Slashdot Mirror
White House Obfuscates Email
markgo2k writes "Do you want to email the president? This John Markoff, New York Times story (reprinted here in the non-subscription Seattle PI) details how the White House no longer promises to read anything you send to president@whitehouse.gov. Instead, you must navigate a multi-page website AND confirm your submission via email. Oh, and they only want to talk about subjects that are of interest to them." The web-form system appears to be a bit overloaded at the moment.
"When it comes to a Web site, it's a bit like a movie," Mr. Orr said. "Some will say it's a tour de force; some will say it fell flat."
This website must be "Cabin Boy."
The "Against Us" email automatically get forwarded to Ashcroft.
.. Guanta .. I can't remember. ;)
Gueass again where that's going.. (and you along with it).. ever been to Cuba? I heard it's got this lovely bay with lots of friendly people in orange suits. Gua
I am sorry, he is not alledged to be the President. Since the Federal Court system was involved, we have to come to the conclusion that he was Convicted. With good behaviour he may be parolled after 4 years.
You never know...
"Please check this box if you'd like to be contacted by the President or his authorized partners regarding special offers and discounts only available to our valued subscribers"
perhaps the admin staff who pre-sort the e-mails use a variant of the slashdot moderation system and the president only sees the ones rated +5. i can just imagine the modifiers now...
+1 campaign donor
-1 civil liberties kook
+1 convenient ally
-1 democrat
-1 libertarian
+1 republican
+1 useful tool
ed
It's not worth it. With the last president, $100,000 got you a night in the White House.
Folks, this story is from the NY Times. Better check out what snopes.com has to say about it.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
... in favor of Bush enlarging his penis. That's gotta count as a refferendum or somthing.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
well :-)
I cant think of ANYBODY who uses president@whitehouse.gov for filling out those required forms for adobe, random Foo downloads, etc...
in fact I have NEVER given a good email addres to any of those companies looking for me to fill out to gain access.
Just like I never use to give Radio Shack the 1600 Pennsylvania Addrerss in Washington DC every time I bought something.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
So if another one gets shot, will they declare firearms a valid method of casting your vote or just give the whole "president" thing a miss?
The "Against Us" email automatically get forwarded to Ashcroft.
Why bother with the web-form at all?
In a couple years (if they all get their wishes) any email you send will end up in their hands anyway, so there'll be no real need to send mail directly to them.
Please punch a hole in the president you don't want.... ...I can't the butterfly presidents confuse me....I accidentally shot Pat Buchanan... oh wait accidental?...er.... so that's why they call that talking heads show Crossfire
First was McKinley? For the history geeks, there was this obscure president named Lincoln who got shot about 35 years before McKinley. You may have heard of him?
It would make perfect sense for the Republicans to send out emails for contributions to those on the "for" list.
It would also be an enormous ethics violation, and thanks to those geeks among us who use a different email username for each site we submit data too it would be simple to prove what was happening.
The "liberal media" (if any) would have a field day with it.
He said "the modern states rights movement". He's not talking about the idea of state's rights, he's talking about the modern version of the "movement" in favor of them, which makes a difference. States Rights have been brought up and then dropped in various ways at various times throughout america's history, and it just happens that the current thrust toward the meme of increasing state's rights has its origin with federal attempts to end racial segregation.
All of these states rights movements have of course had their basis soundly in the tenth amendment. However, in general I think it's safe to say there has not been a time in american history when states rights have been advocated in a generalized way in an organized manner-- every time a states rights advocacy group pops up, it tends to have some kind of specific agenda, for example (as in the 1860s and 1960s) protecting a racist system. Today states rights advocacy groups, if you look, seem mostly to be doing so just as a tool with which to advocate either lesser restrictions on gun possession and use (if they're on the right) or lesser restrictions on pot possession and use (if they're on the left). Of course, a lot of these people seem to be much less enthusiastic about states rights' if "states rights" seems to mean that a federal anti-abortion law would be unconstitutional (if they're on the right) or that a state that doesn't allow same-sex mairrages would be allowed to view as invalid a same-sex mairrage initiated in a state that does allow them (if they're on the left)..
Incidentally, somehow, while I hear people on tv and in the newspaper all the time talking about how the 10th amendment means that rights the federal government doesn't explictly have control over should be in control of the states, I never seem to hear any press time being given to people claiming that the 10th amendment means that rights that the government doesn't explicitly have control over should belong to the people. Funny, that.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I thought the exact same thing. I agree with the President on a handful of issues and I'll send him a supporting letter on one of those. I expect several requests for money from the RNC thereafter which I will promptly throw away smiling and knowing that I have fined the RNC bulk postage for their stupidity.