Howard Dean to Guest Blog for Lawrence Lessig

Ethanol writes "Starting Monday, Professor Lawrence Lessig (whom we all remember from Eldred v. Ashcroft) is going on vacation, and his weblog will be guest-hosted by Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean. Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President (tied for first for the nomination in the latest polls) has his head screwed on right about copyright law?"

Comments

Well he has my vote

[javiercero]

I have seen a few of his appearances, and I must admit I am quite impressed with this guy. Then again maybe is that after 2.5 yrs of Mr. Bush my expectations for POTUS have been dramatically lowered.

Re:Well he has my vote

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got to be kidding. Have you done some background work on Dean? I live in VT, and the guy is as slippery as an Arkansas governor. If you look at his history on the issues he supports he's actually proposed and pushed the EXACT OPPOSITE over the last five years. He is, in fact, a centrist dem and not a far left evangelist.

I may not think Bush is the best option, but the better of two evils Dean is not. Basically Dean has repackaged himself to appeal to the far left which, because of the centrist nature of modern politics, has been disenfranchised by the dem party.

You could say hes trying to pull a reverse bush; solidifying his base with the democratic hearland and then moving out to centrists on specific issues... he'll probably make the push sometime six months or so before the election.

HOWEVER, there's a fundamental problem with that plan; the left isn't nearly as cohesive or well organized as the right, and he's depending on a skittish bunch.

He'll lose, but he'll guarantee no other democrats win either.

-rt

Re:Well he has my vote

[uradu]

> guy is as slippery as an Arkansas governor

At least the main things involving slipping with Clinton were women's panties. With our Chimp In Chief they involve things like wool and eyes. It's amazing how "outraged" some people managed to get over Bill's sex life, yet here the reasons for the Iraq war are being systematically deconstructed, and no-one seems to give a damn. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Re:Well he has my vote

[canajin56]

But lying about a blowjob is SO MUCH WORSE! That is worth impeaching over, not silly "falsified" reports. Besides, that's not even a LIE, didn't you hear him? All these CIA reports sent to the White House about how all this Iraq stuff was false, they like, totally got lost in the mail or something. Until just now.

Re:Well he has my vote

[RALE007]

"...So I guess we should cover up all of those mass graves, put all those children back in prison, get Chemical Ali back into the lab, get those torture racks greased, throw all of those 'Big Brother Saddam' pictures back up in Baghdad, and leave a fruit basket with a letter of apology. You're right...we are indeed in the Twilight Zone."

That's called creating a straw man. It's a fallacy of logic, to summarize it is taking someones words, then giving them new meaning. Usually followed by an attack on the new meaning.

rant rant rant rant

That's just my summary of you beating the hell out of the strawman.

...You sound partisan, bitter, and illogical. You and your ilk have offered nothing but criticism.

Now you are attacking the person, and not their argument. Another fallacy of logic. Ontop of it, after your strawman, and a part of your personal attack, you complain about anyone with opposing views being illogical.

rant rant rant rant

Summary of the rest of your words.

Can someone mod the troll down?

Re:Well he has my vote

[Anonymous Coward]

All we are saying is if liberating the Iraqis is the main justification for removing Hussein (and it appears to be the current party line of the administration), why couldnt Bush just come out and say so from the beginning?

I am not sure about you, but I don't like it when the reason we do something keeps changing depending on political winds. I didnt like it when Clinton changed stories, why should I like it when Bush does?

This is not about Bush vs. Hussein! What sane person said Hussein is a great leader? There are plenty of petty tyrants and mass murderers out there, but we see fit to ignore or even aid them, depending on national security.

We just dont like liars, or at the very least, people who change their stories. I would be 110% behind this if Bush said from the beginning "While there is no link between Hussein and 9/11 we need to do this, because people are dying and we have the moral obligation to protect people from mass executions". Did Bush say that? no, he said "Hussein poses an IMMINENT threat to the US" he was the one who brought the sense of urgency of attacking, saying the UN inspectors were either too slow or not doing their jobs. Is it any wonder some people criticize the administration for not finding the WMD when they disparaged the UN inspectors so much for not doing so themselves? I find it funny that NOW the administration is saying "finding evidence for WMD programs WILL TAKE TIME". Isnt that what Hans Blix was saying all the time? But we had to push him aside and attack anyway?

How can you say for sure the world is a safer place for Americans? There was no link between Hussein and: 1) Al Qaida 2) Nuclear materials
3) (for now) WMD. So how is the US safer?

Pardon my cynicism, but I find it hard to believe that republicans (or rabid pro-Bush supporters), who think nothing of dismantling social welfare programs (I'm not saying this is good or bad) are all of a sudden so concerned about the welfare of another country's people. Heck most conservatives would support legislation to BLOCK these same Iraqis from immigrating to the US, so I find it laughable that they show so much concern for their well-being.

