacking another country to show off our nice Blueberry bombers, using our new Raspberry radar technology...

Radar Operator: Sir. The radar, sir. It appears to be ... Jammed!
Dark Helmet: Jammed. ... Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry. LONE STAR!

Re:It'd build interest in the military!

[Thing 1]

Military tech has been stuck in the same putrid earthy shades of green and brown for far too long!

Funny, that's what another visionary thought in the late 60s. There was an article about him recently , which said:

While chief of staff at Fort Carson in Colorado in the late 1960s, Hughes felt the Army's strict rules failed to inspire restless young men in the turbulent era.

So he let troops paint tanks in psychedelic colors, drive them in road rallies and bring wives and girlfriends along as navigators. He stocked base hangouts with beer and go-go girls, encouraged black troops to stage Guerrilla Theater and brought in such diverse political speakers as Cesar Chavez and William F. Buckley.

Another /.er asked :

I wonder how "strongly encouraged" his retirement was......

which I got a kick out of. And who knows, Hughes is a wireless pioneer, perhaps he'll be on Jobs' staff!

Re:It'd build interest in the military!

[The Zody]

who needs helments when you can build an insanely powerful Ipod based weapon that performs 3x more powerful then the PC version and uses firewire?

flags

[jmv]

That'll be nice to watch. Jobs going after everyone waving an Americal flag for copyright/trademark violation. Not that I would mind (being Canadian)

This is illegal...

[asparagus]

Due to the seperation of church and state.

Steve cannot be both God and President without violating some part of the constitution.

Of course, given recent events, that 'problem' can probably be remiedied.

Re:This is illegal...

[guuyuk]

Sorry, Larry Ellison is God... just ask him!

Hell yeah!

[rnws]

I'd vote for him and I'd have to move to the US and become a citizen to do it!

And I'm not even a MacAddict...

At least the Americans would have a leader with some brains for a change.

Re:Hell yeah!

[FJ22248]

Brains? ha yea we could then have the state of the union address every year at macworld san fransco and instead of sending bombs to iraq we could send old macs and hope they all get radiation posioning, but thats only when we could get jobs out from underneath his desk cause hes afrade of war and those big bad people who wear turbans. once again i say HA

Re:Hell yeah!

[YodaToad]

It's funny how this guy says something about how dumb the president is and gets modded to 1:Flamebait when quite a few others on here are modded to 5:Funny or 5:Interesting. Why? Because he doesn't live in the US and has the same opinion it seems a lot of you have? Gotta love double-standards.

Two years into the presidency

[stefanlasiewski]

Two years after becoming President, Steve Jobs becomes fed up with the bueracracy and leaves suddenly to start up his own country in his Palo Alto Garage.

Re:Two years into the presidency

[cappadocius]

Two years after becoming President, Steve Jobs becomes fed up with the bueracracy and leaves suddenly to start up his own country in his Palo Alto Garage.

Does that mean that when the country goes down the tubes we'll have to buy up that country and base all further products on its technology?

slashdotted

[Mdog]

Here's the text. Pretty interesting :)

San Francisco, CA

In a stunning move, Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer INC, announced his intention to run for presidency of the United States of America. The announcement was greeted with overwhelming support by the large macintosh community in the united states, and veiled reproach from Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft Corp.

"We here at Microsoft are more concerned with somebody addressing the fact that the editors of slashdot are pulling shit over on moderators they don't like" said Gates. We question whether Jobs will be up for the diffiucult task of getting the editors to stop Taco-snorting for long enough to run a decent news blog, like Rusty over at kuro5hin.org"

$1 a year salary

[SirCrashALot]

If he only has a $1 a year salary, think how much we can save!

Re:$1 a year salary

[scotch]

$199,999 a year? $799,996 for a four year term? $1,599,992 if re-elected? He already has his own jet, so we could scrap Air Force One. When Steve innovates himeelf as king: priceless.

PS: profit

Oh that's just what we need...

[NanoGator]

..a government official who'll break down the tough choices so that the American public will vote on which color they like better.

*hoping that comment's poke at the iMac isn't too obscure.*

Re:Oh that's just what we need...

[big_a]

More like, break down the tough choices in the form of:

Good, Better, and Best

Or maybe,

Fast, Faster, and Fastest

Hmm...

Re:Oh that's just what we need...

[NeuroKoan]

*hoping that comment's poke at the iMac isn't too obscure.*

Oh, that comment is about as obscure as "George W Bush is an idiot"

Reality Distortion Field

[endoboy]

Steve's principal attribute... and one that GW's got a pretty good handle on too...

Sorry, Will Foster.......

[Ride-My-Rocket]

But you need more than 1 person to support you before you can call this campaign a "groundswell".

Then again, this news bit WAS posted with the "It's Funny. Laugh." tagline...... so I'm guessing it's not meant to be taken seriously anyway.

No way Jose!

[MerlTurkin]

Why? So we can be charged up "the chute" for EVERYTHING under the sun? I'd vote for a freakin' MONKEY before I'd vote for that load. The Mac heads are probably blowing loads over this topic! Oh yeah, STEEEEEEEEEVE Jobs PRESSSSIDENT>\....UMMMMMBWAHA!! Slow news day I guess......

Re:No way Jose!

[tuba_dude]

Did you vote for GWB? If so, you may already be a winner!

slashdotted already

[SlightlyMadman]

It's mostly images, no wonder it went so fast. Here's the text on the front page:

Draft Committee to the 'Elect Steve Jobs President of the United States
We all want a world that is prosperous and sustainable. We have the technology and resources to create such a world. What is lacking are leaders with vision and will. I encourage you to be such a leader and welcome your participation in our campaign.

It is time that we base our decision-making on the time tested native American idea that all decisions should be made with our seventh generation of descendants in mind and in consultation with our elders. It is time to acknowledge that the earth is our mother and that we must take care of her. It is time to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction from the earth. It is time to insure that all people have access to affordable health care and education.

It is time for American leaders to work with the Moslem world, China, India, Africa, Russia, Latin America, the European Union and all people's around the world to create the world we want. It is our destiny to play a leadership role in creating a new world.

We believe Steve Jobs is the man to help us achieve these goals. If you agree, join us, and together we can get it done!

A Biography of Steve Jobs
Editorials: 01/19/03 at 17:59:27 PST by aztc

Editorials Steve Paul Jobs
Born 1955 Los Altos CA; Evangelic bad boy who, with Steve Wozniak, co-founded Apple Computer Corporation and became a multimillionaire before the age of ...

Printerfriendly version - A Biography of Steve Jobs Send an e-mail to (26 reads) [ More ] [ 0 comments ]

Newsletters are archived under News
News: 01/18/03 at 18:24:03 PST by Admin

News Newsletters can only be sent by the top level admin. Please submit your plain text newsletter to webmaster@jobsforpresident.org

Re:slashdotted already

[BWJones]

It is time to insure that all people have access to affordable health care and education.

I would have a hard time signing on to any petition for president of anything whose organizing committee could not spell/grammar check the petition.

Re:slashdotted already

[rfernand79]

Well, at least he doesn't look like declaring war every time he feels like it, right? I mean, Jobs does not look like a killer (even thou he's looking for "the killer app")

Re:slashdotted already

[krel]

if i recall, some people killed themselves under his leadership before he was fired.
damn, people already die for him to make the world a better place, and he isn't even president yet!
-krel

Re:slashdotted already

[BaronCarlos]

Now, they are taking all this server overload as a mandate.

Wow, Carlos can see the motto now:

As seen on Slashdot.org!

iTroops

[Cheesewhiz]

You know what this means, Jim?

Sporty new uniforms for our troops in Iraq, featuring graphite colored translucent plastics, and army jackets that all include a special pocket for an iPod, with buttons on the sleeves for when convenient control of your music is a matter of life and death!

I sense a spoof coming on.

Re:iTroops

[eugene_roux]

Hmmm...

Would that mean a war in iRaq?

Insanely Great?

[sielwolf]

I don't think anyone who's read Steven Levy's Insanely Great: The Life and Times of Macintosh, the Computer That Changed Everything
would consider Jobs presidential material.

IMHO... the dude's a prick.

Re:Insanely Great?

[Drakonian]

At least he's a smart prick, unlike Dubya.

Re:Insanely Great?

[mOdQuArK!]

Eh, Clinton was supposedly real smart too, although he ended up thinking with his "other" brain instead of the one he should have been using.

Foreign policy

[BitwizeGHC]

Jobs probably is probably miles ahead of the other candidates when it comes to foreign policy, particularly the Iraq issue. The Jobs solution? Simple: Oust Saddam, set up a puppet government, rename the country "iRaq", and insist that cartographers color it "lickable raspberry" on all their maps. Not to mention replacing militant Islam with a hip, edgy new "switch" campaign.

The iRaqis would find themselves embraced by the developed world!

Re:Foreign policy

[_ph1ux_]

"Not to mention replacing militant Islam with a hip, edgy new "switch" campaign"

I just picture a guy with a bomb strapped to his chest waiting at a Muni bus stop with the slogan "Think Different!" underneath.

Re:Foreign policy

[ppetrakis]

That was really good dude!!!!

Re:Foreign policy

[jeti]

Considering what Jobs did to the clone builders when he returned to Apple, he'll just nuke everything
outside the US and end all international conflicts.

Re:Foreign policy

[xpiotr]

> Not to mention replacing militant Islam with a hip, edgy new "switch" campaign.

Should it not be iSLAM, a combined religion and basketballteam in one...

Plutocracy has one advantage

[Sloppy]

The interesting thing about electing someone who is already insanely rich, is that maybe it can keep the money out of politics! Err...

What I mean is.. Suppose Bill Gates really did buy an election. Would he need to pay anyone back for the campaign expense? Or would he be free to act on his own will?

He could theoretically run on issues and voters could predict his behavior by what he says, rather than who is funding him.

Re:Plutocracy has one advantage

[Archfeld]

Did this help Perot or kill him ? :) If Bill Gates ran that would ensure that Larry Ellison did as well, if for no other reason than to keep up with BG...

Re:Plutocracy has one advantage

[jasonditz]

Lets see, what killed Perot a) Mindless rants about the waste of voting for a third party b) The fact that he ran on issues rather than special interest group support or c) The fact that he claimed the Cubans were out to assassinate him

Re:Plutocracy has one advantage

[Sloppy]

b) The fact that he ran on issues rather than special interest group support

If that hurt him, then it just means he didn't spend enough money.

Re:Plutocracy has one advantage

[Drakonian]

Actually, if Steve Jobs ran Ellison would definitely run. Apparently SJ is his idol, not BG. He's got a movie star appeal whereas BG is ultra-rich turbo nerd. Ellison has the money, he wants the fame. I believe I read this in Insanely Great...

Re:Plutocracy has one advantage

[bigfatlamer]

What I mean is.. Suppose Bill Gates really did buy an election. Would he need to pay anyone back for the campaign expense? Or would he be free to act on his own will?

In NYC we sort of have that situation with "Mayor Mike" Bloomberg. Paid for his campign out of his own pocket, won in a relative landslide (after outspending his opponent somthing like 2:1) and is now bascially doing whatever he thinks is the right thing to do.

As a f'rinstance, since he didn't get any help in his election from the NYC Teacher's Union (the UFT), he can just announce (as he did the other day) that he's implementing a crackpot new, across the board, elementary education curriculum that he and his school superintendent (who's not an educator by training or avocation) dreamed up, without running it by the actual teachers first.

He actually said the other day that he's not trying to get re-elected, he's just trying to do what he thinks is right.

Make of this what you will but I think it does sort of answer the question. No, he wouldn't be beholden to anyone and could do whatever he thought was right. Be careful though...he wouldn't have to do what you (or "the voters") thought was right, just what HE thought was right.

Caveat votor.

BFL

Re:Plutocracy has one advantage

[ShadowDrake]

d) It's the graphs. They were too mathy for the average American.

I would at least assume that someone like Jobs would be fairly pro-technology. That matters to me.

Re:Plutocracy has one advantage

[ch-chuck]

Bah, carpetbaggers should not usurp 'representative democracy' - they are not 'one of us' at the councils. A good example of a useless politician who used his family fortune to buy an office is senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. But if a people want to hire outsiders like Hillary (with brand name recognition if not loads of cash to buy media attention with) to do their bidding it's up to them. People just parrot what they see on TV and what their media hero's are paid to say with little critical or investigative thinking anyway.

Hrm...

[zod1025]

You know, he might not be a bad president...

a) he's someone who made something of himself, and wasn't just from a wealthy, powerful family

b) he's someone that has Vision and can seek it out (even if we might not agree with his Vision, he's definitely got it!)

c) he's arguably of above-average intelligence... try and say THAT of any of the other candidates!

If Nader wasn't running, I'd vote for Jobs just because I know that if Jobs won, he would make a decent go of it and maybe even get something real done.

Re:Hrm...

[BWJones]

You know, he might not be a bad president...

Yeah, I see your points, and could add a few more such as the ability to schedule, organize, manage, delegate, and hire smart capable independent thinkers to surround himself with but I still can't foresee anyone who would actually want the job of President of the United States actually being the best candidate.

One of his problems though would be a lack of a formal college education (which would bunch up the trousers of folks that find that important), but I would still be very intrigued to find out what he had to say about the possibility of running. That would shake things up and at least put forward a candidate who could actually make a difference and do it without the assistance of a wealthy, influential family background. (not that the dude is not a billionaire, but at least it was self made.)

Re:Hrm...

[Rocketboy]

Before I'd vote for Jobs, I think I'd want to hear what his daughter Lisa's mother had to say about how wonderful and responsible Stevie-Boy is.

Re:Hrm...

[alephnull42]

Quick comment on your point b) which is not limited to Steve Jobs:

b) he's someone that has Vision

When managers are having Visions, they should get therapy.

Re:Hrm...

[jafac]

Will NEVER happen in THIS United States.

1. He's Vegan. Many Americans view this as frankly, unAmerican.

2. He's an avowed atheist. You will NEVER EVER EVER see an atheist (at least a person who publically admits he's an atheist - not the closet atheists like Bush) - elected President. The religious right is just plain too powerful, and getting more powerful every day, like it or not.

Please DELETE This Topic

[wahay]

We've gotta shush this now before it's too late. If Bill Gates hears about it he'll spend billions to run just so he can keep up.

Re:Please DELETE This Topic

[FireBook]

yer , let's get him to waste millions on another microsoft pink elephant, someones gotta make em spend money ;o)

Re:Please DELETE This Topic

[TerryAtWork]

Well, if Lex Luther can get elected President in the Superman comics, Bill Gates can get elected President in real life.

Re:Please DELETE This Topic

[civad]

Nah.Bill Gates is busy writing "The Toad Ahead" these days.

Re:Please DELETE This Topic

[digitac]

But wait, if Jobs is running that must mean Larry Ellison is already running...

Re:Please DELETE This Topic

[CoderDevo]

Sigh. Bill's already got you. Around here, we rm topics.

(well, cp actually)

Re:Please DELETE This Topic

[quax]

Of course this whole subject is a joke.

But let's just assume that Gates was to run. I have hated M$ for almost as long as I encountered their first product. And I am sick to you have to wittnes their stron-arm tactics over and over again.

Yet, given the track record of the current administration a Gates lead government couldn't be worse.

Just because...

[YrWrstNtmr]

...there is a "groundswell of support" for Jobs as pres, doesn't make it a good idea. After all, Sharpton also has a groundswell of support.

Re:Just because...

[tbone1]

Uh, that's his Trim Jeans jogging sweats. (Too many moon pies, methinks.)

Great...

[mbogosian]

...that's exactly what we need: another fanatical tyrant for a president.

Re:Great...

[superyooser]

People living in freedom have no concept of life under tyranny in the way that monks living in a monastery have no concept of life in the real world. We've had freedom for so long, we can afford to casually joke about our leaders being tyrants. We've enjoyed an environment of liberty for so long, that we don't know what real tyranny looks like.

"Baggage checks at airports, rooting out terrorists, and $20 CDs! It's TYRANNY! Bush is Hitler! (Ha ha hee hee, hey pass me the keys to my Corvette.)"

Re:Great...

[mbogosian]

Baggage checks at airports, rooting out terrorists, and $20 CDs!

Okay, initially my comment was a half-hearted attempt at humor. However, I think Bush is much closer to tyrant than he is to pro-liberty. The guy is effectively initiating his own worldwide ethnic cleansing (sound familiar?). Tyranny comes in many forms.

We've enjoyed an environment of liberty for so long, that we don't know what real tyranny looks like.

I don't really want to know what real tyranny feels like. I'm going to bitch and moan and resist arrest and join up with the rebel army if the "leader of the free world" looks like he's thinking about revoking individual liberties. I don't want to wait to get to the point where he makes it policy (oops, too late). This is part of the vigilance necessary to preserve one's freedom.

If you don't want to whine now, then don't scream later when the lock you up for being non-white, non-christian, a redhead, too smart, left-handed, or whatever.

Re:Great...

[superyooser]

However, I think Bush is much closer to tyrant than he is to pro-liberty. The guy is effectively initiating his own worldwide ethnic cleansing (sound familiar?).

