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.
He said he particularly disliked being forced to specify whether he was offering a "supporting comment" or a "differing opinion" to Bush.
So when those emails come in, I guess they go in either one of two mailboxes. "With us" or "Against Us".
The "Against Us" email automatically get forwarded to Ashcroft.
Mike
And now instead of being a little overloaded it will just be completely unavailable. :-)
Go Illini!!!
"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."
I don't find it very encouraging that the government doesn't promise to read anything we have to say anymore. Isn't it their job to listen to what the public has to say to make informed decisions for the good of the country? What are we paying them for?
KappaStone
I can't imagine why anyone would think the president of the United States would bother to read unsolicited email.
Head over to the real whitehouse alternative, much more fun.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
This is probably because emailing is 1000x easier than:
a) Mailing
b) Phoneing (being on hold for hours then talking to a nobody)
c) It gives you a warm happy feeling.
So why shouldn't they filter out their most popular form of communication given that most of it is crap anyway?
That, and my second point:
You shouldn't be emailing your most important concerns to the president - do your congressman, your senator, and your local government, they can probably help you more specifically.
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
What do you want, a personal response from the Prez? Jeez, I think he's just a bit too busy for YOU.
It is really convenient to have the political opinions of your citizens stored in a database together with name, (e-mail-)address and the like!
It's a pain to use that thing, too... wife actually broke out the pen to mail the president about the redesignation of overtime for professional occupations. She heard back from our congressman within a week but hasn't heard squat back from G.W.
Considering G.W. runs a press conference once every six months, before an invasion, or after he beats up on some third world country, you expect better treatment?
Security through obfuscation, just like the ports.
Bah.
This space for rent.
"Oh, and they only want to talk about subjects that are of interest to them"
Well, I can remember phoning the White House during the Clinton Administration. Before getting to an actual person I was presented with a survey of some sort. I can't remember what it was about, but I do remember thinking that I preferred NONE of the possible choices for each survey question.
My point is that it appears every administration does this. It's not simply the current one.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
I can appriciate the need for them to implement a "confirmation" action (Did you send this?), to stop spoofing, spamming, etc. However, the "pre-email questionaire" seems a little extreme. I suppose the goal is to ask "are you an insightful commentator or a raving lunatic?", but it takes a "are you a patriot or a terrorist?" tone about it.
Of course, it's now harder to complain to them about it, as well.
Putting stuff like this into the "Your rights" category dilutes issues that actually have to do with rights...
Rights are things like free speech, bearing arms, and freedom from false imprisonment.
Having to use a web form instead of an e-mail address is NOT a violation of your rights.
This is not a big deal. In fact this was a good thing. Before, they had some poor secretary who had to sit there getting a vague idea of what the emails were about. Let's face it, they almost NEVER made it's way up to the top anyway.
Now with the new system they can have some DBA write script to pump out statistics on what kind of feedback/problems/etc most people are writing about. They can actually get a real number and say "we got 10,000 emails this week and 67% of them disagreed with such and such policy." Plus, they can weed out the junk mail. Can you imagine how much spam he must've gotten. Do you think the Pres was using SpamAssassin?
Cire
"Once the message is sent, the writer must wait for an automated response to the e-mail address listed, asking whether the addressee intended to send the message."
Maybe president@whitehouse.gov was just getting too much spam and they decided something needed to be done after GW lost too much money to that poor Nigerian widow.
Bush declared early on that he would not be "doing" email as President, mostly to avoid ANY messages that would or could be construed as incriminating to himself or others.
Chances are, he won't be reading what you send anyway. Frankly, I suspect the concept of "mail your representative/elected official" is largely a thing of the past. Lobbyist's and big politcal money have largely ended any sort of grassroots effect.
It actually looks like they're trying to see whether the people mailing them have an IQ higher than a lab rat.
A good idea, IMHO. Filters out the drunk, drugged, and pure loony.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Instead of firing off that e-mail, why not click "print" and mail it using the regular postal service?