Re:Well he has my vote

[uradu]

> cover up all of those mass graves, put all those children back in prison

Blather, blather. I didn't hear "your ilk" complain about that before the glimmer of war sparked in Dubbya's eye, the opportunity to showcase our fine military machinery, the greatest army on earth, yada, yada. I saw no holy indignation when 800,000 Rwandans killed each other, no urge to send in 200,000 troops to stop the savage butchery. Nor did I hear you complain about the goings on in the Congo, or in Liberia. Sure, let's set up some committes and feasibility studies about whether we SHOULD send some troops in. Where are Rummies snap "three minute decision[s]--and the first two just to get coffee" now? And how much did the indignation lead to military intervention when my country was exterminating Jews by the millions? Remember what it took for the US to mobilize its military? Yeah, having its interests threatened directly.

If you want to do good--and Lord knows Saddam was one draconian bastard worthy getting rid of--do so blindely, impartially, and consistently. When the very people you're trying to help ask you to please stop helping quite so much, maybe it's time to re-evaluate your strategy.

> You and your ilk have offered nothing but criticism. No solutions.

Au contraire, my ilk and I have proffered our view of the Right Way for a long time, and it involved treating the root of the problem, not its symptoms. There are very simple and tractable causes for why the Arab world hates the West, but in particular the US. Remove those, and you're well on your way to mend things. But that would involve putting the Big Stick down and talking, something people with Big Sticks are loath to do. We're asking Isreal to refrain from retaliaton after suicide attacks in order to facilitate dialog and not endanger the peace process, yet how willing were we to do the same after the towers came down? Maybe a moment of introspection, of oh-my-God-how-come-they're-hating-us-so-much, instead of reaching for the guns and assuming with a mere shrug that they were simply jealous of "our way of life."

> United States had moral, legal, and political justification

Morality is a funny thing--it only means something when the majority agrees on its definiton. Otherwise I could define it as me coming over to your house and taking your car. The US forfeited its moral authority through inaction in many other similar cases.

> I'll never forget the images of those Iraqis beating that Saddam
> statue with the shoes off of their feet

Hmm, they seem to have forgotten them, because they're quite keen for us to go back home. Which brings up another interesting thing--the indignation amongst those American Righteous in favor of "the war" at the Iraqi's thanklessness for their own liberation. That begs the question, what exactly was the motivation behind this "liberation"--to earn thanks and admiration, or to merely help in an altruistic fashion?

Re:Well he has my vote

[_xeno_]

The fact is, the United States had moral, legal, and political justification for removing Saddam Hussein.

Yeah. Wouldn't it have been so cool if the administration had actually - oh, I don't know - used them to justify going to war? But no. We didn't go in because Iraq had violated the UN resolution. We didn't go in to "liberate" the Iraqi people. We went in because Saddam had a dangerous stockpile of weapons of mass destruction and had recently purchased nuclear material to build a nuclear capability.

Whoops. No weapons of mass destruction. Oh, and it turns out he didn't purchase nuclear material. Our bad.

But, you claim, we helped the Iraqi people! Yeah, but when are we going to help people in Cuba, North Korea, China, Africa, Palistine...

There's plenty of evil in this world, and we can't be the policemen to the world. Did we help improve the situation in Iraq? Probably. (There's still plenty of time for us to mess things up. I hope we've learned past lessons and will remain there long enough to allow Iraq to become a stable representative government.)

Unfortunately, in reality, the ends do not justify the means. Likewise, a poor means does not injustify a good outcome. It is possible to believe that Iraq is better off without Saddam while also believing that the actions taken to remove him were poorly chosen. One does not contradict the other.

Re:Well he has my vote

[cje]

So I guess we should cover up all of those mass graves, put all those children back in prison, get Chemical Ali back into the lab, get those torture racks greased, throw all of those 'Big Brother Saddam' pictures back up in Baghdad, and leave a fruit basket with a letter of apology. You're right...we are indeed in the Twilight Zone.

You would have a point if the Iraq war had been justified in terms of "We need to remove Saddam because he's mean to his people." It wasn't. The entire war was predicated on the supposed threat that Iraq posed to the United States, and its status as a "terrorist state" with massive stockpiles of "ultimate weapons" (President Bush's words.) Tony Blair even told the British parliament that Iraq had the capability to launch an attack on the UK in as little as 45 minutes. It's been months now since the fall of Baghdad, and the only thing we have to show for this war is a piece of a nuclear centrifuge that some guy buried in his backyard before the first Gulf War. That may justify the war in your eyes, but the families of the hundreds of American servicemen (and women) killed in this conflict might have some different thoughts.

I'm glad that Hussein is gone. Dead or alive, let's hope he rots in peace. But all of this "Well, Iraq wasn't much of a threat to us, but look at the mass graves! Look at the torture devices!" is Monday morning quarterbacking. It's great that the Pentagon has media-savvy people that are able to invent scary-sounding nicknames (i.e., "Mrs. Anthrax") for the people that it kills or captures, but at the end of the day I would have had a lot more respect for the administration if they had just been honest about things. Hussein was a brutal dictator, but the world is full of brutal dictators, and the last time I checked, the United States wasn't drawing up plans to invade Burma or Zimbabwe.

You sound partisan, bitter, and illogical.