Baseless claims of ethnic cleansing sound very familiar.

Ever since Hitler, groups have used the accusation of "ethnic cleansing" to demonize their enemies. It's the same kind of disingenuous tactic as playing the race card to incite outrage or distrust toward a political opponent.

If you don't like Bush, state your grievances with specifity and clarity (bonus gravitas for historical evidence) but without the asinine libel. You discredit yourself and your cause by using cliché spurious hyperbole in an obviously desperate attempt to assassinate Bush's character.

Re:I don't know

[AT]

Apple is a monopolist? What do they have a monopoly on? Translucent plastic cases? Selling a system with a closed architecture is different than being a monopolist. A monopoly exists when you control all of (or almost all of) a particular market, not just a product.

CowboyNeal for president.

[I am Jack's username]

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did", said Ford. "It is."
"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".
"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said", said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them." he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it." - Douglas Adams, So long, and thanks for all the fish, chapter 36, 1984

Kent: Senator Dole, why should people vote for you instead of President Clinton?
Kang: It makes no difference which one of us you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!
Kent: Well, a refreshingly frank response there from senator Bob Dole.
...
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [murmurs]
Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away. [Kang and Kodos laugh out loud] - The Simpsons, 4F02

"It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it." - Eugene Debs

Bugger that

[houseofmore]

Vote Linus!

Re:Bugger that

[PingXao]

Linus can't run. You've got to be born in the U.S. to be eligible for the office of President. I think if you're born on foreign soil to parents who are both naturally born U.S. citizens you are also eligible.

Re:Bugger that

[houseofmore]

"Linus can't run. You've got to be born in the U.S. to be eligible for the office of President"

Oh please. Bush was raised by monkeys... I can't see them rejecting a Finn.

Re:Bugger that

[kaoshin]

Thats easy enough to solve. Make finland a state. Since their president is a woman, we can basically tell them what to do right?

Re:Bugger that

[suss]

Vote Linus!

As much as you'd want to do that, Linus is not eligable to be a presidential candidate, since he's not an american born citizen...

Re:Bugger that

[Un pobre guey]

But he was born in the US and raised by American monkeys.

Actually, I think he proves the old rumor that Texas cowboys used to fuck their horses. In Texas, of course, and therefore the offspring are eligible to run for president.

Re:Bugger that

[usr122122121]

Oh please. Bush was raised by monkeys... I can't see them rejecting a Finn.

But, you see, they were U.S. Monkey-Citizens. That makes ALL the difference.

Re:Bugger that

[houseofmore]

"But, you see, they were U.S. Monkey-Citizens. That makes ALL the difference."

That's a given no?

Re:Bugger that

[clarkc3]

you obviously never saw demolition man :)

Stallone: "Hold it! The Schwarzenegger Library?"
Sandra Bullock: "Yes, the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn't he an actor ?"
Stallone: "Stop! He was President?"
Bullock: "Yes. Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment...

Doh!

[mattite]

The phrase "Think Stupid" was a parody, not something to be taken literally. Let the man do what he does well -- make nice laptops, and workstations.

The problem in living in the post-ironic era...

[benwaggoner]

...is that it's getting harder and harder to tell what's a put-on. More and more things I thought were parody at first turn out to be real.

Anyway, say what you will about Jobs, but he certainly got a LOT more done in his 20's and 30's than our current President, and by all accounts wasn't that much more of a jerk.

And Jobs's rescue of Apple certainly shows that he has an extraordinary ability to balance short and long term needs. Given what they've had to work with, technically, from Motorola for the last few years, can you believe that Apple is not only extant, but profitable?

Anyway, I'd probably vote for him over a fair number of other politicians. While we know a lot of his youthful indiscretions, I think that's just because he's been famous for so long. I imagine our previous two presidents were just as wild in their youth. The real question is how good a job who he is now could do, and I'd say the evidence is promising, or at least intriguing.

For all the "Jobs is a visionary" rhetoric, running a company on a knifes-edge like Apple has been for the last half decade implies a good ability to roll with the punches, and be flexible when appropriate.

Re:The problem in living in the post-ironic era...

[wugmump]

by most accounts Jobs is most certainly a jerk. read 'insanely great' or 'the next best thing'... get a sense of the management-by-terror that The Steve is famous for.

ps- i still have a couple of your cerebus phone books, ben. hee hee hee

Re:The problem in living in the post-ironic era...

[benwaggoner]

Josh Goldberg, as I live and breath.

I've still got your copy of "Modern Primatives!" That was, what, ten years ago?

Anyway, I won't argue that Jobs was a jerk, but given what he's been able to accomplish at Apple, he's clearly learned a lot since those days.

good good

[pahpabut]

good. now every american will get a 52" ass instead of a 34" ass, and american males will get easier times since the mouse only will have one button to push instead of the usual two or even three plus wheels on a modern subject. but atleast the administration will be fully shine-thru and smell bad when running full. that be something.

Just what we need....

[sammy.lost-angel.com]

I would say I probably agree with Jobs moral and political views more than our current leader's (he's liberal, and he's a vegetarian (which speaks highly of morality issues)). But let's think about this for one little second... he has absolutely NO EXPERIANCE in politics. None. Don't throw your votes away on this, find a real canidate and support he/she when they run.

He would probably tell other countries that they would have to wait until the next Presidential Expo to get all of his foreign policy regulations, and not disclose to the public any information until said expos. Bah!

Re:Just what we need....

[Amazing Quantum Man]

he has absolutely NO EXPERIANCE in politics. None.

And exactly why is this a bad thing? Would you prefer business as usual?

Re:Just what we need....

[batlock]

... and he's a vegetarian (which speaks highly of morality issues)

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian.

Re:Just what we need....

[pamar]

Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian.

Urban legend. Hitler followed a low-meat diet due to stomach and digestive problems, but wasn't a vegetarian.

Google away with "Hitler Vegetarian" as keys...

Re:I don't know

[pizza_milkshake]

I don't know why people are so eager to jump in bed with one [apple.com] monopolist when they clearly hate another. [microsoft.com].

We just love underdogs. For what its worth, I dislike them both equally.

I'd vote him if he would be willing to...

[mccormick]

I would vote for him if he would be willing to accept a yearly sallery of $1; infact, he'd have to demand it. It's not like he doesn't already have enough going on, with Apple and Pixar as it is.

Re:I'd vote him if he would be willing to...

[Lars T.]

But someone will have to tell him that he can't keep the plane.

Re:I don't know

[Snoopy77]

I too saw next to no content on the page. Mine said:

403 Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /index.html on this server.

Re:Take me down.

[curtisk]

left when the user count was around 205, and 997 pages..was responding a little slower but not bad

Re:I don't know

[cow_licker]

They refuse to open their architecture.

I agree. I demand that Apple release the architecture to the OS X kernel! Their browser too while thier at it!

gotta luv it!

[simpl3x]

how inaccuracies get stated as truths! but, this is slashdot!

Re:I don't know

[Durundal]

Yo! Listen up foo!

A (general case) monopoly has absolutely nothing to do with open source. A dictionary or encyclopaedia may be your friend here.

Sure, why not...

[Jaysyn]

... the US is already run by big companies as it is, lets just go ahead & finish the job....

Jaysyn

Re:Sure, why not...

[The Zody]

One man one vote! unfortunantly Gates is the one man.

Re:I don't know

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why people are so eager to jump in bed with one [apple.com] monopolist when they clearly hate another. [microsoft.com].

Please explain how a company that (arguably) has 3% of the computer industry's marketshare is a monopolist.

Apple still sells software for its own systems that it refuses to port to other systems.

You think that's bad? Ximian STILL won't port Gnome to Windows!

They refuse to open their architecture.

IDE drives, standard ram, usb, firewire, ethernet, 802.11a/g. What exactly in a Mac isn't part of an open standard?

Heh, politics, you gotta love it

[mao che minh]

If your abilities and intellect actually anything to do with gaining public office, then the United States would be ran by a panel of brilliant scientific minds, military geniuses, and business gurus. Instead conveyed image and special interests dictate the course of our politics.

When you really think about it, what does our current president have on Steve Jobs? Steve-O is a product of the American system, a true capalist that used a brilliant and strategic mind to bring the world personal computing (well, a pioneer anyways). He's talented, creative, and tangible. Bush got a free ride through life and can hardly speak correctly. Now he's president.

Re:Heh, politics, you gotta love it

[FireBook]

special interests? no just plain personal vested interests

Re:I don't know

[aafiske]

Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers. Just like those bastards at Ford who have a monopoly on Ford brand cars.

Weren't you around when monopoly was downgraded from 'Near complete control of a market' to 'Makes a product that isn't free'?

Re:I don't know

[Andy_R]

Do we really have to keep going over this? I seem to write this post about one a month, but I guess it's not redundant until everyone gets it...

Monopolies are NOT illegal.

Abusing the power that a monopoly position gives you IS illegal.

Microsoft illegally abused their monopoly, Apple didn't.

Got it now?

Oh, blueberry is so four years ago!

[protein folder]

The White House will remain white, but all the plaster will be replaced with translucent white plastic.

The capitol dome will be redone in anodized aluminum. It will also have firewire.

Re:I don't know

[The FooMiester]

Back in the early 80s, apple had a monopoly on home computers. Or a near monopoly. They also donated computers to schools so kids would grow up using apples. That and to increase sales of computers, I know that's how I got my apple //e, by asking my father if I could have a computer at home like the one in school.

HTH, HAND

Gee why don't we elect Bill Gates?

[t0qer]

Electing Jobs as president makes as much sense as electing Bill Gates. Why? It wasn't that long ago Jobs called Bill asking for money "Because you understand what it's like".

Despite Jobs making the coolest home computers *EVER* he's not responsible for the design, coding, or the PCB of the hardware. He is a marketing man pure and simple, while this may be great for getting elected, it does nothing for running the country.

Neither Gates nor Jobs would be good for the computer industry as a whole. Gates would try to have apple and linux eliminated, Jobs would nuke windows and the PC platform as we know it. Consumer choice would go away and computers would go back into the hands of the very wealthy.

If you want to rebut that last statement with "Imac's cost $500" well go ahead. Sure there will be lots of surplus old hardware, but whatever new eye candy the wizards at Id or Adobe can dream up wont run on it, or it's performance will be shit. So if you're going to want to run Premiere 20 you will have to upgrade.

With the amount of Fab facilities closing down, and the economy in the shitter, i've been watching prices slowly creep up over the last 2 years. We enjoyed brand new $500 dollar systems for a while now, but it won't last unless we see an economic U turn.

On top of all the "tech" reasons why we wouldn't want either as president, there's one more i'd like to point out.

Right now our Goverment enjoys a sort of "naiveness" towards technology. Despite it having it's bads "Let the RIAA and MPAA tell us!" It does have it's goods in the sense that it keeps the goverment from meddling in our affairs. Unfortunately the .gov is getting wiser to technologies impact on industry, and are stepping on YRO now more than ever. There's talk of banning crypto, allowing the RIAA to access logs of pirates, and tire companies installing RDIF tags.

Here is what I really want in a president..

Someone who is such a nice person that he/she never pisses anyone off. Someone without an ulterior motive and just wants america to be a country we can be proud of again. Someone who wants to show the world that we can all exist and play nice together. Flex our technological muscle by inventing cheap alternatives to Oil.

Unfortunately this is politics we're talking and not fairy lala land. I can wish all I want but the chances of getting a good person into office are about as good as getting charles manson to be declared sane again.

Hrmm...

[NanoGator]

Apple. Hrm.

Pixar. Oh.

Apple? Uhh.. Geez.

Pixar. Well okay.

Apple! NNnnn... mmm.. NNn...mm. No.

Pixar! Dammit.

Okay I just don't know guys. Help me out!

Re:I don't know

[DarkVein]

The PowerPC platform is very open. Apple, however, doesn't let people use their "Apple" trademark to sell "Apple-compatible" computers. It's a harsh marketing tactic, and well within the intent of Trademark law. It's difficult to sell PowerPC computers when you can't claim that they're Apple-compatible.

The platform, however, is beautifully open. IBM makes a PowerPC proccessor call the Power4, and (today) has revealed a reference model PDA based on the PowerPC architecture.

Apple is extremely strict with their trademark rights, but they rarely overstep the intent, let alone the letter, of the law.

Jobs has my vote just for his insight that DRM will fail, and his strong resolution to never integrate it into MacOS.

they aren't anymore

[Trepidity]

They used to have a monopoly on essentially all non-business computers (particularly school and home educational markets). Like Microsoft, they achieved this partly through (at least initially) superior products -- their stuff was easy to use, while the IBMs of the day often didn't even have a mouse -- but also through some somewhat anti-competitive business practices -- donating Apple //e's to schools, signing up producers of popular educational software to exclusive agreements, etc.

Re:they aren't anymore

[Gropo]

The IBM PCjr shipped with a mouse a few months before the Macintosh was even announced.

It was optical too. I loved my PCjr. I loved the later family Mac SE even more, 1-Bit color be damned!

Mac v. Perot

[MacAndrew]

The current Perot community, of the one in 1992? In '92 he drew a whopping 19% of the popular vote, though an unknown fraction of these were protest or strategic votes. That was the best 3rd-party performance since 1912 (and Teddy Roosevelt wasn't *really* in a third party). Well, I was surprised, and so was (ex-)President Bush.

I only *wish* there were that many Mac nuts!

Re:Mac v. Perot

[MulluskO]

It's important to keep in mind that voter turnout is usually well uneder 50%, though.

Re:Mac v. Perot

[WatertonMan]

Realize though that most voter turnout is low because in most elections the outcome is already decided by polling. At a certain point it is typically kind of pointless because one person has already "won" the election. In other cases both people are about equal and the voter doesn't particularly *care* which person wins. When there is a bad candidate that people don't like then they aren't neck and neck and democracy is still served.

While I favor stronger voter turnout, I think it is erroneous to assume that low voter turnout implies little democracy or a lack of concern about poltics. I consider myself very political. However around here most elections are led come election day by more than 20 points. Why should I go to all the trouble of voting when it is just to rubber stamp and made decision? If there was something where I felt my vote mattered then I would vote. However this year I tried to vote but my registration somehow ended up in the wrong distrinct. After visiting three different precincts I gave up as I'd already wasted 2 hours of my busy day.

Re:I don't know

[The FooMiester]

Why do you think that the only things that are worth disagreeing with are those that are illegal? My point has always been "Monopolies are bad for competition." And I'll agree that as far as evil is concerned, microsoft > apple. But I see Jobs in the same light I see Gates. You're part of his solution, as long as he's a part of yours.

Well, not such a bad idea...

[cliveholloway]

Since the president is owned by the corporations, I think a "campaign contribution" of $500,000 is hardly going to sway him away from policy. Make a change from previous administrations.

It would be a bit like going up to Bush and offering him $10 to push through some legislation.

.02

cLive ;-)

New military power

[peg0cjs]

Coming soon to the US Army: iTanks in blueberry!

What NetCraft has to say about the site...

[axler]

Server: Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 FrontPage/5.0.2.2510

You would think this page would be served from a Mac... Atleast it is not running on IIS

Re:I don't know

[qwijibrumm]

I don't know why people are so eager to jump in bed with one [apple.com] monopolist when they clearly hate another.

Apple has never been legally found to be a monopoly. Microsoft has.

Apple still sells software for its own systems that it refuses to port to other systems. They refuse to open their architecture.

Apple is a hardware vendor. Poeple don't critisize IBM because AIX won't run on their sparc workstation. Why should OS X run on your Athlon? They make software to compliment and help sell their hardware. The buisness model is not rocket science.

But they have opened their software to a degree. Darwin will run on x86. And the license is OSI approved. (Not FSF approved but to me the clause preventing its approval is minor.)

They don't open their hardware specs because that would spell doom to them. Remember the short Mac-clone era. It nearly killed them. And if I recall, it was Steve Jobs that they brought back to save them. But I degress.

The point is, although many people may not agree with all of Apple's buisness moves. They have never openly bullied the market like Microsoft. Comparing the two as similar is pretty harsh.

Re:Elect Linus Torvalds as president!

[Grenade of Antioch]

We could elect Richard Stallman provided that we decided to rename the country GNUnited States of America.

Re:I don't know

[MalleusEBHC]

I don't know why people are so eager to jump in bed with one monopolist when they clearly hate another.. Is it because Apple somehow redeemed itself? Apple still sells software for its own systems that it refuses to port to other systems. They refuse to open their architecture.

The reason is plain and simple: Apple is not a monopoly. Apple's marketshare is way smaller than Microsoft's for the desktop computing market. Their marketshare for hardware is basically the same percentage. What most people falsely claim is that Apple has a "monopoly" on the Apple brand computer market or something, to which about the only response is "Umm, duh." That would be like saying Ford has a monopoly on making Ford brand automobiles.

Is it because Apple somehow redeemed itself?

While many of the Mac faithful never left the community, those who did during the bad years and the new-to-Mac crowd seem to think (at least a lot do) that Apple has "redeemed" itself with OS X. Unix on the desktop with a good balance between the benefits of both open source and proprietary development can do wonders for a companies reputation.

Apple still sells software for its own systems that it refuses to port to other systems.