In Canada at least, sending a letter via regular post to any Member of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, is free. Your letter is also far more likely to be read.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
The president never really read e-mail anyway. It was just a lot of paid interns who went through it. But because the e-mail address is made public on a very popular site, I'm sure they got a lot of spam and such. In these times of economic concerns, do we really need to be paying people to go through George Bush's e-mail?
... you can't expect him to read messages from everyone either. Instead, if you want to make a difference in government, start with your local representatives and senators. They are there to specifically represent the people in your district/state. You can get a message to the president much more easily through them than if you try directly via e-mail. This is how representative democracy works.
I agree with "representing the people" and such, but going through George Bush is just a bit too unfair. He has to look over 300 million people
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
"...government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
What with the general assaults on personal freedoms, Abraham Lincoln and the other Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. Democracy isn't dead, but it isn't exactly at its zenith right now, least of all in the USA.
Can anyone think of a time when the freedoms of the average American were more at threat from their own government?
Like I've said before, the ideal of America is beautiful, it's just the reality that's becoming fubar.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Any Paypal customer with a problem typically has an impossible time calling and talking to a real live person, and personal attention to electronic mail is virtually non-existent. According to Vince Sollitto (PayPal spokesman), Paypal intentionally makes the phone number very difficult to find in order to save costs. This is fine, except their Email "customer service" also leaves a lot to be desired. Many times you will get a canned response that doesn't address your initial Email message, if you get a reply at all. It doesn't do any good to complain anyway. When asked about customer complaints, Sollitto said the company reads them, but takes them with a grain of salt...
Just reminded me of the White House. Congress hardly responds to what the people want (file sharing, etc) why should the President be any different?
On a side note, for what it's worth, the daily press briefings contain more 'hard' news than I see in the average evening news broadcast. (On a politically snider note, it's also much easier to understand how bad off things are when you can actually read the daily obfuscations with your own eyes, and in most cases, watch them in streaming video sans interepretation by talking heads.)
Also, say what you will about Clinton, but he was the first president to really make an effort at utilizing the internet to diseminate information regarding the executive branch, though granted he was the first president of the 'internet era.' There are several cool innovations he made and several excellent articles over at Slate regarding the White House web (Article #1 and Article #2) historically.
Pretty amusing, when you consider that once, long, long ago, in an America far, far away, the President was an accessible private citizen.
Once, the President of the United States recieved visitors who just walked up to the White House. Once, the President used to walk out to Pennsylvania Avenue and hail a passing buggy for a ride.
My, how times change...
HenryJamesFeltus.com
talk to your LOCAL Representative.. not the president. and stop with the chicken little bullshit.
Many years ago, my mother wrote to a former President, protesting a policy. She got back an elegant card thanking her for her "support." The next day, that President addressed the nation from the Oval Office and said that 90% of the mail he was receiving was in support of the policy.
Maybe that button isn't such a bad idea.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Contacting the President should be a process simple enough that anyone in the USA, even those with limited technical, communication, and cognitive abilities could perform.
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
This government will read anything you have to say if you're
a) rich
b) white
c) male
d) Christian
e) You've donated $100,000 to the Republican party
So stop your whining.
Obviously, he's not a fan of breast enlargement or viagra, but instead of creating a process to keep him from getting those offers, why doesn't he just support legislation which forces spammers to user correct return addresses and accurate subject lines? This simply puts him more out of touch with the problems of his constituents.
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.
Why don't we email the Vice President or First Lady? His email is still up on a direct link vice.president@whitehouse.gov, and her email is first.lady@whitehouse.gov.
C:\>
"Ok, Mr. President, here's the breakdown today:"
23% of emails on Iraq, 43% positive.
18% of emails on the tax cuts, 57% positive.
11% of emails on the economy, 32% positive.
6% of emails on the environment, 22% positive.
42% of emails on pleasing FLOTUS longer. Oh, and 34% of those were from Mrs. Bush herself. Should I schedule some time at Camp David, Sir?