Whereas you are obviously objective, clear-headed, and perfectly logical. :-)

Everybody is sensible, so long as they say things that you agree with.

You have built your platform on the hopes that the United States will fail in its endeavours. That is disgusting.

I can't speak for the original poster, but do you want to know what's really disgusting? I have six friends who are in harm's way in Iraq right now. What's disgusting is people like you who implicitly suggest that I want to see harm come to them to prove a political point. I have no desire to see the United States will "fail" in any of its endeavours. That doesn't change the fact that there are endeavours that I would have preferred us to avoid in the first place. See, if it were up to me, these guys would be sitting in my living room and drinking beer with me instead of being stationed in a country populated by people that hate them even more than they hated the dictator that they just got rid of.

The world is a safer place for both Americans and Iraqis today than it was a few months ago, and it cost fewer lives than anyone estimated.

You've got to be kidding me. At my workplace, some co-workers and I were scheduled to attend a May conference in South America, and the trip was cancelled out of war-related concerns for our safety. It has never been more dangerous to be an American traveling abroad, and the Iraq war only made this worse. The primary contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks was fundamentalist Muslim hatred of the United States, and if you have evidence that the Iraq war helped to mitigate this, then I confess that I would be curious to see it. I want to be clear about this: I do not subscribe to the theory that the United States deserved the 9/11 attacks because of our foreign policy; it was a heinous and cowardly attack that no nation on this planet deserves. But our foreign policy in the past year or so has done much to fan the flames of the same hatred. And for who? For what? Saddam Hussein? This is a third-rate dictat

Re:Well he has my vote

[RALE007]

...Well, first things first. At first you have to establish that it really was an unjustified and illegal war before you can accuse him of murder. But since that seems to have been the case, it would be very ironic indeed if some leading member(s) of his administration would have to answer to the International Criminal Court which they so opposed...

I'm not trying to troll here, but it would be very ironic considering the US has rejected identifying the permanent tribunal.

The tribunal can charge Americans all they like, but the US will not identify any charges, findings, convictions, or sentencing of the tribunal that they do not wish to identify.

To put it bluntly, if some leading member(s) of GWB's administration were charged by the ICC (International Criminal Court), said member(s) of the administration would tell the ICC to bugger off. Charges by the ICC? Possible but unlikely. Anyone from the GWB administration answering to the ICC, cold day in the seventh ring.

Re:Well he has my vote

[slux]

I don't know much about the social security system in place in the US (except that I've heard it is pretty limited), but in european countries social security also usually includes things such as health care (if you get sick most of the treatment costs are covered by the government) and a guaranteed minimal income from the government if you happen to lose your job.

We don't have many people living in the streets, those that do wouldn't be forced to if they didn't have other problems (drugs, alcohol). People shouldn't have problems with getting medical treatment because they mostly don't need to pay for it.

Without the social security system your society will resemble a dog eat dog jungle. Sure, those that are able to work, are healthy and are not unlucky will be getting larger paychecks, but there will be more poverty and suffering. I don't think anyone deserves to live in the street, endure an illness any more than anyone actually deserves to earn a billion dollars a second. Taking care of those that are weak and cannot manage by themselves instead of taking advantage of them is really one of the key defining things of being a human.

Re:Well he has my vote

[Xabraxas]

you know, as i watched thoes people who danced in the streets, threw out candy and celebrated the deaths of innocent people after the september 11th attack, i sat and thought "oh man I hope each and every one of thoes scum bags die a slow painful death."

mr. bush, to a decent enough extent, has rose to the occasion.

for that i thank him, and regret nothing

I hope you know that Iraq had absolutley nothing to do with 9/11. So either you're just some dolt who wants to see someone else suffer because it makes you feel better or you're a racist. I hope you know that 7000 innocent Iraqi's died in the war. Now there is probably some equivalent Iraqi dolt over there just like you, hoping for more destruction and will in turn kill Americans. Now bacause of people like you, the violence will never end.

Odd behaviour

[aeinome]

Why would anyone let someone else keep their daily journal for them? And giving it away to a politician - that just begs for deep, dark secrets to be revealed.

There's a thing

[Apreche]

Check out http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

it tells you which president to vote for based on your stance on the issues. I tested it out and it's very accurate. It gave me a reccomendation for green party 100% and Dean 96%. Since I really want Bush out and 3rd parties don't win, guess who I'm voting for? I'll probably read a few of his entries on Lessig's blog, and unless he's really unkosher this seals the deal.

Re:There's a thing

[Daetrin]

Why not vote for someone who's views on issues are close to those of your own and not who has a better chance of winning the election?

Because if you actually care about the issues as you claim, you should really do your best to support those issues. The 3% or whatever of the vote the Green party got in 2000 has done far more to hurt the enviroment than it has to help it.

If you care about the enviroment, and Nader is 100% good for the enviroment, Gore is 50% good for the enviroment, and Bush is 0% good for the enviroment, you should only vote for Nader if you think he has a greater than 50% chance of winning in order to maximize the benefit to the issue you care about. Well, to be technical, you should only vote for Nader if the probability of his winning is twice the probability of Gore winning or more.