Wow, who would have ever thought that a company that sells an integrated hardware and OS package would want to write software for it? If common sense makes Apple evil, then I guess you are right. Also, why would Apple want to take the time to port its software, much of which is freeware, to other operating systems when Apple is a company that makes 90%+ of its revenue from hardware sales, hardware that is tied very closely to the OS.

They refuse to open their architecture.

FUD, plain and simple. USB, IEEE 1394, 802.11b and 802.11g, AGP, ATA, SCSI, SDRAM, and the list goes on. About the only thing that isn't open is the mobo, but this all goes back to Apple being a hardware company as far as revenues go. And if the hardware using lots of common standards isn't enough, how about the OS being open sourced, based on an open source kernel, and using a combination of open source userlands.

I don't know if you are trolling, bitter, or just plain ignorant, but please stop spreading FUD about Apple.

Re:I don't know

[tevman]

Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers. Just like those bastards at Ford who have a monopoly on Ford brand cars.

Everyone knows how Ford cars work, people other than Ford make generic parts for the cars, its called transparent technology, i cant go out and buy [insert computer part] for a mac that isn't made by mac.

Weren't you around when monopoly was downgraded from 'Near complete control of a market' to 'Makes a product that isn't free'?

what Apple is doing, IS MONOPOLY, because cause they have control of thier market

For some reason, people love to support Apple, I think its the enemy of the enemy thing

Campaign slogans....

[brocktune]

Steve Jobs. Insanely Great.

Steve Jobs. Vote Different.

Best so far...

[HiThere]

He's the best candidate I've heard of so far.

Of course, he's also the only one... but it seems likely that he would be better than either of the two winners we ostensibly got to choose between last time.

I think that's called "faint praise".

Men In Black?

[Nogami_Saeko]

Would this mean the formation of the real "Men In Black", that wear nothing but euro-black outfits?

How about going into government offices and seeing decorative iMacs with flowers and pastel colors as you are encouraged to "Think Different?".

Microsoft wouldn't be happy - I could just about guarantee they'd lose antitrust cases left and right :)

Slashdotted!

[matt_fk]

I think the jobsforpresident web site was slashdotted.. at least the site was removed.. temporarily?

before y'all laugh too much

[lingqi]

At least know the painful truth.

Re:before y'all laugh too much

[bluethundr]

...Instead, he got kindof serious, and said, "Well, no, he (Al Gore) didn't create the internet, and I think he's been quoted out of context, but he was absolutely responsible for creating the legislative environment that allowed that type of research to be done, and lead to the creation of the internet."

Yes, I would agree that Gore's supposed statement that he "Invented the Internet" was taken out of context. Despite being so seemingly uncomfortable in his own skin in public speaches, I would tend to credit the man with enough intelligence to *NOT* have made that claim.

What I supposed that Gore could have been referring to was his support of the Boucher Bill which was solely (AFAIK) responsible for opening up the internet to general use by the public. Up until the point of this bill being signed, the internet was supposed to be used solely for "official" government use. Of course, by this time many private citizens were already using it to buy and sell things to one another, proposition one another, display ASCII Art and whatnot. But this bill was the official nod that the internet wasn't just for breakfast anymore and was ripe for the picking to anyone interested. Of course, this was roughly contemperaneous with Tim Berners Lee's development of the WWW so both factors probably worked together towards making the 'net what it is in this day and age.

So, while Gore of course was not "responsible for the invention of the internet", he can with a straight face lay claim to being a key supporter of the bill that brought it to the masses.

Re:before y'all laugh too much

[banzai51]

So what you are saying is that Gore supported a bill on the back end that gave the nod to what was completely obvious.

Re:before y'all laugh too much

[bluethundr]

So what you are saying is that Gore supported a bill on the back end that gave the nod to what was completely obvious.

Yes, it was completely obvious as you have so perspicaciously pointed out. However, it is useful to note how small the technology community was in the early 90's vs. the size it is today. Did you read Slashdot back in '93? Why, of course not! It didn't bloody well exist yet, genius!

Add to that how technologically clueless most politicians are even in this day and age, let alone way back then, I believe that Gore does indeed deserve credit for his vote on this issue.By the way, how have your elected officials voted on the DMCA?

To reiterate, it was completely obvious at that point, but only to a select few. It was a day when the internet (nee, arpanet!) was in use only by UNIX die-hards and nary a Windows user (unless she was already a Unix user).

Re:before y'all laugh too much

[banzai51]

I understand that not many people could envision in 1993 the internet we have today. However while I was not browsing Slashdot, I was indeed Gophering like a madman. More people than you think were plugged in. AOL, Prodigy, and Compuserv all battled to be my ISP. Most universities made the internet available to all students. So the notion that the internet was for normal folks was pretty much a given to anyone remotely clueful. The biggest hurdle at the time was just getting people to buy computers. Congress more or less just passed the law as an "oh, duh" move. Like repealing a law from the 1800's that is not relevant anymore. Didn't take much vision on their part.

Gore voted for the bill? Good for him. He wasn't the only one. Doesn't excuse him from his gross, ill-thought-out embellishment of the issue.

My original post wasn't meant to give any insight on the issue. It was a joke. :-p

Re:before y'all laugh too much

[kalidasa]

Of course, this was roughly contemperaneous with Tim Berners Lee's development of the WWW so both factors probably worked together towards making the 'net what it is in this day and age.

Not exactly. The Boucher Bill was passed in 1993; TBL invented the WWW in 1991 (the first work was in 1989; the publication of the CERN httpd was in 1991, though, and that publication - particularly these emails, dated 9 Aug 1991, offering the code for free and providing the first public http links I know of - should constitute the birth of the WWW.

What the Boucher Bill did was provide a policy framework for the public Web/Internet as we know it. Still worthy of mention in the annals of history, regardless of how Algore might have [mis?]characterized it.

Re:before y'all laugh too much

[bluethundr]

Not exactly. The Boucher Bill was passed in 1993; TBL invented the WWW in 1991 (the first work was in 1989; the publication of the CERN httpd was in 1991, though, and that publication - particularly these [w3.org] emails [w3.org], dated 9 Aug 1991, offering the code for free and providing the first public http links I know of - should constitute the birth of the WWW.

What the Boucher Bill did was provide a policy framework for the public Web/Internet as we know it. Still worthy of mention in the annals of history, regardless of how Algore might have [mis?]characterized it.

Yeah, yeah, blah blah, I read Tim's book too. But I read it when it came out in '99 so many of the details were a bit lost to the odd bong hit here and there. Thanks for refreshing my memory. But within about two or three years is what I had in mind with the phrase roughly contemperaneous. If I had meant at they happened simultaneously, I would have said as such!

Although in the span of those two years (91-93) I dated 3 women, I consider all of those relationships to have been roughly contemperaneous!!

State of the Union...

[Knobby]

Just imagine the garbage that the rumor sites would come up with just before the State of the Union address each year..

Come to think of it, the wild speculation that passes for news in this country isn't any better than the rumor sites half the time.

Re:State of the Union...

[curious.corn]

But imagine watching it in quicktime stream, lo-fi of course, hiband requires qtpro :(. ... and the presentation, sorry the keynote, ahem... the SotU... "We havo lots of COOL thinks for you today; enough for 3 SotUs"

He, @ least Apple makes cool computers, over here in Italy our big cat Berlusconi has his own TV conglomerate and controls national TV... cheap!

Another jerk-off.

[Raskolnk]

I hate to say it, but he's probably an even bigger asshole than the current asshole, albeit 4000 times more intelligent -- but that may just make him more dangerous.

Re:Another jerk-off.

[krel]

Karma: Excellent (mostly obtained by posting comments people won't disagree with)

PAGAN! your karma is clearly terrible then!!

to question the the divinity of holy Steve...hmmph

-krel

Here's What He'll Say In The Interview

[saudadelinux]

Barbara Walters: So, Mr. Jobs, why do you want to be President?

Steve Jobs: I don't want to sell sugared computers for the rest of my life. I want to change the world!

Re:Here's What He'll Say In The Interview

[Simon Garlick]

Great, just what the USA needs. An egomaniac control-freak prone to temper tantrums when he doesn't get his way.

No, I think the US should just stick with Dick Cheney.

Re:Here's What He'll Say In The Interview

[AtariKee]

"No, I think the US should just stick with Dick Cheney."

The guy wouldn't live long enough.

I think we've had enough backwards- ass dinosaurs running this country.

I *WISH* the iMac still came in colors

[green pizza]

I would love a new silver or blue iMac, but it (and the eMac) are currently only available in iBookish white.

Re:I *WISH* the iMac still came in colors

[norweigiantroll]

"I want a blueberry computer that comes with the Internet"

-- Anonymous Frontpage user

all right!

[zogger]

nationwide segway lanes! With wireless nodes!

Honest, could he do a WORSE job than the bent one or the nose picker?

A President for a New Age

[Anenga]

You always see renditions of society in the future. No Gas/oil cars, advanced personal transportation (i.e. PRT), advanced community topologies, advanced technology etc.

Communities/Cities are totally un-organized. All we do is build over them or around them. They need to be trashed and start over, rebuilt from the ground up. Build using current technological advances; including an Internet layer, LANs etc.

We need a President who is willing to rebuild society for a new age. Is Steve Jobs right for that? I dunno, I doubt it. No doubt Steve has been thinking how to improve the US while designing his products. Though, I'm sure he'd be kind of bias and try to implament nation wide technology based off Apple INC.'s ideas and goals.

Reagan Without a Cause

[goombah99]

Heck this has been going on longer than post-irony set in. I remember my amusement when I first heard ronald reagan was a presidential candidate. Well he'll never win I thought, what a joke. After he won I was in disbelief, and realized I was not the only one when I saw a bathroom grafitii "reagan...without a cause", an obvious riff on the james dean movie title.

Later after watching "back to the future" there is a scene where marty tries to prove he's fromt he future. The professor asks "okay future boy, whos president." MArty answeres "ronald reagan" thus assuring the professor he's a lunatic: "Oh and who's the treasury secratary 'jack benny?'.

Later in the same movie, the professor is amazed by the video camera "a portable movie production studio....Great scott! no wonder your politicians have to be actors!". A banal observation unless you think of in the context of it dawning on a person from the 1950's.

So will we all be thinkng "great scott, no wonder all your presidents have to be CEO's of consumer products" when a visitor from the future comes back and tells us about president Jobs?

Re:Reagan Without a Cause

[curious.corn]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power"-- Mussolini

Your footnote man! STUNNING...

Re:I don't know

[Amazing Quantum Man]

You too? Maybe they anticipated a slashdotting and disabled it temporarily?

Don't discount this type of thing...

[philovivero]

It turns out that the best leaders are those who do not want it. Steve Jobs probably doesn't fall into this category, being the grab-asstic wannabe he is, but Linus Torvalds, for example, would probably be the best president we've had for half a century. This goes for any number of do-good low-key individuals not only in the Open Source movement, but in human rights movements, etc.

I think that at this point, our government is so corrupt and broken, that appointing government officials by lottery would yield something better.

Re:Don't discount this type of thing...

[presearch]

I don't think Jobs qualifies as a wannabe.
He certainly has some accomplishments to his credit.

Michael Robertson, now there's a wannabe.

Re:Don't discount this type of thing...

[CormacJ]

I once heard a statement to that effect. It went:

"The very idea of seeking elected office should be the main reason for impeaching most politicians"

Can't remember who said it now...

Re:Don't discount this type of thing...

[benwaggoner]

Ah, you've mistaken cynicism with insight.

Let's have a little relativism here. I didn't vote for Bush, nor do I care for him as a president. But before you start with the whole "so corrupt and broken" could you give a comparaison? Perhaps a past US government? The current one is certainly much less corrupt than any one of the 19th century. Compared to other modern countries?

And which kind of corruption are you thinking about? License Raj? Widespread bribary?

Things certainly should be better, but our current government is better than those that at least 95% of humans have lived under.

Re:Don't discount this type of thing...

[SailorBob]

but Linus Torvalds, for example, would probably be the best president we've had for half a century.

Hate to rain on your parade, but only people who where born in the US are eligible to be President. It would take a constitutional amendment to change that.

Re:Don't discount this type of thing...

[Simon Brooke]

Let's have a little relativism here. I didn't vote for Bush, nor do I care for him as a president. But before you start with the whole "so corrupt and broken" could you give a comparaison? Perhaps a past US government? The current one is certainly much less corrupt than any one of the 19th century. Compared to other modern countries?

Look, I'm not an American, but...

Bush's election was, seen from here, curious. It was 'won' in a state where the election officials were appointed by his own brother, and some very odd decisions were made about eligible voters and how votes should be counted. It doesn't, to an ignorant foreigner, look like a proper democratic procedure.

The Enron business was, to put it mildly, also interesting. From a foreign perspective, the fact that Bush was obiously quite close to the Enron people is troubling, particularly seeing how much the former senior people of Enrond have been allowed to get away with.

The relationship between Iraq's oil fields and the business interests of the Bush family also looks a bit odd.

You may say you had more corrupt governments in the 19th Century. I can't say, because I'm not that familiar with US history. But a situation in which a family can put a member into power by other members manipulating the electoral process, and then lead the whole nation into a war in order to bolster that family's commercial interests while simultaneously allowing friends and supporters to get away with the largest single theft in human history, seems to this foreigner to be corruption on a truly epic scale.

Re:Don't discount this type of thing...

[ChristTrekker]

Agreed. If a person desires power, it's a good idea to keep him out of power. If a person does not desire power, he can probably be trusted to wield that power for the good others.

I've also heard it said we'd probably have a better government if we picked representatives by jabbing a finger in the phone book. Sad commentary, but there's some truth in it.

Re:Don't discount this type of thing...

[quax]

mod parent up.

He nails exactly what the current US administration looks like to an outsider, couldn't have described it any better.

Re:Don't discount this type of thing...

[philovivero]

You may say you had more corrupt governments in the 19th Century. I can't say, because I'm not that familiar with US history.

I, on the other hand, am familiar with US history. You are entirely correct.

The US government has fallen from grace. It is little more now than a tyrannical terrorist government, similar to Israel. Today, it's still pretty good for its own citizens, but I don't envy the poor Palestinians.

But it's worse than that. Even though it's still pretty good for its citizens today, it's rapidly becoming more like China. It's spying on its own citizens and passing a litany of laws to make this practice more widespread.

The poster that originally criticised me assumed I meant typical Slashdot things: DMCA and DRM. Couldn't be more wrong. Those are simply symptoms of a deeper problem: our government isn't of, by, and for the people anymore. It's of, by, and for the corps.

This explains the problems we see: going to war for a corp. Modifying elections for the corps. The fact that our biggest most powerful leaders are also very entwined with big corps.

And I stand by my assertion that government by lottery (or, as another poster put it, stabbing your finger into the phone book) would give us a BETTER government than we have today.

*cough cough* Vested interests?

[Chymaera]

I thought this was a troll at first, but it appears not to be.

Is it right to elect the CEO of a major corporation as president? Corporations have more than enough political power in America as it is. Something like this blatantly caters to vested interests. I suppose this isn't much worse wrt vested interests than electing Bush as president in light of his interests in the oil business, but that doesn't legitimize doing it again. I would regard a major industry leader running for president with deep suspicion. Even if he/she ostensibly broke off all ties with his/her company and the industry, I am doubtful they would be able to eliminate any and all bias.

Now, Stallman, on the other hand...;p

Re:*cough cough* Vested interests?

[sfgoth]

Is it right to elect the CEO of a major corporation as president?

How about electing the ex-CEO of a major corporation as Vice-President, and then putting him in charge of negotiating the future of that industry?

Sadly, Dubya has proven once and for all that the more blatent your self-interest is, the more people will praise you for your strong convictions. Do your looting in the daylight!

-pmb

hell no

[xmnemonic]

With his management style called "tyrannical" (US News or Newsweek, I forget which) I think Jobs as president would be a bad idea.

Steve wouldn't want the job unless...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Steve wouldn't want the job unless he could be president number 0.

For those of you that don't know, when Apple got round to issuing employee numbers, Steve Jobs was pretty peeved that he couldn't be employee number 1 as Steve Wozniak had already nabbed that priviledge for himself. Unable to convince Wozniak to change, Jobs took employee number 0 rather than be stuck behind Wozniak with the employee number 2 tag.

Re:Steve wouldn't want the job unless...

[firewood]

Neither of the Steve's were employee #1 at Apple. Dan Kottke got employee number 1 because he was the first person to draw a paycheck...

This time I noticed the foot!

[erroneus]

Aha!!!

That damned foot! It means it's a joke. I've fallen for them too many times in the past.

That said, I think it is only out of a morbid sense of "I wonder what he'd do to the country" that I'd vote for him. "Career politics" isn't working very well.

He'd probably win...

[presearch]

Compared to the stiffs the the Dems will be running.
The bad traits we hear about him, mercurial etc. are no worse than
the spoiled boy occupying the big chair now. I think most of those
guys in that ran or won the presidency are prima donnas anyways.

Say what you will, there's few men that are better salesmen.
I'd prefer his reality distortion field to what been blowing in
from DC these days.