I hate Bush for many reasons, and the things he's done and is trying to do for the enviroment is one of them. However there is a small evil and vindictive side to me that can't help thinking "take _that_ Green party!" every time he pulls some new enviroment destroying stunt.

If the Green party wants to transform the state of presidential elections in the US to a greater than two party system, they need to accept that unless a splinter party splits off the Republican side that is equal in size to their own, there is a fair chance that they will be condeming the US to the enviromental policies of the Republicans for however many election cycles it takes until the mainstream realizes that their party is viable. It's apparent that that number is greater than one, and for all we know it may not be less than infinity. Is it worth getting a Green president if there is no enviroment left to protect by the time it happens?

If Nader were smart, he would have tryed to hack a Parlimentary System approach to the problem by making a deal with Gore a few weeks before the election, that if Gore would agree to support certain Green positions (in writing of course) then Nader would tell all his party members to vote for Gore in the election, but to tell the exit pollers that they voted for Nader.

Thus they would have insured that the elected president had at least some intrest in the enviroment, a well publisized promise that he would support some of their issues, and still be able to point to the exit polls as a sign of their strength as a voting block.

Re:There's a thing

[Jeremi]

If you care about the enviroment, and Nader is 100% good for the enviroment, Gore is 50% good for the enviroment, and Bush is 0% good for the enviroment, you should only vote for Nader if you think he has a greater than 50% chance of winning in order to maximize the benefit to the issue you care about.

The fact that American voters are forced to engage in this kind of strategic thinking (instead of being able to just vote for the candidate they think would do the best job) shows how badly broken our plurality electoral system is. A truly representative system would allow voters to speak their mind honestly, and respond by electing the most appropriate candidate. It wouldn't force them to play silly games.

Until...

[pixelgeek]

Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President...has his head screwed on right about copyright law?

Until some lobbyist backs up to his house with a truck full of campaign contributions

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here

[Farley Mullet]

I actually kinda like Dean, but saying that someone is a serious contender for the 2004 election because he's tied for the nomination at this point is kinda like saying your kid has a serious NBA future ahead of him because he's tied for tallest in grade 3.

howard dean

[pohl]

I celebrated July 4 by getting off my ass and carrying placards in parades and handing out literature for Howard Dean in two small towns in Iowa. I had never done anything like that before. I had to get up at 5:30 in the morning to do it, and it was worth it.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't exactly caught Dean Fever yet, although we see eye-to-eye on many issues and I'm really impressed with the level of grassroots support that he has. It would be nice to have a president that isn't already owned before getting into office.

But, then, I'd settle for a president that can use the word "imminent" correctly. I think Dean rises to that challenge.

Dean was governor of my state...

[Zergwyn]

Overall, he didn't do that bad a job. In some ways Dean is actually an interesting mix of left and right. He is a former doctor, which partly explains a lot of his very strong positions with regards to health care. He certainly has come across as one of the strongest left standing democrats in many ads and articles, but he has an A grade from the NRA as he was not at all anti-gun ownership in Vermont. He is also reasonably fiscally conservative. Our state didn't go too overboard with spending, and we actually still have over 10 million dollars in our "rainy day fund," for what it's worth. My biggest quibble with his term was actually in regards to education, but a lot of that was the fault of the legislature and the courts (which ruled our old method was unconstitutional). Of the candidates, we could do a lot worse (come to think of it, we have been doing a lot worse) then Dean. Having met him, and lived with him as head of the state, I think he has some good ideas. I was actually kind of pro-war, but Bush has screwed us so badly on the domestic front in virtually every field, from economics to scientific research (VERY important to me) to basic civil rights, that I would vote for virtually anyone over him. I would recommend people look at his stands.

Re:Dean was governor of my state...

[EvanED]

>>So he screwed us economicaly how?

Well, I'm of the opinion that there's not *much* you can do as a pres. to affect the economy too much, but there are plenty of things he hasn't done. Wtih all the focus on the crackdown on Martha Stewart and such we forget that most of the people involved in, say, Enron, are still away scott free. Furthermore, Bush supported SEC chairman Pitt until Pitt resigned from country-wide pressure. Bush should have taken a much firmer stance on all of this.

>>So he screwed us in scientific research how?

Stem cells.

>>So he screwed us in basic civil rights how?

You read /. and can't think of a dozen examples off the top of your head?

Re:Doesn't that suck?

[Jeremi]

... or you change the system so voters aren't forced to choose between "throwing their vote away" and "choosing the lesser of two evils".

Basically you want a system that allows the voter to express more than just a single choice. There are several systems that would suffice; I myself like instant runoff voting because the process is easy to understand, and it lets me express my preferences in an intuitive "first choice / second choice / third choice" format.

Topic..

[EinarH]

"Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President (tied for first for the nomination in the latest polls) has his head screwed on right about copyright law?"