He'd sweep the youth and tech vote. He'd probably also have
the corporate world listening to him as well.

This used to be the Information Age. Bush and his boys hate
tech except when it comes to spying and revenge. If Jobs got
in, we'd get the tech sector going again.

Here's his platform:
2004 - It's all about Jobs!

Re:He'd probably win...

[Brendor]

He'd probably win Compared to the stiffs the the Dems will be running.

Though I have mod points, and am mostly agree with your post, I am obliged to point out that Howard Dean is not quite stiff. Unkown yes, possibly liberal ; but stiff no. In the past 10 years since he became governor, my home state of VT has added a 100 million dollar surplus, health care for all children as well as licensed civil unions (gay marriage by any other name).

It is also worth noting that his forst term began not with an election, but with the death of governor Snelling, when Dean was Lieutenant Governor.

And as I'm sure is quite obvious from Seanator Jeffords defection from the Republican party two years ago, Vermonters don't care too much for W.

Re:I don't know

[Suicyco]

Apple isn't a monopoly is any sense, unless you count the market for mac's as an actual seperate market from personal computers in general. Apple is not even close to a market leader. Microsoft is the actualy monopoly, and Apple is simple another victim of that monopoly. BTW nobody even mentioned that somehow being a monopoly is "illegal" so I dont think your post is redundant at all, it simply doesn't apply. Also, being legal, and being ethical/moral, are two different things. In regard to the original thought though, apple is far far far from being a monopoly. Not even close.

Yeah, we'd get the G5 EASY after that

[buserror]

Steves invades two of the G7 council's countries, there you go, G5!

Might be much easier than getting it from Motorola, too!

No

[shaper]

Steve Jobs is way too far left of center for my tastes. Given that Bush managed to beat (tie?) Gore coming from a successful incumbent administration, I figure someone more centrist could wipe the floor with someone like Jobs in a real race. Of course, Bush is far more rabidly right than I initially thought, so what do I know?

But as far as Jobs goes, give me a break, the guy actively supported Hillary Clinton's senate campaign. That alone is unforgiveable.

Re:Elect Linus Torvalds as president!

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Nah, it would be GNU/USA.

I guess the Constitution is Open Source.

Ballmer for Secretary of Defense

[LazloToth]

If the Iraqis think Rumsfeld is scary . . . .

Re:Elect Linus Torvalds as president!

[Dr. Photo]

The only problem is that he'd start a civil war to reunite the GNUnion and XEmacs... :)

More Evidence

[be-fan]

That Mac people are just plain creepy...

Re:I don't know

[jlower]

Indeed? Let's see you come up with the diagnostic codes for a 2002 Mustang so your non-Ford authorized shop can work on the car.

Oops.

Re:we-need-a-megalomaniacal-leader-for-a-change de

[FireBook]

yes, for a change, instead of a plain ole maniac? :o)

Presidential decree 2.5.53

[joshua42]

It's got stuff all over - SCSI updates, ACPI, ia64, sparc, USB, net, device mapper, AGP, ALSA, you name it. Meanwhile I worked mostly on the sysenter support, we'll have to wait for glibc releases to test that out more.

Oh, and I will raise income taxes and start war on alt.fan.saddam.

Linus

Re:I don't know

[Toraz Chryx]

"i cant go out and buy [insert computer part] for a mac that isn't made by mac."

odd then that Macs contain

1) processors made by IBM or Motorola (which you could probably source if you knew where to look.)
2) standard 184 or 168 (or 144) pin DDR/SDR/SO- dimms containing the ram
3) standard ATA harddisks
etc.

There's plenty of third party parts for apple machines.

Re:flame

[presearch]

If you had a Mac, you would understand.
Come join us, friend.

But what about our motto?

[crawdaddy]

Wouldn't it make "In God We Trust" much more meaningful and truthful??

Hum..

[sconest]

And Ellen Feiss as whitehouse spokeswoman ?

keynote...

[burns210]

With Jobs as President, can you imagine the State of the Union? :)

I'm gonna vote for....

[N4DMX]

Silent Bob!

JobsForPresident.org on Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I find it interesting that the site is running Linux! No offense, but I would think it'd be running OS X 10.2.4 on a 17 inch PB G4
>>Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) ApacheJServ/1.1.2 FrontPage/5.0.2.2510 on Linux. :-)

no he needs to run apple

[2ms]

I'd vote for an identical twin brother of his, but the last thing we need is for Apple to start fscking up again cuz Steve not running it any more.

I love Steve Jobs, but not as President

[adzoox]

As a conservative, it would be UNIMAGINABLE to have a liberal that would have worse socio economic philosophy as a President. Then again - I live in niche state (SC) ... lol .... maybe we get all the cool stuff like flying cars and free Pixar Movies. As a note, I am Apple authorized technician, only use Apple, live / breathe Apple, think Steve Jobs is the best thing about Apple, but .... onay on the Residencypray!

Steve Jobs? Never!

[drwho]

This guy is a disaster. He'd be even worse than what we have now.

Re:Steve Jobs? Never!

[jimmy_dean]

hehe, good one! Al Gore, what an excuse for a politician...or wait...maybe he is a good politician and there-in lies my point! ;)

Re:Steve Jobs? Never!

[coolmacdude]

Second that. But I would still prefer Steve.

Re:Steve Jobs? Never!

[rjung2k]

Worse than what we have now? But you can't have an IQ less than zero!

Re:Steve Jobs? Never!

[quax]

Worse than a president who will start an unprovoked war. How odd ...

aww crap

[bilbobuggins]

personally, i'm not looking forward to waiting around to see the new Liquid Titanium W-4's at 'GovWorld 2005'

In other news...

[idontneedanickname]

Jobs started campaigning today, with some stunning, possibly world-changing annoucements. He promissed to spread the message:

"If you don't like slashdot [and it's editors], stop posting, and stop reading it!"

Re:I don't know

[pyros]

Are you high? Are you actually saying I can't go buy memory from crucial.com, or any IDE drive (hard drive, CD, CDR, CDRW, DVD, etc) and slap it in? While I'm too lazy to dig up links, and I'm sure someone will respond with them for me, you can build your own Mac, you can even get the boot proms on ebay. There have been /. articles on it. It's just not cheap.

Re:I don't know

[sootman]

My point has always been "Monopolies are bad for competition."

Didn't you ever take Econ 1? Pure capitalism (i.e., competition) tends toward monopolies. In real-world competitions, there are never ties. Given enough time, one will always prevail over all others. Monopolies aren't inherently bad, but monopoly = power and power corrupts, so monopolists tend to make descisions that aren't in the best inteest of the populace. That's why we don't have pure capitalism--because we have a government that will step in if it feels it needs to. Remember, if men were angels, we wouldn't need government.

Monopolies tend to make companies lazy, which I think is your point, but then capitalism takes over--someone gets lazy, someone else innovates, the innovation usually involves efficiency so they can sell their product at a lower price, thus creating competition again. The problem comes when the monopolist uses his power to crush the new company, rather than competing fairly. Monopolies are bad for competition... but only for a little while. (State-sponsored monopolies, like the USPS or local utilities, are in the same boat--the gov't preventing true capitalism.)

For example, McDonalds is bigger than Burger King. If they wanted to (and were allowed to), McD's could put BK out of business in 6 months by selling everything on their menu for $0.05. That is what the government considers "unfair" and will step in to stop, which is why BK and McDs coexist, as they do. But if this were pure, unregulated, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners capitalism, Ronald would be wearing the King's crown. (Or, possibly, KFC, which was the biggest chain in the '70s.)

And anyone who says (you didn't, I'm just ranting now) that Apple is a monopoly is a) still bitter about Steve and OS 8 ending the clones or b) on crack. Yes, they have a monopoly on Macintoshes, the same way that Ford has a monopoly on Mustangs. Apple hardly has a monopoly on personal computers; certainly no more than Ford has a monopoly on cars.

And (I'm getting really way off here), take heart in knowing that monopolies don't last for forever. Examples:
IBM -> Microsoft
Iomega Bernoulli -> SyQuest -> Iomega Zip
Lotus 123 -> MS Excel
Fun story about that last one from a former MS emplyee and all-around pretty bright guy.

megalomaniacal...

[(nil)]

from the we-need-a-megalomaniacal-leader-for-a-change dept

For a change?

-(())

the President Jobs press conference...

[constantnormal]

... Steve casually walks in in sneakers, jeans and a black turtleneck, with some bottled water.

One by one, he describes the new policies his administration will institute, with really classy Keynote displays to a huge back-projected screen.

Nobody asks any questions, as they are under the influence of his presidential "Reality Distortion Field".

At the end, he pauses and says "there's just one more thing..."

And the screen behind him changes to show a mushroom cloud over Baghdad (or Redmond -- take your pick).

The crowd goes wild.

Re:I don't know

[matt_maggard]

Have you ever opened up a mac? You may not be able to swap a whole motherboard but it you can absolutlely use third party parts. In mine I have a sumsung cd burner, random ass ram, seagate ide drives, ati pci graphics cards (upgraded from a voodoo), a scsi card, and any number of firewire and usb add-ons.

Why do people think that Apple welds its machines shut before it ships them?

And I'm sorry but you can't say that a minor player in a large market has a monopoly just because it is slightly different than the rest of the market. What force could Apple exert over the rest of the players in the pc industry? MS could destroy a company as large as intel if it wanted to. That is a monopoly.

-m

Pity You Don't Have a Monopoly on Inanity

[reallocate]

Oh, hell...Slashdot has a monopoly on slashdot.org, The New York Times has a monopoly on newspapers called The New York Times, Moscow has a monopoly on capitals of the Russian Federation, and cows have a monopoly on beef.

Guess we better take up our keyboards to do battle against these evil meanies.

Calling Apple a monopoly because they're the only people to make Apple products is like saying McDonalds has a monopoly on hamburgers because they're they only company that makes Big Macs. Apple sells computers. Last I looked they did not control the computer market.

And, unfortunately, you don't have a monopoly on inane comments.

Re:I don't know

[reallocate]

Apple had a bigger slice of the PC market before the PC architecture took off. but they were never -- and are not -- a monopoly. Think Commodore, Sinclair, Radio Shack, Atari, Texas Instruments, Victor, Heath, and a big batch of other companies that marketed computers in the early 1980's.

If a company has competition, they aren't a monopoly.

If Steve Jobs becomes president...

[DarkHelmet]

... does that automatically make Ellen Feiss the drug czar?

Re:Stupid - only the moderation

[Bruce Losis]

Jobs as President is a stupid idea. WTF is the parent offtopic?

Wozniak might be a good idea, but I guess form over substance is the American Way.

More Job's with Job's ???

[Prohest]

I personally love it when the US _buy's_ a new president. It totally destroy's any idealistic karma within, and snaps me back to the reality's of life.. It's mostly ugly, dishonest & all about cash !! -P- - There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002 - (sig)

...and Ellen Feiss for Drug Czar!

[tlambert]

...and Ellen Feiss for Drug Czar!

Had to be said.

-- Terry

America Under Jobs

[cranos]

Can you imagine? Only maybe 5% of the world will have anything to do with it, the rest will mock americans for being behind the times but boy will it look good.

Mind you Senators will now come in a wide range of cutting edge colours.

Re:America Under Jobs

[rjung2k]

Only maybe 5% of the world will have anything to do with it, the rest will mock americans for being behind the times but boy will it look good.

Have you picked up a newspaper lately? We're already there.

Thank the good lord jesus I'm moving

[AssFace]

I'm off to Bermuda by summertime - otherwise I'd have to endure living in a country going the way of Next and ugh... apple...

An Improvement

[mdavids]

• The Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field is significantly less frighteningly deranged than the Bush Reality Distortion Field.
• We could expect a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that congress shall pass no law abridging our right to rip, mix, and burn.
• It's unlikely that the US would reduce a country to rubble in order to secure control of the world's supply of translucent coloured plastic.

I can hear his first speech now...

[TerryAtWork]

"America, the Insanely Great Country!"

(Which it actually is....)

Bah! Elect John Cusack!

[modus]

Elect John in 2004!

Thinking different

[crodo]

I begin to ponder what would happen to our country with a President who would not be afraid to spend money on R&D.

Re:flame

[coolmacdude]

Look a little closer. Do we look miserable? Steve better plug OS X in his State of the Union. :)

Apple Designer Fatigues

[Cheesewhiz]

I had a sudden flash of what might happen when Steve Jobs realizes the possible benefits of a war in Iraq in our sluggish economy:

iFatigues

Product placement is everything :) Seriously though, if war is declared, I wonder how many soliders would take an iPod or other MP3 player with them? MP3 players seem ideal -- light, long battery life, rechargable, compact (dozens of hours of playback with no bulky jewel cases to lug, etc).

More importantly, what is allowable to take on a military operation according to regulations? Just curious...

Re:Apple Designer Fatigues

[TracerJPN_USMC]

depends on the type of operation. Generaly you can sneak along most anything. the 93 van guys (sat comm) usualy throw a small TV and PS2 in the van...

Old idea

[Theovon]

I, along with everyone else who has ever thought Steve Jobs was cool, thought of this years ago. I just wonder how he would convince people to vote for him, given his patented Reality Distortion Field.

Monopolies are illegal

[Audacious]

According to the West Legal Dictionary, in the US, US law generally views monopolies as harmful and points out that generally speaking - monopolies are illegal.

There are only a few times when monopolies are granted, two of those times are when Patents and Copyrights are granted (which is why the big fight in the Supreme Court was so important and why it was so very important for the Supreme Court judges to knock down the extensions Congress put into place). Other times are when someone owns the rights to a single thing (like an oil well), or holds the patent on a process (like making Apple Computers).

Abusing your monopolistic power is not only illegal, but it is sometimes very hard to prove. So there you are right. However, Apple has abused their monopoly in the past. It is just that they got burned several times in court battles and since then they have become more sensitive to acting in non-monopolistic ways. Not that this won't change in the future but at least for now they are acting quite decently for a monopolistic company.

I'd vote for Jobs. He's not my #1 pick, but I think he might be better than what we have already. Not that GWB is horrible or anything but his grim determination to invade Iraq no matter what just doesn't sit right with me. It is like he has lost focus of the fact the UN guys are not finding any kind of a smoking gun (and yeah I know - they hid them. But with all of the technology we have shouldn't we be able to track down where everything is located? I mean, look at how well satellites can see underground rivers. If we can see that why can't they just locate suspicious underground areas? They used satellites to locate cities also. So what's the deal?

(I know - off topic. Sorry - got into a rant.)

i'm 403ing...

[weighn]

forbidden? Perhaps because I'm running MS Windows and IE? If it was slashdotted it'd be a 5nn error right?

Re:I don't know

[ShadowDrake]

> For example, McDonalds is bigger than Burger King. >If they wanted to (and were allowed to), McD's >could put BK out of business in 6 months by selling >everything on their menu for $0.05. That is what >the government considers "unfair" and will step in >to stop, which is why BK and McDs coexist, as they >do.

Actually, not necessarily true. If you're losing 50 cents on every burger, you'd better have enough cash or credit to draw on to absorb the monstrous losses. Most companies can't. Generally, the 'loss leader' still results in a profit per transaction (get a cheap burger and overpriced soda)

great...

[Suppafly]

So if you figure about 75% of the people in the US own computers and something like 5% of all computers are macs, and you subtract the ones owned by schools, there should be about 50 people that will vote for him.

Mr. Rogers for president!

[rigorist]

Who doesn't love Mr. Rogers? He just wants to be your neighbor. In his role as King Friday XIII, he's run an actual country, albeit inhabited almost entirely by puppets. He has had to deal with the repeated terrorist threats of Lady Elaine. He has had to deal with foreign policy, since Donkey Hoty lives in the foreign state of Some Place Else. He has a experience in operating a mass transit / trolly system.

Fred Rogers in 2004!

Re:Mr. Rogers for president!

[t0qer]

He would actually make a cool president. Mod parent up!

I wonder

[selan]

What platform will he run on?

*GROAN*

Lawrence Lessig

[eluusive]

Frankly, I'd rather see him take the position of president.

Re:Lawrence Lessig

[coolmacdude]

I totally agree. That would be the best thing to ever happen to America.

Re:Lawrence Lessig

[jcam2]

A man who is in favour of internet censorship by the government? No thanks ..

Re:Lawrence Lessig

[coolmacdude]

WTF? He does not, he only supports efforts to stop child pornography. There is a huge difference. He explains the dif here: http://www.cdt.org/speech/copa/981013lemley_lessig .html

Jobs over Nader

[benwaggoner]

Speaking as a respectibly left wing Democrat, I'd vote for Jobs over Nader in a heartbeat. Nader has simply shown zero ability for that kind of a job. When he says there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, he's either lying, or an idiot. Who is president MATTERS, no matter what he says.

Leadership requires the right mix of idealism and pragmatism, and Nader badly fails that test. If he actually WON the presidency, he'd be disasterous at it. And since even he knows that he isn't going to win, running mainly makes him just the Perot-of-the-left, working as a spoiler to get Bush reelected.

Re:Jobs over Nader

[Penguinoflight]

Yeah, nader's whole approach of Bush==Gore was stupid, and untrue. Nader was Much much closer to Gore than Gore was to Bush, and that's why Bush won. I'm what you'd probably call a right-wing republican, but I'd say I'm in the middle.

It's very unlikely that anyone will beat Bush in his second term election. When you consider how Clinton won back in '92, he had about 40% of the vote, with perot and bush senior splitting the 60% left. Clinton then won by a land slide in 96. Of course having Bob Dole as a opponent was a major advantage though, Dole just sucked.

Re:Jobs over Nader

[brettlbecker]

I'm not sure it's Nader's inability to do a good job which has kept him from the presidency. I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that it's nearly impossible to get federal funding for any party other than democrat and republican in this sorry "democracy". Even the libertarians, who are the third-largest party in the US, can't get federal funds for TV spots and campaign information. This makes it look like the democrats and republicans are the only legitmate political parties.

This also stems from the idea that people will only vote for someone who they think has a good chance of winning. In the last election, people didn't vote for Nader because to vote for him would obviously just be a statement of principle and not a winning vote. And as we all know, there's very little principle in the US these days.

And BTW, he's right: explain to me exactly what the difference is anymore between democrats and republicans? All I can see is a different style of argument, which just turns into doing what the people who got you elected want. It's sad.

B

Re:Jobs over Nader

[The AtomicPunk]

Nader certainly is an idiot, but he's correct when he says there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Both parties want a larger and larger federal government. Both parties are heavily socialist. Both parties continually erode our freedoms. Both want to provide welfare to people and corporations. Both use our money to buy their power base.

Who cares if one wants to grow the government at 7% a year and one at 6.5% ?

Re:Jobs over Nader

[ratamacue]

When he says there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, he's either lying, or an idiot.

You're not on the same page. The democrats and republicans are equivalant in that they both work towards expanding the scope and power of government (hence, they work towards limiting freedom). They may do it in slightly different ways, but it should be obvious that both major parties prefer big government. Look at the political history of the US over the past century. The US government today is many times more powerful, more expensive, and more opressive than just 100 years ago. Now tell me, what two parties do you think are responsible for this expansion of government?

If we continue to fall into the trap of believing there actually is a difference between the two major parties, where do you think we'll be in another 100 years? (I won't even touch on the fact that the 2 major parties have long worked together to effectively block any third parties from changing the way government works.)

Re:Jobs over Nader

[PhxBlue]

Speaking as a respectibly left wing Democrat, I'd vote for Jobs over Nader in a heartbeat. Nader has simply shown zero ability for that kind of a job. When he says there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, he's either lying, or an idiot. Who is president MATTERS, no matter what he says.

Right, but what party he belongs to doesn't anymore. Where was the difference between political parties when the USAPATRIOT act went through Congress with all of one dissenting vote between both houses?

Re:Jobs over Nader

[Penguinoflight]

Wheres the mathmatics? He won by a landslide because he got like 100 more electoral votes. He didn't even need his stronghold states to win. The election was decided before California was done voting, and that was where Clinton spent all his time campaining.

I'm a republican, but I'm not stupid. Sure Bush is doing a lot of stuff wrong, but I wouldn't trust Gore or Nader better than him, and when it came to Technical issues Gore didn't answer anything, like Bush, and Nader didn't stand a chance.

I actually watched presidential debates for 2000... Every time Gore was asked a question, he would either ignore it completely, take it way out of context to throw fud at Bush, or switch issues and misquote some bible verse. "Where your heart is there will your treasure be also" -- Al Gore

In case you're stupid enough to not even know what he was refuring to, it's a quote from Matthew somewhere between 5 and 7. "Where your TREASURE is there will your Heart be also"

You can flame me if you feel like it, but I'll just ignore you unless you have anything good to say.

Re:Jobs over Nader

[quax]

Bush is betting the world economy on taking out Saddam without setting the middle east aflame. This is more than doing a lot of stuff wrong. This is lunacy.

Re:Jobs over Nader

[quax]

Do you seriously believe that with Gore in the Whitehouse America was about to invade Iraq now?

I call this a major difference especially for all the people who will die in this conflict.

Jobs TV Spot

[mdechene]

So, I was having these negotiations with North Korea over their Nukes, and then all of a sudden, they were like boom boom boom boom boom and then South Korea was gone. North Korea, ate South Korea.

It was kinda.....a bummer.

Re:Jobs TV Spot

[sapporoitchy]

Holy F*ck. Enough with the Feiss parodies. They stopped being funny a long time ago.

Re:Jobs TV Spot

[resonator]

So I was writing this Ellen Feiss parody, and then I check this slashdot thread and this guy was like..

F*CK F*CK F*CK, and my parody was pre-emptively shot down.

...It was a really good parody.

Maybe...

[incom]

Maybe we'll finally get those fururistic looking building's and architechture styles that the sci-fi media's been promosing us for decades. Or, gasp, a "HOVERCAR" tm. After all isn't the diff between an "iMac" tm, and a beige PC similar to the diff between our building styles, and the ones imagined in sci-fi.

Apple users continue to amaze me.

[rtphokie]

They make really good computers, cant we just stop there? Isn't that good enough? Do we need to build a tranluscent plastic alter?

Re:Apple users continue to amaze me.

[Daniel_Staal]

They make really good computers, cant we just stop there? Isn't that good enough? Do we need to build a tranluscent plastic alter?

Transluscent plastic! NO! It needs to be Firewire (tm), USB, and Bluetooth enabled, and pulse with color (blueberry, emerald, and rasberry) over a white core. Oh, and don't forget the built-in sound system and LCD.

Re:Apple users continue to amaze me.

[rjung2k]

Given how butt-ugly the site is, I seriously doubt it was created by a Mac user. A Windows user perpetuating a joke sounds more plausible...

More likely...

[FrankieBoy]

...he'll replace Michael Eisner at Disney. This rumor has been floated before but it seems less plausable since Eisner and Jobs have been feuding over the 5 picture Pixar deal. I think I would rather see him at the helm of Disney rather than the country but hey, it might be fun to see him in a suit.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Be suspicious of politicians who get paid little

[lingqi]

Let's see... Bloomberg (mayor of NYC now) gets a yearly $.01 salary - but I will bet you a dollar to a donut that he makes it all back and more with the rules / regulations / whatever he gets to do while in office. All his friends would benefit from a city office that looks after their assets, and he would likewise be heftily compensated for his efforts.

On the other hand, I guess if Jobs was mad president, Microsoft would be royally fucked. Really, really fucked...

Bush isn't evil, just wrong

[benwaggoner]

There is a common tendency to think one's political opponents are motivated by evil. While a lot of Bush's actions are to me inexplicable, experience has forced me to assume he's merely wrong, not malicious.

This is good, because wrong we can work with.

Re:Bush isn't evil, just wrong

[fiftyfly]

It's been my experience that working with or, frankly, bartering with the evil is usually easier & more productive then attempts to do so with the merely stupid & misguided.

An 'evil' person isn't necessarily aimless or an anarchist - they, like most people with an IQ greater then that of a potato, want things. These 'things' just might not be that same things you or I want. They, also, may not quest for these things in the same manner we would but the do want, and usually not irrationaly. Stupid people, on the other hand, don't know what they want, don't know how they're going to go about getting what the don't know they want and are simply unable to negotiate with you inorder that they might get anything at all.

That being said what _really_ scares me is stupid, evil people - and I'm afraid the yanks went and elected one hell of a guy 2 years ago.

As great as he sounds...

[Razzak]

He has no talent at making everyone happy. In the U.S., the president doesn't have 100% control. He actually might make a semi-decent dictator, but he'd fail miserably as a president.

He'll have his plan. The republicans will want small changes and the democrats will propose their own, modified version. Jobs: "Screw you all".

As much as I disliked Clinton and his "all-promises no deliveries" politics, he was very good at getting opposing sides to compromise. Of course, the downside to this is both sides compromise so many issues that when they're done there's nothing important that's agreed on.

Re:As great as he sounds...

[benwaggoner]

Yeah, this would be my fear as well. Although running a big public company well implies he's learned at least SOMETHING about compromise.

If he decided to run (which he probably won't - who would he let run Apple?) whether or not he could pull this off would quicky become apparent.

No, stupid.

[Erris]

Weren't you around when monopoly was downgraded from 'Near complete control of a market' to 'Makes a product that isn't free'?

No, but I was around when the US Government convicted Microsoft of violating anti-trust laws but did nothing about it. Those laws were enacted to prevent companies from racketeering and using the profits from their dishonest practices to take over other markets.

Apple is not free, but they have yet to:

Dump product,

threaten vendors who dare sell competing products unless they cost more and are more trouble than M$ junk,

buy competitors simply to shut them down,

threaten ruin of a lifetime's work for non compliance,

activly discourage hardware makers from forming standards,

embrace planned obsolecence via software incompatibility,

and many other things that have retarded America's and the world's computing, economy and wellbeing.

By the way, bub, you must have missed the Big Guy's message. Quit messing around with issues of freedom, GPL and what not. It has not worked. You only make yourself look bad and waste your time. If you are going to defend M$, you have to do it in positive terms. One more mistake like this and your going to lose your PR contract.

What would Steve do?

[jobugeek]

What's he going to do? Wait for the stock market to go back up and merge with Canada?

We need a candidate for the Linux platform.

[happylinuxguy]

I bet someone running for president on the Linux platform would get quite a few votes. There's probably more people that would vote for someone running for president on the Linux/open software/anti DRM platform than have voted for other parties, such as the libertarians... it'd make for more public recognition of Linux, too. Mabye the EFF could organize the effort?

and, how about the quotes!

[simpl3x]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blgorenet.htm

clumsy perhaps, but the man has certainly done more for the internet than those trashing misplaced comments!

and, what could you imagine W does on the web?

Re:Why

[po3t]

more news here.

I quote:
"Clearly, although Gore's phrasing was clumsy (and self-serving), he was not claiming that he "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it), but that he was responsible for helping to create the environment (in an economic and legislative sense) that fostered the development of the Internet"

US future

[axxackall]

Give Jobs US president job and you can forget about USA, which will take same place in the world as Apple takes in PC market today.

There will be many interesting (and failed) experiments, a lot of noise in the media and juts a little of real results.

I wonder who will be those hippies trying to run linux/PPC?

they forgot to add 1!

[simpl3x]

to the employee number function... everybody look at your hand and say zero with your first digit extended...

whats the date again?

[sporkboy]

is it april 1 already?

Think Better...vote for

[linuxislandsucks]

..Lisa Jobs! She is more stable than her daddy by far..or better yet..

Wzo for Prez with Capt Crunch as Vice Prez

Source please!

[interactive_civilian]

Jobs has my vote just for his insight that DRM will fail, and his strong resolution to never integrate it into MacOS.

Can you link to the source of that information please? I may be behind the times, but I don't recall ever hearing and official statement regarding Apple's stance on DRM much less a "strong resolution to never integrate it into MacOS".

Please educate me because this would be the happiest news for awhile and the final piece of info to fully convince a few friends to not buy Windows machines as their next computers.

Cheers. :)

About voter turnout....

[MacAndrew]

Hovering around 50% for many years actually -- for the Presidential elections only -- and there are several factors in the way the statistic is calculated that tend to make it underestimate voter participation. The percentage is based on the number of votes cast for the principal office on the ballot divided by the VAP (Voting Age Population). The first number may be a bit low because, according to the FEC, about 2% of voters "fail" to vote for the highest office (I know of a couple of people who did this in the last election because they were disgusted with the choices, but did vote in other races), and the VAP is concededly larger than the number of people truly eligible to vote (millions of noncitizens, illegal aliens, ex-felons, and so on, are indeed "voting age"). Of that number, a somewhat smaller percentage is registered. So, if a 50% turnout is reported based on VAP, the turnout of registered voters may be more like 70%.

Turnout for primaries and local elections can fall *really* low.

I'm describing this because election theory is a personal interest, and because election stats are often misused to try to prove political arguments. The VAP problem shows how little the press knows what they're talking about. But I suppose Election 2000 cleared up the press's competence clearly enough. (Have you heard of VNS? Another wellspring of disaster. Groan.)

ANYWAY, the relevant point is that there's no obvious reason to assume that Mac users vary from the population at large. Many are too young or have other disabilities preventing voting. Some don't show up to vote. Also, I have no idea what Apple's 5% of computer sales translates into as a percentage of individuals. Nor are we users complete slaves: only some of us would vote for Jobs. It's thus a very long shot that Mac users would come anywhere near the 19% of turnout that went for Perot. Perhaps, joined by enough others, they could form the nucleus of a significant bloc. (I wonder what kind of candidate Jobs would make? I'm sure it would be interesting, but I'd rather he stay with Apple.)

Re:About voter turnout....

[MulluskO]

Thanks for the stats, but have noticed how turnout seems to ocillate between low and high turnout each year, seperated by a margin of about 20%? Something to do with incumbancy, perhaps?

1996 49.08%
1994 38.78%
1992 55.09%
1990 36.52%
1988 50.11%
1986 40%
1984 53.11%
1982 39.79%
1980 52.56%
1978 37.21%
1976 53.55%
1974 38.23%
1972 55.21%

5-3-5-3-5-3-5-4-5-3-5-3-4

Re:About voter turnout....

[Espen]

While VAP does count some people who are ineligible to vote, it also excludes some citizens who are eligble (like those living abroad), so it is not inevitiable that it will be an overcount. Illegal aliens are probably not included in the VAP, because the data it is based on is collected from official sources.

As for the VAP vs. registered voter statistics, I don't think there is any doubt that as a measure of the democratic process (one person; one vote) the only meaningful number is the percentage of the population with a right to vote actually make use of it.. In a specific election the voter turnout as a percentage of VAP is a lot more telling than the one for registered voters. The latter number is really not that interesting (other than for publicity purposes and purely technical reasons). What is far more interesting from a 'democratic measure' perspective, but very rarely reported is the VAP to registered voter percentage (and changes in it). I believe the latest figures indicate it is around 66%, which means that 1/3 of the population have decided not to vote, regardless of who the candidates are!

Re:About voter turnout....

[Chris Mattern]

> Thanks for the stats, but have noticed how turnout seems to ocillate between low and high
? turnout each year, seperated by a margin of about 20%? Something to do with incumbancy, perhaps?

Something to do with presidential elections: if you'll look again at your figures, you'll notice that the high turnouts are all presidential election years. People who can't be bothered to go vote for their congressman will turn out to vote for President.

Chris Mattern

Re:About voter turnout....

[MacAndrew]

Not so -- maybe in your state, but not everywhere.

The practice varies by state, as state law determined the right to vote within constitutional limits. According to this recent study 14 still permanently disenfranchise ex-felons. Forty-six disenfranchise inmates, and a slightly smaller number do so for those on parole/probation. According to the source, these add up to about 4 million people who cannot vote. The U.S. has one of highest imprisonment rates in the world, and certain groups are affected more than others (e.g., blacks, Hispanics, men, the poor). This practice may have given President Bush the edge in Florida, esp. if as alleged it was overapplied.

Vocab: Ex-felon is a kind of dated term for convicts who've done their time. I don't know of a better one offhand except the similar "ex-con."

There have been unsuccessful constitutional challenges to this practice. IMHO, having studied election law extensively, there is no sufficient justification: the right to vote is an essential democratic right -- and ex-cons get their other full civil rights restored on release -- and disenfranchisement is unlikely a serious deterrent from crime. Supposedly inmates and former criminals might "vote the wrong way," but that's as unproven as deterrent and the single worst reason because it excludes people from voting based on their imagined views.

Re:About voter turnout....

[MacAndrew]

Re registration rates, I have collected signatures in the past and was impressed by the number of people who came forward to ask for voter registration forms. States vary a lot is their procedures for registration. Clearly certain members of Congress knew that easy registration leads to more voting and opposed the "motor voter law" that allows registration at any DMV. (Weak official reasons to oppose the law, such as concern about voter fraud, were also offered.) People who are less educated or welathy vote less, and not because they are less American. So from experience I wouldn't say 1/3 of the population "have decided not to vote." I would like see the numbers of voters if everyone were automatically registered, or could so so instantly at the polling place.

Re VAP, read the FEC link I provided. Note also that aliens in the VAP are unable to vote whether they are present legally or illegally, and in 1994 aliens over 18 numbered 13 million. Disenfranchised prisoners and former prisoners number a few million. Meanwhile, military abroad are counted for some purposes and not others, but either way number only in the hundreds of thousands. Read the FEC link I provided for more detail, as you clearly have not.

Re:About voter turnout....

[Yeechang Lee]

> States vary a lot is their procedures for
> registration. Clearly certain members of Congress
> knew that easy registration leads to more voting
> and opposed the "motor voter law" that allows
> registration at any DMV. (Weak official reasons to
> oppose the law, such as concern about voter fraud,
> were also offered.)

Those concerns aren't "weak" at all. I even posted to Slashdot a few years ago of my experience when getting my driver's license renewed before I became an American citizen. If I hadn't said anything, I would have been registered to vote right then and there, no questions asked.

price:sexiness ratio

[kguilber]

suddenly everything would cost a lot more, but damn would we have a sexy-lookin' country.

Actually, the helmets'd protect well.