From the comment-section on LL's blog:

Good heavens. Dare I interpret Governor Dean's guest blogging on Prof. Lessig's site as a sign that he supports copyright reform?
...
But, good lord, if he's actually in substantial agreement with Dr. Lessig on the issue, it's like a dream come true. ...posted by Evan

LL responds:

Good point, and I should have made this clear: Dean's guest blogging says nothing about Dean's views about the issues I've been pushing here. I've never discussed these issues with any member of the Dean campaign. And as we don't (yet) determine elections, I'm not even sure that Dean has worked these issues out himself.

So please don't read anything into this more than the obvious: This is yet another way in which the Dean campaign has understood something about the net. ... posted by Lessig

It's a win-win deal. LL gets someone to blog while on vactation, Dean reach out to a couple of thousand potentional voters. But interesting anyway. Looking forward to reading this blog.

/. slow to comment on Howard Dean's web success..

[cowmix]

Shame on /.

Howard Dean has used the Internet, specifically blogs, better than any presidential candidate. Every day, you can read their official blog or countless other personal blogs that give up to the minute info on what doing on the campaign trail. I have never felt more involved, or informed in a presidential campaign until Dean's.

All this use of blogs and such as created a tremendous amount grassroots support. Unlike other candidates that have raked in 1000s of dollars from big interests, Dean's campaign raised more than any other Democratic candidate last quarter mostly via the web with the average donation being $66 dollars..

Anyway, I feel that no matter what Dean's positions are (btw.. I think they are great) /. should give a thumbs up to how he is doing biz..

Re:Kucinich is an unelectable nutcase

[Soong]

No, he isn't. He's just progressive and speaks his mind and heart. He's offering a real difference to the boring business-as-usual old-boy networks in both parties. I for one favor someone who's going to go as strong and as long in the right direction as possible, given that Congress and The System will drag him down to making a merely moderate effect. Starting out with a moderate is saying "No, I don't really want things to change".

http://www.kucinich.us/

Impressions of Dean from a Vermonter.

[Elf-friend]

Normaly this news would excite me, but the Howard Dean that is running for president is not the same man as he was as our governor. I just don't know what to make of him anymore. Initiatives he opposed in Vermont now have his support, and vice-versa. His tirade over the war (regardless of your position on the war) seemed over the top. I found him downright scary.

I've met our former governor three times (it's a small state, and my involvement in statewide 4-H events gave me the opportunity). He seemed very personable, but actions towards the end of his time here tended to disillusion me (and many Vermonters) about "Howard the Coward" as some called him (especially after he wouldn't sign the civil-unions law publicly, instead of behind closed doors). A man who easily won his first three elections, found the next two more chalenging (many think that, if the Republican candidate - the same woman both times - had been more likeable, he might have lost). It is possible he could not have won another (his hand-picked successor did not).

I just don't know what to think of this move, I fear it is more than likely a political ploy, something we have seen more than enough of in Vermont these last two terms. The Democrats are desperate for the voters that went Green last time, because they know they need them. In Vermont, though, Dean was always very business friendly, too much so for me to trust him on this now. Which is the real Howard Dean? That is the question.

PRIORITIES!

[Baric]

I believe that every Democratic candidate except Dean voted in favor of the Patriot Act. Dean didn't get a vote, but he was outspoken against it from the very beginning. Every other candidate was willing to vote for that egregious act because it was politically expedient at the time. That is not the kind of decision-making I want from the next President of the United States. Love him or hate him, Dean is the Democratic candidate best qualified to LEAD this country and not FOLLOW the whims of popularity. I will NEVER cast a vote for anyone who voted for that Act. Ever.

Re:PRIORITIES!

[radicalsubversiv]

Couldn't agree with you more on that PATRIOT Act. However, in the interests of accuracy:

Sen. John Kerry: Voted for
Sen. John Edwards: Voted for
Sen. Joe Lieberman: Voted for
Sen. Bob Graham: Voted for
Rep. Dick Gephardt: Voted for
Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Voted AGAINST, and has strongly criticized
ex-Gov. Howard Dean: never been in Congress, but has expressed concern/opposition
ex-Sen. Mosely-Braun: wasn't in Congress at the time, opposes
Al Sharpton: never been in Congress, opposes

No, you want John Ashcroft for President

[Baric]

You know, the guy who whines about States rights when sodomy laws are ruled unconstitutional, but then ignores those same states rights when a state votes to legalize medicinal marijuana.

In other words, someone who will make up the laws as he goes along, exercise his power to enforce them, and then 'disappear' anyone who he personally considers to be a threat to his personal sense of order.

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

Re:So we have to choose?

[EinarH]

Are you trolling? Whatever; I'll bite.

They way you mentions "a socialist welfare state" and puts it up against " imperialist invasion of countries" i get the feeling that you are not very happy about it...

But did you know that when UN classifies countries based and ranks them in their Human Development Index what you propably consider socialist welfare states(as a bad thing) these socialist welfare states top the list?