[Vladimus]

That polycarbonate translucent plastic would do a pretty damn good job serving as a helmet. The stuff's darned near impossible to break, and is used to make bulletproof glass.

Newton?

[watchful.babbler]

I'll vote for him if I can write in my vote -- with a Newton stylus!

I'm sorry, but "Stove Logs" isn't an appropriate choice for a president.

Thank you for that rousing silence! I'll be here all week.

Jobs for Prez...

[das_katz_socrates]

Having Jobs in the Whitehouse would be great for Slashdoters, he would outlaw Microsoft.

Oh, yeah. GREAT idea.

[WCityMike]

Yeah. Because taking your vote lightly led to such a GREAT president last election ...

government is not business (and vice versa)

[aunchaki]

It seems a lot of people want to see America become America(tm).

The notion that business-people (successful or otherwise) are assumed to be able to take their skills into the politial arena is ridiculous to me. Goverment and business have very little to do with one another; their goals are often at odds. Citizens are not shareholders. Government isn't about profit.

as for rhetoric

[tratan]

If you could be a tad less biased, you'd see he was making a point: only someone smoking a pipe would think that those things he listed had nothing to do with invading Iraq. Or maybe you did realize he was being sarcastic, and you were just suggesting that his sarcasm was inappropriate?

As for rhetoric, how would you feel if you were in a freshman ELPS class with a teacher who proudly stated that he was liberal, spent over half the class time reading articles by radical liberal authors, denounced the concept of a free market, and smiled and nodded whenever you tried to debate an anti-conservative claim he had made? Bear in mind that this teacher is teaching his viewpoint, as fact, to a group of 16-year-old students. That is what I consider rhetoric. In my case the teacher was conservative instead of liberal, and I've never had a liberal teacher announce their political orientation.

So, try to recognize instances of sarcasm, OK? Oh, and though it goes against human nature, try to fairly evaluate others' opinions. Though I am mostly liberal, I have conservative views and would almost certainly vote a mixed ticket.

Re:as for rhetoric

[kir]

Biased? How is my post biased? Because I pointed out that Un pobre guey is spitting the same tired gloom-and-doom shite that many other slashdotters are? I'm pretty fucking sick of hearing it.

Look... the U.S. gubment is rather fucked. Both parties are full of crooked bastards who are only looking out for themselves. BUT, to say that Bush is ignoring the unemployed, suspending our rights, and instituting a Christian version of the Taliban sounds... well... VERY BIASED, IMHO.

Re:as for rhetoric

[Cally]

Look... the U.S. gubment is rather fucked. Both parties are full of crooked bastards who are only looking out for themselves. BUT, to say that Bush is ignoring the unemployed, suspending our rights, and instituting a Christian version of the Taliban sounds... well... VERY BIASED, IMHO.

Huh??

(a) if you accept that all politicians are fucked, crooked bastards,and that Bush is a politician, then is there really any inconsistency with asserting that he's ignoring the unemployed, etc etc?

(b) if you haven't noticed that Dubya's the worst president the USA's had since... well, Nixon at the very LEAST, then, dude, wake up and smell the fsckin' coffee! He's about to take on the entire world. The USA's closest allies are going to denounce the Iraq war as a blatant trampelling of International law. Tony Blair, the stupid bastard, is probably going to lose office over his idiotic support because of the "special relationship" -- you think *any* UK government is going to just obey American orders again? ever??

Personally, I'm hoping that the nascent movement for international sanctions gets a good head of steam. It's time you all* realised that you're not the only people on this planet that matter.

* Yes, I realise that the actions of the American government, particularly the current junta, do not necessarily represent mainstream American opinions or beliefs. Yes, I realise you are not all the ignorant, arrogant, fat-headed, slackjawed, trigger-happy, greedy, selfish imperialist tossers Bush represents you to be. And yes, as you've no doubt realised by now if you're grinding your teeth at my holier-than-thou snobbery, I'm European ;)

Good for florida

[MoneyT]

Well it would cetainly make voting less confusing for the old geezers in florida. Forget punching holes and butterfly ballots and hanging chads, just put pick a piece of colored paper and put it in the box.

This is insanely great!

[bangzilla]

Just think, Buzz Lightyear for Vice President. Sully would make a great speaker of the house (no one would dare disagree with him) and Hopper would be idea as foreign secretary (kick them stinking Iraqies.....er ants, in the ass). Plus Pixar would make way better political ads than we've ever seen in the past!

Screw Steve Jobs...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm voting for the Woz!

never had a liberal......

[oliverthered]

Well,... um..... That's because there liberal.

It's a life of solitude being a liberal.

The Issues...

[Arandir]

Where does he stand on the issues?

• Foreign Policy: Who knows?
  
• Economic Policy: Who knows?
  
• Social Policy: Who knows?
  

Okay, let's narrow it down a bit...

• IP/RIAA/MPAA/DCMA/Etc: He's probably at least in the right ballpark.
  
• National Sales Tax: Who knows?
  
• Flat Tax: Who knows?
  
• Small Business: Who knows?
  
• Capital Gains: Who knows?
  
• Regulation: Who knows?
  
• Israel/Palestine: Who knows?
  
• Iraq/Afghanistan: Who knows?
  
• Airport Security: Who knows?
  
• Clean Air Act: Who knows?
  

In short, we know nothing about the politics of Steve Jobs. No one in their right mind could vote for this guy without knowing more. Of course, he has opinions in these areas. But we just don't know them.

Is he Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Reform or Independent? And out of those ridiculously broad parties, which one of several thousand factions, caucuses and movements does he stand with? Is he a New Deal Democrat or a Capitalist Green? A Country Club Republican or a Peronista Reformist? Civil Libertarian or Extreme Moderate Independent? Who the heck knows!

no no no you heard it wrong.

[r00tarded]

The economy is in the shitter and techies have spoken, what they said was "We want more *jobs*!"

Jobs first acts in office...

[AnalogDiehard]

...should be to permanently repeal the DMCA, to expel derivative bills in the pipeline (CDBTPA and the xxAA right-to-hack bills), and to repeal the Sonny Bono "Mickey Mouse" copyright extension act.

Rip. Mix. Burn.

AHHHH!!! Noooooo!

[deranged unix nut]

Warning!!! Reality Distortion Field approaching!

I don't want a translucent-blue White House, and I still use my floppy drive!

Jobs and Clinton good friends

[bill_mcgonigle]

Jobs and Clinton are quite friendly. One would expect Steve Jobs's policies to be similar. Except, of course, this time Microsoft gets broken up into three hundred pieces.

Re:Nader being a spoiler

[Raffaello]

Believe this if it helps you sleep, but anyone who can do simple arithmetic knows that Nader is responsible for Bush being in the White House.

Nader was still the right choice.

[greenguy]

Speaking as a respectibly left wing Democrat,

Feeling lonely these days?

Nader has simply shown zero ability for that kind of a job.

No worries there. Apparently, the Presidency has no requirements whatsoever these days. But seriously, Nader thinks deeply, speaks clearly, and acts decisively. He also happens to be brutally honest, a quality we haven't had in a President since... well, ever.

As a Green, I hope to see someone other Ralph nominated in 2004, and I even started a website to that effect. But I'll always remeber how good it felt to vote for Nader. I have no regrets.

When he says there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, he's either lying, or an idiot.

Go back and check your facts. You never actually heard him say that. You only heard second-hand that he had said it. In fact, what he really said was that the difference wasn't enough to make a difference. Close, but not the same statement.

What we have today is a far-right party up against a center-right party. There's your difference.

Leadership requires the right mix of idealism and pragmatism, and Nader badly fails that test.

Are you kidding? Nader has saved more lives than Gore and Bush added together, or for that matter, multiplied. You have to be an idealist to take on corporate power, and you have to be a pragmatist to win, not just once, but over and over.

There's not an idealist among the Democratic would-bes, and W wouldn't know an idea if it bit him on the nose.

If he actually WON the presidency, he'd be disasterous at it.

Right, he'd probably do disastrous things like see that poor people have health care and education, that wilderness areas are protected, that corporate monopolies are controlled, that foreign conflicts are handled with civility and diplomacy. Not like the enlightened path we're currently on.

And since even he knows that he isn't going to win,

Wrong. The Green Party didn't take the White House in 2000, but we did grow explosively. We became a household word. And in 2002, we ran more candidates (and had more wins) than we did with Nader. That's a win.

running mainly makes him just the Perot-of-the-left, working as a spoiler to get Bush reelected.

Hey, is it Nader's fault the sitting VP of a very popular President couldn't beat an ex-cokehead who's dumber than Dan Quayle put together? Is it Nader's fault Gore couldn't win his own freaking home state? Or Clinton's?

People knew the risks of not voting for Gore. Yet 2.7 million of us took the risk (and probably twice as many again thought seriously about it). The overwhelming majority would do so again, and many who voted for Gore will vote Green next time. You call it spoiling, I call it standing up for what you believe in.

If you want our votes in 2004, here's what to do: steal our platform. Go ahead. We arrived at it in an unusually democratic fashion, but we'd be happy to see you adopt it in any way. Our ideas are what draw people to us, and if you want to draw them back, you now know how.

One last thing... ask a local Green what IRV is.

Re:Nader was still the right choice.

[jcr]

Is it Nader's fault Gore couldn't win his own freaking home state? Or Clinton's?

Well, yes: Actually, it *is* Clinton's fault. Gore might have squeaked by if Clinton had had the decency to resign once he was impeached. Hell, even Nixon didn't stick around for the impeachment.

Clinton's the slimiest SOB to hold the presidency since Nixon at least, and possibly since Andrew Jackson.

-jcr

Re:Nader was still the right choice.

[Carmody]

Clinton's the slimiest SOB to hold the presidency since Nixon at least, and possibly since Andrew Jackson.

Actually, he was one of the heaviest presidents. Not as heavy as Taft, but certainly heavier than many others.

I don't understand why you care about the man's weight, anyway.

Re:Nader was still the right choice.

[jcr]

Read it again. I said "slimiest" (that is, Most Slimey), not "Slimmest".

-jcr

Reasons Jobs for Pres. isn't a sound idea....

[King_TJ]

Ok, obviously, this whole issue is moot if Jobs isn't actually trying to run for President in the first place.... but just for the sake of argument:

1. This is the guy who believed America would buy the $10,000 Lisa computer in droves. When that failed miserably, he ended up having the remaining inventory bulldozed into a Utah landfill. (So much for his ex-hippie, eco-friendly image, eh?)

2. This is the guy who, after that major mishap, went on to create another of the world's largest computer failures with the NeXT systems. (Granted, these were cool machines - but he burnt through something like 50 million in investors' money, again making the mistakes that doomed the Lisa. Namely, charging far too much money for a system that didn't have the software/applications behind it to sell it. In fact, I believe he blew about 15 million of Ross Perot's own investment money on NeXT.)

3. This is now the guy who, despite putting on a good show and illustrating good public speaking skills, enjoys keeping secrets from the public (used the "Keynote" software for a year before telling anyone the product existed, for example). I don't think America really wants a leader who keeps things completely secret from the people.

4. This is also a guy who seems to have a constant problem with exaggeration. Most of his "insanely great!" new things are more what I'd just call "good ideas". His bragging about the new Safari web browser being 2x to 3x faster than IE on the Mac is another exaggeration. I've timed it on several different Mac systems, and it's *maybe* 1.4x as fast as IE on *some* pages. Other times, it's actually slower or right about equal speed.

Re:Reasons Jobs for Pres. isn't a sound idea....

[frank_adrian314159]

In fact, I believe he blew about 15 million of Ross Perot's own investment money on NeXT.

And this is bad... how? Unless, of course, you happen to be Ross. Tricky pseudonym, Mr. Perot -- by the way, $15 million is peanuts compared to some of the dotcom stuff. Come back when you wanna bet enough money to make playin' worthwhile!

And why you come slummin' 'roun' here anyhow? You tryin' to run again and 'fraid that li'l Stevey might whup ya? Never mind. We voted for some asshole Texan last time. Sure don't wanna make that mistake again. Nexttt!!!

Re:Reasons Jobs for Pres. isn't a sound idea....

[jaysones]

Yeah, it's called marketing, man. If you believe it, you're falling for it. If you recognize it, then you're smart.

Re:Reasons Jobs for Pres. isn't a sound idea....

[Saint Fnordius]

OK, just for the sake of rebuttal:

Re 1: Actually, this shows an ability to say "I was wrong" and closing the chapter. And the Lisa wasn't entirely landfilled, as it came back as the deluxe "big brother" to the Macintosh (Macintosh XL, IIRC).

Re 2: You make is sound as if the Lisa was the reason Jobs left Apple, instead of the failed coup against John Sculley. That incident has left him with a lot of experience. As for NeXT, it let him develop the technologies that would let him "reconquor" Apple. His more recent history shows that he does learn from mistakes, despite what people say.

Re 3: This is different from the current administration how? Fleischer, Rove, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld are all great lovers of secret dealings. I think a President Jobs would deliver his State of the Union address in a black mock turtleneck with "Just one more thing"...

Re 4: No matter what you call it, it's effective marketing, and no different than what goes on in Washington almost every day. That, and your example is easily rebutted: how fast was the connection? How many bottlenects did you experience? Did you test loading loacal files to check the rendering engine speeds? You get my drift.

Still, I don't think Jobs is right for the job--at least not yet. I don't subscribe to the PHB philosophy that a good manager can manage everything. Managing a public office is a lot different from managing a company. If Steve really were interested, he'd run for a governor's post first.

Re:Reasons Jobs for Pres. isn't a sound idea....

[msouth]

Ok, obviously, this whole issue is moot if Jobs isn't actually trying to run for President in the first place....

I think you meant moof, there, buddy. As in, if he doesn't run, the dogcow will!

Re:Reasons Jobs for Pres. isn't a sound idea....

[quax]

Don't forget he also founded Pixar. A fantastic success, that brought you Toy Story, Bug's Life and Monster's Inc.

Any venture capital fund would love to have his track record. They usually consider 1 success out of ten failures a good quota.

iRaq

[CliffHangerJay]

I'd still have a hard time buying it...

Re:iRaq

[DirkDaring]

ahhh that was funny. Best post in here by far.

Dirk

Just as stupid

[paroneayea]

May I ask you what reason would you vote for Steve Jobs? Alright, I agree, he probably would be a hell of a lot better than G.W. But not by much. I remember when Hulk Hoagan decided to run for president, and all these wrestling fans were like, "Whoo! Let's vote for him!" I asked them, for what reasons would you vote this man into office? What qualifications does he have? I got three reasons: 1) Because he's cool! 2) *silence* 3) *scoff and roll of eyes* Only one of these even comes close to a "reason", and not by much. Now, had Hulk Hoagan displayed fantastic talent and ability for being a president, then yes I would vote for him. But he didn't. The same applies to Steve Jobs. If, for some reason, he demonstrates outstanding ability as a government official, and you're sure his corporate motives won't effect his decision making, then yes, by all means, vote for him. I still haven't seen any good reason to believe he has this ability yet, however. I think it's about time that people grow up and take their vote seriously and realize a few things. This isn't a popularity contest. Who you vote for will effect the way the country is run in the future. And my last, but most lengthy comment, is this one. Voting for someone because they're republican and you're republican or because they're a democrat and because you're a democrat is foolish. Those are names. When you vote, don't just think about what "party" you belong to, or how much money this person is going to bring you. On that note, voting purely on your own perosnal greed is an undeniably selfish way to go about voting, and stupid too: your personal state of being is a product of the world. Okay, one more final bunch of comments (yes, I meant that as a joke). You shouldn't always support everything that whoever you voted for did just because you voted for him. If you feel that a decision is wrong, it shouldn't matter to you who made it, it's wrong. And last but not least, peaceful protest (and I don't mean just by physical assembly, but also by writing letters and speaking your opinion) is a PATRIOTIC thing to do. Why? Because if you think your government is doing something wrong and you really love your country, you should want it to do what's right. Or is that wrong somehow?

Another thing to consider

[bluethundr]

So what you are saying is that Gore supported a bill on the back end that gave the nod to what was completely obvious.

Another thing to consider is that the commercial appeal of the Internet was anything but obvious in '93. At that point the arpanet was wholly owned by the US government, it was developed as a fail-safe means of transmitting information in a de-centralized environment so that in the case of a nuclear war it could still funciton.

If at any point before the Boucher bill was signed there was the potential (though unlikely) scenario of some demagog deciding that the civillian use of the Arpanet was so out of control it posed a serious misuse of government resources and therefore should be shutdown! It was definitely not impossible for the government to just pull the plug on the then fledgeling internet. Again, this would be highly unlikely and very tough to actually do. But then did we ever expect anything as outrageous as the DMCA to infect the lives of average people in the connected social universe in which we now find ourselves? Just something to think about...

Re:I don't know

[1u3hr]

i cant go out and buy [insert computer part] for a mac that isn't made by mac.

You can buy standard PC RAM, IDE or SCSI hard disks, and video and other PCI cards from many companies (if they've bothered to write drivers -- and with OSX open source drivers are coming). Also you can attach most USB devices to recent Macs, including keyboards, use VGA monitors.