1.Norway, socialist welfare state
2.Iceland, socialist welfare state
3.Sweden, socialist welfare state
4.Australia,
5.the Netherlands, somewhat socialist welfare 6.state
7.Belgium, socialist welfare state
8.the United States,
9.Canada, somewhat socialist welfare state
10.Japan,
11.Switzerland, socialist welfare state
12.Denmark, socialist welfare state
13.Ireland,
14.the United Kingdom,
15.Finland, socialist welfare state
16.Luxembourg,
17.Austria,
18.France,
19.Germany,
20.Spain and
20.New Zealand

Those I have marked socialist welfare states is those states I consider to be closer to a typical socilist welfare state modell than the United States way of "welfare state". There are of course difrences between them and different "degrees of socialist welfare states".

So please: Don't compare "socialist welfare states " to a foregin policy of "imperialist invasion of countries"

Why do people continue to vote for republicans and democrats anyway?

Because your country addappted a political system that in reality only promotes a two party system.

not so well actually

[Trepidity]

Many European countries have unsustainable systems (even more unsustainable than the US's Social Security system). They've realized this, and so are cutting back and reforming them, particularly the pension systems. This has led, if you've been following the news, to widespread general strikes in several countries, notably Greece and France.

The truth about Howard Dean

[vnv]

Just who is Howard Dean?

"I don't mind being characterized as 'liberal' -- I just don't happen to think it's true." -- Howard Dean, in Salon.

If he is not a liberal, just who is he?

To find out, we have to move past his political machine. Like Bush, Dean is very adept at associating himself with issues and causes that are important for his campaign. Thus for Dean we see his association with Lessig and an apparent concern for "the commons". Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Let's take a look at how Dean compares to Kucinich, a long time liberal Democrat.

Howard Dean, a subset of the comparison points:

Health care plan

Complex 4-prong plan, extending multiple state and federal programs piecemeal, combined with tax credits and incentives, all of which Dean claims is more likely to become law, but still won't cover everyone

Death penalty

Favors for "extreme" crimes like terrorism or the killing of a police officer, although critical of Bush administration's "careless" approach to executions

Roe v. Wade

Pro-life until recently; now the only candidate pledging to make Roe v. Wade a "litmus test" for appointing federal judges. Pro-choice, but refuses to make Roe v. Wade a litmus test for federal judges

Kyoto treaty

Says we must "take another look," but has "concerns" about some provisions

Patriot Act

Would repeal "parts," but also wants to expand intelligence agencies; praises Russ Feingold as only Senator who opposed the act, ignoring Kucinich's vocal House opposition, falsely implying no other candidate opposed the Patriot Act

NAFTA/WTO

Notes problems with "free" trade, suggesting the need for inclusion of human rights, environmental, and labor standards in trade agreements -- but still pro-NAFTA

"Star Wars" ballistic missile system

Would cut only 1/8 of the funding, transferring it to international threat-reduction programs

Pentagon waste

Disagrees with any proposed Pentagon cutbacks, and advocates aggressive expansion of intelligence, police, and special forces

Medical marijuana

Firmly opposed, although promises to abide by a proposed FDA evaluation

War on drugs

Has accepted National Governors Association position: more federal funding for all aspects of the drug war; however, also speaks of drug use as a medical problem, and has called the War on Drugs a failure; website and recent speeches simply do not clarify what policies he would pursue, as far as I can tell

We see that Dean is very much like a "lite" version of Bush. There is very little in Howard Dean that is liberal.

Bush would be delighted to run against Dean who is simply a watered down version of Bush. And Dean comes from Vermont, bringing only 3 electoral votes. Easy campaign, easy victory.

What Bush doesn't want to do is run against a real Democrat who actually represents the tough issues that this country is facing. Or have to deal with a candidate whose home state carries 21 electoral votes.

Howard Dean may look snazzy on paper and in the media, but in reality, he is merely the lite version of Bush and would do little or nothing to actually make America better for Americans. We'd have the same screwed up medical system, giant defense budgets, pollution, and corporatist America that we have with Bush. Voting for Kucinich or for the Greens is change. Dean is status quo, more of the same Bush Doctrine.

Re:Dean is actually a moderate.

[EvanED]

As Jon Stewart has said a couple times, Joe Lieberman is for republicans who don't think Bush is Jewish enough.

Re:Dean is a good choice

[Funksaw]

To paraphrase Dean: "Talk about gun control in Vermont and you talk about taking people's hunting rifles away - talk about gun control in LA and you're talking about taking uzis out of the hands of gangbangers. Gun control needs to be decided at the local level."

Re:Doesn't that suck?

[dspeyer]

Voting reforms can help but they won't solve everything. Every voting system is abusable at a mathematical level. Take the following example:

33% of voters prefer candidate A, tolerate candidate B and detest candadate C

35% of voters prefer candidate B, tolerate candidate C and detest candadate A

32% of voters prefer candidate C, tolerate candidate A and detest candadate B

Common sense says B should win

In our modern current system, B would win unless 3% worth of C voters decided that it was hopeless and they should vote A, in which case A would win

Under instant runoff voting, C would be eliminated and A would win with 65%, unless 1.5% worth of B voted C so that A would be eliminated, in which case B would win with 66.5%. Now that's even more freaky.

I think game theorists have actually proven that nothing works right regarding elections. Some improvements can be made (and I suspect IRV's flaws are less likely to become of practical importance than our current system's) but the real changes we need are an independant media and an informed public.