Basically you can upgrade your Mac to the max without paying Apple a dime.

Think Different

[PaddyM]

Everybody vote for Steve Jobs.

Re:Think Different

[pressman]

Personally, I think I'll wait until November 2004 before I cast any vote for the President of the United States.

Re:I don't know

[commodoresloat]

I seem to write this post about one a month

Karma whore.

(*ducks*)

Jobs is a commie! SHEESH!

[ThresholdRPG]

Um...... Has the person who submitted this article ever read up on Jobs' political beliefs?

The guy is a full blown communist who still hangs onto his free-love hippy-days absurdities.

Furthermore, would you want someone to run the country who has the "Apple philosophy." I mean the guy is clueless. Apple makes gorgeous machines that are relatively stable and easy to use, and yet they are totally incapable of gaining ANY significant portion of the market.

Hasn't it been proven enough that a closed architecture is NEVER the way to long term success in a consumer market? The only time such a thing has even been successful in the short term is when you wield monopoly power (like the DVD consortium).

Really now. This is an absolutely horrendous idea.

Re:Jobs is a commie! SHEESH!

[rnws]

Oh for crying out loud! Are there still moron's out there stuck in the FIFTIES! Communisisim is not any better or worse than Capitalisism. It all depends on the society implementing the system and wether or not they wanted it or it was forced upon them. Communisism could work quite well and quite happliy with a democratic government. Problem is, every time a people somewhere *chose* a communist or socialist leader, the good ol' US of A interfered and usually sponsored a military coup which led to many people being murdered in the name of "freedom". (Chile's a good example.) The US even helped bring down and Australian Prime Minister and the Aussies are supposed to be your *allies*. There are plenty of people who suffer under both systems get over yourself you flaming great dork. The American view of Freedom and Democracy is that it's fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of making a profit and then we'll shit all over you.

Re:Jobs is a commie! SHEESH!

[DuBois]

Communisisim is not any better or worse than Capitalisism. It all depends on the society implementing the system and wether or not they wanted it or it was forced upon them.

WTF???? Where have you been the last ten years? The last twenty? The last fifty? the last 100?

Every time "C"ommunism has been tried, it has failed, regardless of whether the people of the country "voted" it in or not.

It's really unfortunate that the supposedly civilized Western countries have adopted communism's hateful and fascist phrase, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Translating this from the German, you have to note that this means: "Use the force and violence of Government to take money from people who have worked hard to better themselves and their employees, and give that hard-earned money to those who believe that their need exceeds the Tao's admonition that 'you shall not steal.'"

Communism is simply warfare by people whose envy of the productive efforts of their fellows exceeeds their own productive abilities.

And if you don't believe this, look at North Korea, Cuba, and other economic basket cases where the Government can barely feed the people, let alone give them an environment where they can better themselves and their country.

And, to bring this back on topic, Steve Jobs probably is a Communist. But he's running a capitalist organization that has granted him a Gulfstream as reward for his relatively successful efforts. And that capitalist company makes computers that Just Work. That's enough for me.

Re:Jobs is a commie! SHEESH!

[pressman]

The "style" of communism to which you refer is actually more of a repressive socialism than real communism. Basically all the East Bloc countries entered phase 1 of the communist revolution and got stuck there.

The revolution is supposed to overthrow the corrupt government. Then and interim government steps in until such a time when said government is no longer needed and the people are able to truly govern themselves.

Communism and democracy can live hand in hand. It's just that we Americans tend to think democracy and capitalism are the same thing. Democracy can foster and nurture capitalism or communism. What really matters is the will of the people.

What know of as communism is so far from actually being communist it's laughable Charles Engels and Karl Mark would be horrified to see what Lenin and Stalin did with their ideas... just as the American Founding Fathers would be appaled at what we've done to their ideals.

Re:Jobs is a commie! SHEESH!

[DuBois]

The "style" of communism to which you refer is actually more of a repressive socialism than real communism. Basically all the East Bloc countries entered phase 1 of the communist revolution and got stuck there.

Interesting that you can't name (or couldn't think of) any countries that ever got past phase 1. Did this possibility slip your mind, or is it just that there aren't any examples. I can't think of any. Can you?

The revolution is supposed to overthrow the corrupt government. Then and interim government steps in until such a time when said government is no longer needed and the people are able to truly govern themselves.

Yeah. Yeah. Dictatorship of the Proletariat and all that. Name me one country where the plan actually happened as you so ideally lay it out. Just one. Can't think of any? Neither can I.

Communism and democracy can live hand in hand. It's just that we Americans tend to think democracy and capitalism are the same thing. Democracy can foster and nurture capitalism or communism. What really matters is the will of the people.

It's interesting to note that the will of the people has always gone the other direction from communism. Note the current Russia. Note China adopting Hong Kong as its model. Note countries like North Korea and Cuba that retain the phase 1 model and are still mired in starvation and poverty.

What know of as communism is so far from actually being communist it's laughable Charles Engels and Karl Mark would be horrified to see what Lenin and Stalin did with their ideas... just as the American Founding Fathers would be appaled at what we've done to their ideals.

I disagree with the first part of this sentence but agree heartily with the second. Since you seem to confuse Harpo and Chico with Karl, I suspect you wouldn't know a Marxist if one bit you on the behind. But it's true that we've gone very far in the direction of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." in these formerly free United States. In fact, we've gone so far in that direction that we now fight wars over petty dictators in the Middle East for which we have no more motivation than the price of oil. Sigh.

Re:Jobs is a commie! SHEESH!

[pressman]

Since you seem to confuse Harpo and Chico with Karl, I suspect you wouldn't know a Marxist if one bit you on the behind.

Are you trying to suggest that Engels and Marx would look at what Stalin and lenin did and say, "Yup, that's prett y much how we envisioned the revolution happening and yup, that's pretty much what we expected communism in action to be"? They would be absolutely horrified as to how "communism" played out in the 20th century.

And, oh yeah, Harpo and Chico, good, original, thought proviking jab. Nice to see that you have that great gift of being able to attack a person's arguments and not the person him/herself. Way to go!

Repressive socialism is the legacy of Stalin and Lenin, not communism. They never got there and once they were firmly entrenched in the seat of power, they gave up on the revolution. They loved the power.

Re:Jobs is a commie! SHEESH!

[DuBois]

Are you trying to suggest that Engels and Marx would look at what Stalin and lenin did and say, "Yup, that's prett y much how we envisioned the revolution happening and yup, that's pretty much what we expected communism in action to be"? They would be absolutely horrified as to how "communism" played out in the 20th century.

Well, no, I wasn't implying that. Any human (Marxist or otherwise) should be horrified at what Communism turned out to be in practice. But that doesn't excuse either Marx or Engels, both of whom planted the seeds for the anti-humanism of Communism. They might have been surprised at the results, but they shouldn't have been.

Repressive socialism is the legacy of Stalin and Lenin, not communism. They never got there and once they were firmly entrenched in the seat of power, they gave up on the revolution. They loved the power.

Unfortunately both socialism and communism are about power and its inevitable misuse. Both socialism and communism are about using the force and violence of Government to forcibly redistribute (against the will of those being redistributed) the money and productive ability of citizens. And if you can't see the power, force, and violence in that, then I do believe you're a Chico, Harpo, Groucho Marxist, not the other kind.

Grin.

Re:Jobs is a commie! SHEESH!

[pressman]

Well, the Swedes and Norwegians are essentially socialists and they don't seem to be complaining all that much. I don't hear too many Canadians complaining that their taxes are too high after they've completed their free higher education. I also don't hear the Canadians complaining too much about socialized health care. I mean, if I were hit by a car today and badly injured I would probably be in debt for the rest of my life as I cannot afford health insurance right now due to unemployment. I would really appreciate state funded health insurance.

(now I duck and hide as I visited the parents website and I know I'm pushing a button.)

Also, I never claimed to be a Marxist. I believe Marxism is an unattainable utopian ideal much like democracy in it's truest sense is.... same for capitalism. I'm just some schmoe who's very left of center trying to make sense of the world around him.

Communism does not necessarily equate to Socialism. Democracy does not necessarily equate to Capitalism.

Granted, you're never going to see a capitalist communist state, but a democratic communist state or a socialist democracy are not such ludicrous or contradictory ideas.

I know that no true form of communism has ever occured in the first or second worlds, but it has evolved in many indigenous populations throughout the world. Granted, always in very small, isolated communities, but it has existed., but never in a technologically advanced society with an entrenched, government run military.

Re:Jobs is a commie! SHEESH!

[pressman]

Many apologies for my horrific grammar!

Behold the new White House!

[Wireless Joe]

I can just vision the Steve Jobs version of the White House

simple arithmetic?

[commodoresloat]

If anyone did simple arithmetic in the last election, Gore would be in the White House.

Steve Jobs! Great Idea!

[Mulletproof]

Yes, then we accuse him of making technology deals to line his own pockets and propping Apple up and waging war on China to take over their elctronics assembly industry...

Face it, you bitter people would always find SOMETHING to complain about...

"Demolition Man" anyone?

[ATAMAH]

- Arnold Schwarzenegger was a President??!! (c) John Spartan

Re:"Demolition Man" anyone?

[clarkc3]

and he even had a Memorial Library to boot - ah, but the 61st ammendment hasnt been passed yet ;)

but seriously....

[commodoresloat]

This is idiocy. Why anyone still wastes their breath blaming Nader for Bush, rather than focusing on Bush now, makes no sense to me. It is Gore's own fault that he lost the election. If Gore wanted to appeal to the people who voted for Nader he could have tried. Instead he courted Bush voters, who went ahead and voted for, guess who, Bush. Gore chose to appear at least as conservative as Bush on most issues, and more conservative than him on many others. Nader didn't force Gore to distance himself from Clinton or to run a terribly unenthusiastic campaign. Nader didn't force Gore to actually lose debates to his intellectual inferior. Nader didn't force Gore to neglect to mention to voters that the economy was better than it had been in a long time. Nader didn't force Gore to neglect to mention that his opponent was a complete moron who represents a criminal family dynasty. Liberals and democrats need to stop blaming other people for their problems if they want to win elections.

Bush and Jobs: The point-by-point comparison

[Zhe Mappel]

Bush: Built an oil company that his daddy bought.
Jobs: Required no help building computers that nobody bought.

Bush: Who needs books!
Jobs: Who needs gigahertz!

Bush: Thinks that, somewhere up there, John Wayne is smiling down on him.
Jobs: Feels pretty sure that Einstein, Amelia Earhardt, Gandhi and Lennon all want to come back from the dead to buy Macs from him.

Bush: Proved that it's possible to be a drunken slacker, then marry Laura Ingalls Wilder, and suddenly be considered "presidential material."
Jobs: Proved that it's possible to make blueberry computers and not be considered gay.

Bush: Thanks his lucky stars every day that the "war on terrorism" saved his ass.
Jobs: Thanks his lucky stars every time Apple issues its quarterly report knowing that, somewhere out there, Steve Ballmer is working on a new dance routine.

Campaign ads like iMac ads, perhaps?

[toriver]

"So, like, I voted, but then the prez turned out to be, like, this doofus. I mean, what's the point? So, like, we should vote for someone who can, like, make a difference and stuff. Choose a nerd who's, like, a real nerd and not a fake one propped up by his family and stuff."

Vote different.

Newton

[Bowdie]

I'll vote for him if I can write in my vote -- with a Newton stylus!

Yeah, "Erect Hobs"

fix the html!

[kylemad]

Could someone fix the html for this news item. Inside the Steve... there is a mystery which does nothing and I think is meant to actually be the (which appears actually after the '."' This causes Opera at least to be very confused and make all the text below that which is not a link to be a link to jobsforpresident.com or whatever it was. Perhaps this is mostly Opera's fault but it's definitely not quite right!

better than Shrub

[crimsontiger6]

At first I thought wtf? But he would have to be better than Bush the warmonger.

Re:I don't know

[IamTheRealMike]

The PowerPC platform is very open.

Hmm, well, compared to what? Being able to buy PowerPC chips doesn't make the platform open.

Maybe PowerPC is open, but the Mac certainly is not. If it is, where are all the clones? It's not simply a case of trademarks, it's a case of Apple will come down like a ton of bricks on anybody who even thinks about cloning their platform.

Apple is extremely strict with their trademark rights, but they rarely overstep the intent, let alone the letter, of the law.

They use the law as their weapon all the time. Remember that guy who made an Aqua mozilla theme? The courts themselves had decided that you cannot protect a look and feel, but they threatened him all the same. Apple are known well for legal thuggery.

Re:Exactly who's lives did nader save?

[Jeppe Salvesen]

Ever read "unsafe at any speed"? Mr. Nader was able to defeat the Detroit mafia in telling consumers how their automobiles were far more dangerous than they needed be. If we credit Nader for automobile safety being taken seriously, this guy has saved tens of thousands of lives.

Of course, the way things were developing, someone was BOUND to write something like that.

The Only Chance Of Getting Jobs Elected . . .

[Wotdabny]

. . . is to give the voting system a much-needed tweak. I think most people would agree that if Nader hadn't run, Gore would be president. There was a similar problematic election in France recently. The problem arises from the system of plurality voting, which can easily lead to the paradoxical result of a lesser desired candidate winning. While there are no perfect voting systems, there are much less imperfect ones, such as the Borda count, that would allow a candidate like Jobs to run without voters having to fear that their votes for him would have no chance of counting, or would only skew the election results insofar as they had any effect. Voting can be much more democratic than it currently is.

Here's a quote from an article I came across not too long ago on voting theory:

In some elections, any candidate can win, depending on which voting system is used, says Donald Saari of the University of California, Irvine. Consider 15 people deciding what beverage to serve at a party. Six prefer milk first, wine second, and beer third; five prefer beer first, wine second, and milk third; and four prefer wine first, beer second, and milk third. In a plurality vote, milk is the clear winner. But if the group decides instead to hold a runoff election between the two top contenders--milk and beer--then beer wins, since nine people prefer it over milk. And if the group awards two points to a drink each time a voter ranks it first and one point each time a voter ranks it second, suddenly wine is the winner. Although this is a concocted example, it's not an anomaly, Saari insists.

You can get the whole article, which gives a fair overview of various voting systems, at Science News, or if you prefer: http://www.sciencenews.org/20021102/bob8.asp

Vote as an individual; lemmings end up falling off cliffs. Camaraderie is no substitute for common sense, and being your own man will make you sleep better.
--Pierre S. du Pont

Elect Bill Gates for President

[grandmofftarkin]

I'm not serious but maybe some people are. Bill Gates for President

Got to better than the current one.

[Anonymous Coward]

A few questions I have:

Does anyone outside of the US actually respect Dubya?

Has any other president of any other country had an email circulated soon after coming to power comparing him to a monkey?

What other leader has had a word coined after him/her for stupid things they have said? (And not just one or two stupid things but a whole books published of them.)

Has any other countries leader come to power in an undemocratic way and then gone on to proclaim he/she is defending democracy?

Re:Got to better than the current one.

[pressman]

I sttll can't believe he ended a press conference proclaiming he would answer no more questions in English, Mexican or Candian!

$400m Next...

[MosesJones]

Which Jobs sold to Apple, I'm sure Perot got his money back on that deal.

Next was cool, excellent systems and pleasure to install. He flogged it back to Apple when the begged him to return

"Steve we need you back"
"I won't ask for a salary"
"Thats great"
"All you have to do is buy my current company for miles more than its really worth"
"Sure no worry Steve, whatever you say"

Better

[IXI]

Jobs for president is in any case better than the so called president.

Why Jobs would make a better President

[Teancum]

Look, I'll admit that I still might not vote for the guy if he were to run, but his qualifications are much, much better than Hulk Hoagan (or even Jessie Ventura... who did hold elective office)

Here are the qualifications:

1) Name recognition. OK, ok, The Hulkster has this same qualification in this category. So does Timothy McVeigh for that matter. I won't go further.

2) Entreprenurial Maverick. He litterally followed the "American Dream" of grabbing a couple of friends and made his own wildly successful company. Of course, this is why he is famous, but this is the kind of result that even conservative Republicans appreciate.

3) Turned around a dying company and restored it to good health. I know there are a lot of factors that have kept Apple from disappearing like almost all of the computer companies that were around when Apple first started (including DEC, Wang, Control Data, Commodore, Atari, and others). But the fact that Apple is still around and indeed very relevant force that is still influencing the computer industry (with an independent OS to boot!) Steve Job's role in the restoration of Apple is nothing short of a miracle.

4) Plugged into the entertainment industry. Particularly with his involvement in Pixar. The Hollywood entertainment industry has become increasingly active politically across the spectrum, from Charleton Heston and Ronald Reagan to Martin Sheen and Barbra Streisand. Like it or not, they are a major force with the anti-war effort to stop Bush from going into Iraq. They are also a source for the lifeblood of politics:

$$$$Money$$$$

Yes, Steve Jobs has some considerable wealth, but not enough to do a Ross Perot style election campaign... nor the drive to spend that much of his own money for his personal ego.

5) Politically Independent. This really is a big deal, because so many politicians need to follow "the party line" that they can't really go off on their own. Steve Jobs would be able to follow his own heart, and has demonstrated in the past that he doesn't really care what other people think.

*********

Honestly, I think it would be better for him to run for governor of California (Imagine a contest between Steve Jobs and Arnold Schwarzenager.... now that would be a real election. BTW, Arnie is thinking of running as a Republican candidate in the next gubinatorial election there)

If Jobs could turn around the California economy after Grey has trashed the state, he would be an instant candidate for President.

Re:Why Jobs would make a better President

[paroneayea]

This is one of the problems I have with modern society: the belief that the "American dream" is to make big money. That may be the dream of a lot of people in America, or who come to America, but that's not the ideals America was founded upon.
Having a big wad of cash in your wallet doesn't make you any more qualified as president than the next guy.

Re:libertarians and campaign matching funds

[Uninvited Guest]

Actually, because of their position on political corruption and campaign finance, the libertarian party and candidates regularly refuse matching funds, even though libertarian candidates have qualified.

IRV is the wrong choice

[ChristTrekker]

One last thing... ask a local Green what IRV is.

Condorcet, Condorcet, Condorcet! I can't say this enough. IRV has so many pitfalls that I can't believe anyone seriously recommends it as an alternative. Its faults in the vote-counting method so overwhelm the improvements in its vote-casting method as to make any benefit in using IRV completely illusory. Condorcet uses the same vote-casting method, but the vote-counting method actually does what IRV purports to do.

WTH

[tanis_he]

Ok Look I hate to remind people that steve Jobs brought Apple to the point of extinction, then Old Man Gates comes in to save his butt. I am sorry we might as well elect bill gates for prez. then the whole world can be his monopoly.

Re:WTH

[pressman]

Actually it was Scully and then Amelio who nearly killed the company. Jobs brought the company back to profitability within a year of retaking the reins.

Since he (re)took power back at Apple, they have managed to amass $4 billion in cash. I'd hardly call that bringing Apple near to extinction.

Re:WTH

[MacDaffy]

> Actually it was Scully and then Amelio who nearly killed the company. Jobs brought the company back to profitability within a year of retaking the reins.

Amen! Amelio couldn't market his way out of a paper bag and didn't know anything about the personal computer business. And you didn't mention--mercifully--the short, disastrous reign of "The Diesel": Michael Spindler (shudder).

I'd much rather vote for Steve than the psychotic tinhorn we've got in the chair now.

Re:WTH

[pressman]

I'd completely forgotten about Spindler!

Re:WTH

[pressman]

Gil "Let's Make 8 Different Varieties of Performa With Names That Make No Sense At All" Amelio.

One Problem?

[Lurch Kimded]

The only thing would be if Steve Jobs was president that would mean Bil Gates would have to be leader of the opposition.

How about Gary Gygax being Leader of the House (or whatever it is called, being from UK not too sure).

which one is it

[qoncept]

Am I the only one that thinks Steve Jobs is more of an asshole than Bill Gates?

Who's your president?

Re:which one is it

[pressman]

Probably.

Goodbye Karma

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Well, here we go - time to lose my karma and be branded a troll. But this article posted here is pretty much crap.

Some folks get together begging for money to write in Steve Jobs.

BFD. WTF cares?

Would anyone care if the same was done for Bill Gates? Hillary Rosen? Vallenti?

The same thing would happen. The political insults fly back and forth as a site that's supposed to be dedicated to news for Geeks gets dragged into a political sh1tsl1nging fest that's really annoying to read.

There's so much more out there to discuss and enjoy instead of some lame ass "gimme money" site that will do nothing but split a vote anyway.

I found myself wishing I had Karma points to slap down some folks here but then realized what a waste of time it would be to read thru the scum that passes for responses in most of this thread.

I can't help thinking that this article was posted just to cause a politico discussion, and if we could rate articles I'da rated it a -5 troll.

Ah well, Rant's over. I'm going to go read wired, or science now.

Moderators, you sick bastards

[Sloppy]

A long time ago, I used to put smileys in my posts. Someone once suggested that I didn't need to, so I stopped.

What I've learned today, as I log in and see the above post marked way up as insightful, is that there are fine lines between joking, deliberate trolling, unintended trolling, and karma whoring. I thought my post was somewhere between a joke and a lighthearted troll. But I guess that's not obvious to other people, because when I pull in my line, I'm finding a lot of fish on it: both moderators and posters.

So, dammit, I'm gonna start using smileys again, when appropriate. And nobody better bitch about it or tell me Slashdot doesn't need smileys.

And to the moderators who marked it as insightful instead of funny: WTF is wrong with you?

Vote Jobs for...

[TheRaven64]

...a more User Friendly America
I'm sure that would be popular with the international community.

Why Jobs will get my vote:

[zootread]

Legalize it maaaaannnn.

Marijuana that is.. You know Jobs will try..

Visualized this...

[PhipleTroenix]

...if you lived thru the Carter and Reagan eras: Replay history with a 2nd Carter administration.

Visualize whirled peas.

State of the Union Address

[schiefaw]

I can't wait to hear the "Oh, and one more thing". What could it be? iVote? Cuba has been "aquired"? The justice department is suddenly a lot more interested in putting the screws to Microsoft? That last one is my guess.

Visions are dangerous

[varjag]

he's someone that has Vision and can seek it out (even if we might not agree with his Vision, he's definitely got it!)

The most bloody and atrocious governers in the history were of that kind. Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao all had their Visions.

When it comes to electing a US president, I (as a foreigner) will prefer any greedy, lying, corporate-sponsored puppet over one with grand plans regarding the world.

...with a Newton stylus!

[richlb]

Your vote for Stove Jabs has been registered. Thank you.

Re: Vote Linus!

[jqpublic]

.faq
code
awards
journals
subscribe
older stuff
rob's page
preferences
submit story
advertising
supporters
past polls
topics
about
bugs ...van Pelt!

Re: Vote Linus!

[jqpublic]

..van Pelt!

Oh yes he did...

[bfrog]

...promise OS X for x86, that is.

In late 1997 (early '98?), Apple released a developer version of Rhapsody, which was the internal name for OS X. Both PPC and Intel versions were released. It was pitched as the future of macintosh, so it was most certainly a promise.

Apple also promised a Yellow Box (Cocoa) runtime for the 32 bit Win platforms, but that never saw the light of day.

Middle East/Southwest Asia

[John Bayko]

No doubt we're going to invade Iraq to free their people and bring them democracy, right?

Actually, I think so. Sure, it may only be a side effect, but I think it will happen,

Sure - and the United State's intervention in Iran turned out so well.

The U.S govermnent is not interested in nation building (witness the total abdecation of responsibility for post-Taiban Afghanistan). The only conquered nations that produced democratic replacement governments did the work themselves.

and I think that it is actually in the West's long-term strategic interest to do so. The whole Middle East is full of disenfranchised people held in line by a combination of propaganda blaming infidels (the carrot) and secret police (the stick). It's a powder keg waiting to go off.

I'd say it's already gone off. A few times.

Just because stability in the region is in the best interests of the U.S and the world doesn't mean those in charge agree on how to accomplish it - and the current U.S administration seems to be particularly thick-headed about the value of militery intervention - ignoring things like a) terrorism was invented to get around military power - effectively, and b) large scale war hasn't been economically viable since after WW I (for example, the U.S could overwhelm China's military quickly, but the U.S economy would quickly collapse due to the dependence on imports - it would do more damage to the attacker than the victim).

I doubt Iraq will be any more democratic than Afghanistan is, or Iran or Chile or Cuba were after U.S intervention. Economic, social, political forces are far more powerful - remember, it was not U.S bombs that dismantled the Soviet Union, it was economic and political pressures from within that were responsible.

A truly democratic regime in the region will bleed off a lot of the pressure.

Like Israel? Wrong religion? How about Turkey?

Nah, it needs more than that. If you want to know what I think it needs - a free trade region. That would be the best, fastest, and surest way to promote freedom, communication, political and economic reform, and reduce historical animosities (usually people hold grudges because they don't have anything better to do - if they have the opportunity to get rich by putting aside those differences, they'll do that instead - consider Quebec separatism in Canada has been highest during economic problems, but has lately all but disappeared).

Unfortunately, even that is a long term (decades) process. The popular American "But I want it now" mindset doesn't lend itself well to this sort of foreign policy.

Re:Run the COUNTRY???

[pressman]

See, this is funny because APPLE IS A HARDWARE COMPANY that sells some software.

AND

For a hardware company it's done a great job of outselling the rest of the video editing software industry. Final Cut Pro actually outsold Avid in 2002, not in $'s & 's, but in terms of number of units shipped.

Now, as for whether or not Jobs is qualified to run the country, I'd say no. It seems people with any admirable qualities, namely ethics and a sense of social responsibility always end up being good people, but lousy Presidents. See Jimmy Carter. Great man, but couldn't play the Washington game and Reagan ate him alive.

odd

[Trepidity]

I had an Apple //c, which was essentially a semi-portable version of the ][e AFAIK (the main unit had a handle and integrated disk drive and was approximately the right size to fit in a briefcase). It definitely had a mouse, and in fact some programs (such as Paint) were primarily mouse- and GUI-driven.

Great...

[Annamite]

... a slave-driver in charge of a capitalism stronghold. Need to move to a socialist contry?

Wrong, Kitten

[Civil_Disobedient]

Actually, I think so. Sure, it may only be a side effect, but I think it will happen, and I think that it is actually in the West's long-term strategic interest to do so.

When has democracy ever been in our strategic interests? In Nicaragua? With Mossadegh in Iran? With Allende in Chile? With Arbenz in Guatemala?

The whole Middle East is full of disenfranchised people held in line by a combination of propaganda blaming infidels (the carrot) and secret police (the stick). It's a powder keg waiting to go off.

The 3rd world in general could be described as such. Let's go invade all those countires filled with mean leaders. Hey, I know, we could start with North Korea. They have admitted to developing nuclear weapons.

A truly democratic regime in the region will bleed off a lot of the pressure.

A truly democratic regime in the region wouldn't last more than a week. When will we learn that you can't force democracy on people? They have to want it, and be willing to fight and die for it themselves in order for it to have any validity.

So, let's see what you're saying here, Dubya is bad because he's ignoring the economy, and Dubya is bad because he's trying to see off a far worse economic threat. Which is it to be?

The problem is that President Bush isn't creating the kinds of jobs that will be sustainable after the war is over. It would be more fiscally responsible of him if he took even half of what is being spent on the military occupation of other countries and put it towards his own.

Personally, I'd rather see the money spent on a way to make the West independent of the Middle East for energy (like fusion research)

No argument from me here.

I read in the Washington Post that the top 5% of earners pay 41% of the total Federal tax collected annually. That's an awful lot.

Ehem. The top 1% of earners receive as much income after taxes as the bottom 40% -- roughly 100 million people. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

I think those folks have been carrying more than their fair share of the tax burden for a long time. BTW, those on $30k/year or less effectively pay no Federal tax at all.

Poor things. Just so you know, the top .01% of Americans (that is, the top 13,000 families) have seen their income increase from .7% to 3% of the total income taken in by the U.S. And over the past 30 years, the average salary (adjusted for inflation) rose from $32,522 to $35,864, while the average compensation for the top 100 C.E.O.'s went from $1.3 million to $37.5 million. I don't think they're hurting too much. As someone who's made $35,000/year for several years, I can tell you firsthand that I most certainly do pay Federal taxes. Almost 1/3rd of my paycheck.

The American Dream

[Teancum]

I just gotta reply here to this.

The "American Dream" is that you can do any damn thing that you want to do, and it doesn't matter if you are from the most impoverished areas of America or are a member of one of the "American Nobility" families like the Kennedy, DuPont, Rockefeller families.

America was founded on the principle that you got a new start when you came here, and all the "nobility", "royalty", or "high born" bullshit that was found throughout Europe simply didn't apply in America. Instead, whatever it was that you wanted to do, as long as you put the effort into it and had some brains to get it to work, you can succeed.

I can count numerous examples. And for the most part Steve Jobs is able to do any damn thing that he cares to do.... and as I'm pointing out that this college dropout grabed a couple of friends and succeeded in doing something they loved to do, and got paid as well. This is the American Dream. I'll also admit that a certain amount of luck is required, but not nearly so much as winning the lottery, even the $100 pull lotto.

I know plenty of people who are completely free to do anything they want and live anywhere they want. Most of these people are not wealthy in the Ross Perot/Wm. Gates sense, but they have kids that they love and don't want anything else in their lives. I dare you to point out too many other places besides America where this was possible prior to 1776. And I would also challenge anybody to show that it was any other country besides America that pushed this ideology elsewhere in the world.

A big wad of cash is not a prerequisit to become President, but it certainly helps. It helps even more to know people who can give you additional cash to achieve this or any goal.

Sherman, not Grant

[toriver]

Ah, found the quote: I had the wrong general, it was Sherman.

Even more about voter turnout....

[MacAndrew]

Yes, but fraud and error are common to *all* methods of registrations, not uniquely motor voter.

Anyone from Chicago (me) can tell you that multiple voting ("vote early, vote often") and dead people have gone on for a long time, and often that's not fixed because it benefits the politicians in power. Registration by mail has been available for some time in many states (also now required by motor voter, I didn't know that); at least at the DMV, you have the registrant face-to-face with ID in their hand. I'm intrigued by the critics who say the state can't verify identity (as opposed to eligibility to vote) at the DMV -- who the hell are the states passing out driver's licenses to? Terrorists, in the case of 9/11. Their uncertainty as to identity is a separate problem.

Voter eligibility must be verified, usually after the form is submitted, which is why most states require you to register, say, a month before the election. (ND doesn't require registration at all!) Whether they do their duty is up to them. That some complain about motor voter because they are now "overwhelmed" by applications from their own citizens is shameful. As for the ones who examined their rolls and found multiple registrations and dead peopl, well, good -- isn't examining their rolls what they're supposed to do anyway? Shouldn't they question their own procedures if such contamination continues? How is motor voter to blame for their carelessness, and how many of the bogus registrations predate motor voter? The critics drone on about how terrible registration fraud is -- and I agree -- while assuming rather than proving the act's causality.

Politicially, I can tell you that most of the (quiet) resistance in Congress to motor voter was from Congresspeople fully aware that greater registration would hurt their party (greater registration and turnout reliably favor Democrats -- quite reasonably, opponents of the law charged supporters with being politically motivated, and I'm sure they partially were). The fraud complaint was an insincere or inconsistent argument that goes more to altering some specifics of the law, not its fundamental thrust. Perhaps the best argument IMHO was that Congress shouldn't be telling the states how to handle its voting registration, though I think the law strikes an appropriate balance given historic federal intervention in voting practices to fix state tendencies to erect hurdles to maintain the status quo.

To give you an idea of the political nature of the resistance, some states read the NVRA as requiring them only to register people for federal elections, misleading some to half-register and be able to vote only a partial ballot!

More details. At a minimum the act makes life a lot easier for people like me who move from state to state and appreciate uniform requirements. I doubt the law is perfect, esp. as it is still quite young, but endorse of the basic premise that registration should be simple and convenient, as well as accurate. Increasing registration may or may not yet be producing more voters, but I can say from experience that the potential for get-out-the-vote drives is much greater when most people are eligible rather than being precluded by something they forgot to do a months earlier (and get-out-the-vote people can skip the extra get-people-registered drive). The only way to overcome voter apathy, the principal cause of low turnout, is to draw more and more citizens into the process so that voting becomes easy, familiar, and desired.

Re:Even more about voter turnout....

[quax]

Well, I don't want this to sound all patronizing and arrogant, but this sorry state of affaires is truly unworthy for such a great country.

When I move within my country I am required to register with the city administration which in turn will send me a postcard well in advance of any election. I can return this postcard if I want to get a ballot to cast my vote in absence or I take it to the ballot on election day.

Our turn out is usually between 70% to 90% depending on the kind of election.

Re:Even more about voter turnout....

[quax]

Can not remember a single incident of fraud. It'll be pretty tricky, at the ballot you need the registration postcard as well as your ID (I guess the only US equivalent to our federal ID is a US passport).

There was a minor scandal at the last election when somebody tried to action of his vote on ebay i.e. he'd vote for whatever party the highest bidder wants him to. Our attorney general put an end to this folly rather quickly.

MY vote goes to...

[Wolfrider]

--HULK HOGAN (Terry Bolea[sp?]) for Prez!!

--Hey, if Jesse Ventura can do it... (And he did it WELL!)

Re: Pixar

[King_TJ]

Yes, quite true. Pixar was a great success. I never said Jobs wasn't a creative, intelligent man. Obviously, he is both, in droves.

I simply feel he exhibits many of the same qualities as our current crop of politicians, which we're largely disgusted with. (EG. Sneakiness, bad temper at times, a "my way or the highway" mentality that gets him in as much trouble as it gets him out of.)

Pixar was a perfect business for Jobs. It lets him sell pure creativitiy. If you can dream it, you can do it (at least virtually), and the expenses are pretty much the same no matter what virtual movie would you go about creating.

Jobs seemed to be making his biggest mistakes when he was spending millions and millons of dollars on designing physical products that were borne of his imagination, rather than from market research (and a discovery that there was a desire/need for the products).