Dennis Kucinich

[-tji]

Dennis Kucinich seems to be one of the more clueful candidates.. From his www site:

As President, I will repeal the Patriot Act to regain for all Americans the sacred right of privacy in our homes, our libraries, our schools.

He got a "66%" rating from the ACLU.

I couldn't find any ratings from the EFF on the various candidates, so I'm not sure where he stands on Tech Liberties.

The Dems don't want him or the green vote

[gad_zuki!]

>. The Democrats are desperate for the voters that went Green last time, because they know they need them.

The dems don't want him, they want their boy Gephart or *shudder* Lieberman. The DLC publically flogged Dean supporters by calling them "the activist elite" and tried to compare them to politcally impotent ultra-lefties. Dean supports responded back here.

The green vote simply isn't important. I'm sure that more than half of those votes are permanent third-party protest votes and regardless of what the Dems want you to think it was a bad ballot and a piss-poor Gore campaign that got Bush into office.

Regardless, everyone who isn't in the GOP wants an electable Democrat. I can't see why Dean wouldn't fit the bill, especially with Iraq turing out to be a quite the quagmire for Bush.

Sorry, but there's no ploy. Dean is fighting influencial (read: very wealthy and very connected) members of his own party right now and in interesting ways (appeal to the populace, net-based action, etc) just to get heard.

I just lowered my opinion of Lesig.

[cmacb]

The last few times I've checked Lesig's blog he has his head compleatly up Deans behind.

Is there a track record of how he might vote on something like the DMCA?

If you saw Dean's appearance on Meet the Press you can't possibly be too comfortable with him as President. If he aspires to the job he has a LOT of homework to do.

My guess is that Lesig is among the hard core liberals (surprise!) and all members of that group would gladly vote for Adolph Hitler next time around if it mean revenge for 2000.

Blind rage over what they feel was a stolen election will drive them to do totally irrational things until 2004.

I think it is irresponsible to turn over your blog to anyone else, particularly someone who has tremendous internet resources of their own. This is pure partisanship and has nothing that I can see to do with Open Source, DMCA, RIAA or any other issues for which Lesig is notable.

Check the history.

[Population]

The people pushing this war were the same people selling Saddam those weapons.

We didn't care about him killing his people when we were the ones selling him weapons. But now you think that it matters?

And where do you get off claiming that Bush is demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside of Iraq).

The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. The CIA even told the British that the info wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to push this war so he used information that was known to be bogus.

As for this being another "Vietname" or "quagmire", check the body count since Bush claimed the war was "over".

No, we did not have any "moral, legal and political justification for removing Saddam Hussein".

We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support our invasion.

As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until the first "elections" are held. Wait until they elect a radical Islamic priest.

You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis and Saddam's statue. That's because our government doesn't want you to forget it. It was shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of Iraqis. It was all a publicity stunt.

And you fell for it.

http://www.counterpunch.org/statue.html

And you're the one talking about closed eyes?

Re:Check the history.

[stephenry]

>> The people pushing this war were the same >>people selling Saddam those weapons.

Incorrect. People who don't know the situation say this because thats all they know, but this is what happened: The Americans gave satellite inteligence to Iraqi, to support their war against Iran. Iran, which at the time was arguably a worst regime than Iraq was supported and funded by the Soviet Union.. In essence it was a Cold War by proxy. After the Gulf War, Sanctions were imposed on Iraq; out of the West it was France and Russia that continued trading with them, and had the most to lose from a war. Russia in particular had numerous billions worth of Oil contracts with Iraq. May i remind you, these were set up in the ninties, opposed to the US's, with where in the early 80's.

>>We didn't care about him killing his people when >>we were the ones selling him weapons. But now >>you think that it matters?

Simply because mistakes of the past had taken place, does not mean that we may not correct them TODAY. At the time, support (albeit limited) was to fight a greater enemy -Communism. Many people forget today forget the Cold War, but we won it, and although hard choices had to be made, we're better for it.

>>And where do you get off claiming that Bush is >>demonized more than Saddam? No one is saying >>Saddam is better than Bush (well, no one outside >>of Iraq).

Don't care

>>The problem is that the CIA had already CHECKED >>the "information" MONTHS before Bush used it. >>The CIA even told the British that the info >>wasn't good. But Bush needed something scary to >>push this war so he used information that was >>known to be bogus.

Lets be honest here, the chances of find WMD in Iraq were always slim. Especially considering Saddam had about 8 months of time to get rid of them, while the US and Britain were arguing endlessly in the UN. What is clear though is that he did in the past possess them, use them on a civialian population, and was actively seeking more. Whats more, the recent advances in the Israel/Palastine peace process would not have taken place in the presence of the Old Iraq.

>>As for this being another "Vietname" or >>"quagmire", check the body count since Bush >>claimed the war was "over".

Though the recent body count has been disturbing, I would hardly by any stretch of the imagination call it a quagmire.

>>No, we did not have any "moral, legal and >>political justification for removing Saddam >>Hussein".

Actually we did... The allied victory in the first Gulf war stipulated a number of conditions for cease fire. These were, among many, that Saddam destroy his WMD program and accept and comply with its obligations to the UN. As of 1991 these had been broken, along with 11 mandatory resolutions -none of these had been met. Action was not only legal, but necessary if the UN's command was to mean anything.

>>We couldn't even get the UN to vote to support >>our invasion.

The lack of a UN vote was not in part to the opposed countries "care" for their fellow man -France the week earlier had hosted Mugabe of Zimbabwe, in contravention of an EU travel ban- but because of there own interests. The two vocal dissentors, France and Russia, had significant multi billion dollar Oil contracts with Iraq, both of which they would have lost without Saddam in power.

>>As for those Iraqis being "free" now, wait until >>the first "elections" are held. Wait until they >>elect a radical Islamic priest.

Elections = free democracy
Islam theocracy = not free democracy

Go figure

>>You'll never forget the image of those Iraqis >>and Saddam's statue. That's because our >>government doesn't want you to forget it. It was >>shot with a narrow lens so you couldn't see the >>US tanks and troops surrounding that "crowd" of >>Iraqis.

Re:WE WON THE WAR

[aussersterne]

Are you so sure you won the war?

I think many liberals in the US are simply not convinced that the war has been won. A battle, yes. Saddam is indeed out of power. But the war?

Is America better-regarded on the Arab street for having toppled the regime? (I have a feeling many Americans would be surprised by the answer.)

Is Iraq better off today than when Saddam was in power? Today, mind you, without electricity, water, fuel or a police force that can guarantee the safety of daughters and sisters?

Is America's military better off today, being stuck in a very sticky situation as they seem to be, while every day the Arab media cries "occupier" in shrill tones across the middle east, further cementing the viewpoint that sees America and Israel as conjoined twins?

Assuming that Bush was right about everything so far -- that Iraq had so-called weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam and his sons are dead, that the WMDs have gone to Syria or Iran and that Al Qaeda was linked to the Iraqi government (and I have my doubts about all of this), is America's population safer today now that none have been found? (Bush-ian conclusions: Hmmm, no weapons found yet... obviously they are in Syria and Iran... but Saddam and his sons are dead... so who is holding these WMDs in Syria or Iran? Well, Iraq was linked to Al Qaeda...)

It's obvious that the US has a lot of military might and has beaten up the Iraqi government and infrastructure. But does this really translate into a justifiable claim of "we won the war" on the part of Americans?

Which war?

The much-touted war on terrorism? Certainly not.

The PR war against international hatred of America? Not bloody likely.

The war against Iraq? Oh that's right, America was there to "liberate" Iraq (well, once the WMDs disappeared), not to wage war on it.

I suppose America won the war against Saddam Hussein and a few of his spoiled sons. Congratulations.

Re:The White House didn't pay the paper boy?

[Xabraxas]

They haven't found Saddam Hussein yet either, but no one says he didn't exist.

Except...we have seen Saddam before. Actually the man (Donald Rumsfeld) who you qoute (without giving proper credit) has met Saddam in person. So we know he exists. The problem is that weapons inspectors did not see any WMD in person. In fact when we went to war all we had for evidence were satelite photos of weapons labs that later turned out to be stations for blowing up hot air balloons. Ties between Bin Laden and Hussein have been unfounded. Documents about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium from Africa have been proven to be falisified.

Why? Why the Hell Not?

[Joe Trippi]

As Governor Dean's campaign manager I thought I could answer a few questions and make a comment or two as well. We have absolutely forbidden any staff from posting or writing anything for Howard Dean and then post it under his name. In other words everything the Governor blogs and everything he blogs for Lessig will be written and posted by the Governor himself. One of the reasons we thought Lessig would be a good place to guest blog is that it helps to build this trust that it is really the Governor doing the guest blogging -- and that the community will trust that Lessig would not have allowed it if it wasn't so. Any thoughts as to how to answer the issue of trusted identity would be appreciated. It is something we have been really trying to figure out -- as I have pointed out -- how do you know this is really me? And we are not trying to kid anybody -- particularly anyone here -- we know we ain't perfect -- and that we don't get it all -- but we are trying to get it -- trying to reach out to everyone using every tool we can -- because as someone who you will probably regard as a political hack -- who has worked on 6 Presidential campaigns -- I can tell you what you already know -- ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY -- The only way to put power back in people's hands is for the people to buy their government back. A million to two million Americans contributing $100 each or whatever they can -- will be a force that will not only win the Presidency -- but will also strike enough fear into everyone else in Washington -- that we can change our country's politics. The biggest challenge is to cut through people's cynicism -- nothing will change if we can not get beyond that and get people to participate in their self-government again -- and believe that together we have the power to protect our rights, and our civil liberties, and reclaim our government. That is what this campaign has been trying to prove -- that is why we are doing what we are doing eveyday to build a community that will carry that cause. That is why Howard Dean will guest blog for Lawrence Lessig -- to reach out -- in an authentic voice -- and see what happens. Why? Why the hell not? Joe Trippi campaign manager Dean for America please excuse the double post.