Mod parent down? Disagreeing with you is not a concern of the moderation system.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
- Put up a nicer message. This page is typically only going to be seen for a few seconds, if at all, but when the destination is down, would you want your visitors to be looking at that?
- A link would have been nice, to accomodate those who have turned off javascript. Yeah, I know this doesn't apply to many, but it's not difficult to do. In addition, instead of making users refresh (thereby burdening this server), users can just keep clicking the link if the destination page doesn't load.
- PERSdata??? What the hell is up with that? First, use all lowercase. Second, don't give your directories scary names like that. It scares the children.
- I think we're beyond the 8.3 filename conventions now. mv intro.htm index.html
If this is my first impression of a site, you can be sure I won't be trusting it to deal with my personal information.I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
I would suspect that current pols don't give a $*()@*#)( about their e-mail or messages anyway. Local officials are too powerless for most people to communicate with. State and National pols are too busy talking to lobbyists and paying attention to the polls and statistics to worry about what Joe Schmoe is ranting about today.
Contacting the President should be a process simple enough that anyone in the USA, even those with limited technical, communication, and cognitive abilities could perform.
There's no excuse for a confusing system like this reaching the public, as the White House has someone "in-house", so to speak, who is a great benchmark for the lowest common denominator in those three areas. From the description, I believe there is no chance this procedure would have passed the "Dubya" test.
Why do you believe that? Do you really believe that Saturday Night Live parodies are reality?
I never thought much of Clinton's wisdom, morality, choices, etc. but I never deluded myself into thinking he lacked cognitive ability. Nobody gets to positions like that without it.
OK, so it was probably a secretary they have specifically for this type of item, but...
When my Dad graduated Law School, my mom suggested I e-mail Pres. Clinton and explain how he was a big inspiration to my dad etc etc and ask if he would write my dad a congratulatory letter. (My family must be the last Liberals left in the mid-west...) Apparently my mom had heard of this being done for friends of hers. Well, I didn't think so much of the idea, but I fired off the e-mail to president@whitehouse.gov, and forgot about it. Like 2 months later, my dad got a letter from Clinton that actually mentioned specifics (the name of his school and home town, stuff like that) from the e-mail I sent. He's got it framed in his office to the annoyance of his more conservitive partners.
OK, so cynics can tear this appart (it was "good news", probably a easily changed form letter, machine made sig that Clinton never touched, etc) but SOMEONE read the e-mail, and responded. This new system is just a way to make it harder for people to express their opinions to the pres. Interesting that they implemented this at a time when more and more people have something negitive to say...
BoB
....send a message to the Whitehouse Web dev team, and let them know what you think.
"The Web Team does not answer or forward e-mail, but all messages pertaining to the technical operation and usability of the White House web site are read."
Why would you do this? Because given the overwhelming number of e-mails that come in, you can't process it and get it into a database with any "meta"-info attached. This way you let your users organize it for you, would be how the IT people sold the change. Then you really do have a better sense of the layout of all the mail you're getting, and you really do know more about what people think.
Not to say that this isn't incompetence on the part of the Bush folks. Anyone with a clue about PR would know the multi-page form that starts with stuff like "Do you Agree or Disagree with our beloved Kim Jong Il?" or "Are you a donor?" would be a mistake. Even if the Web guys told them they needed to use a revised front end to sort stuff, they should've realized how that form would read. In particular, they really needed to maintain the perception that every note got read -- to blow that off in any way just looks awful. The IT people had the same blindspot for that one -- ever decide to call an 800-line instead of using a tech support form you weren't sure would ever get responded to?
So this speaks to the blinders of both IT people and the Bush regime, sure -- but it probably was an honest try to address the volume of mail that comes in. I worked at the Ford Presidential Library for a while, and they've still got boxes and boxes, and shelves and shelves, of letters people sent abot pardoning Nixon -- categorized as pro and con, and that's about it.
(What they need is the text grinders to do the sorting automagically -- but wait, wouldn't that cost serious tax dollars?)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Why should you be able to email the President? You can't call him, you can't pop round for a cup of tea and a chat, why should he have to read email from complete strangers on whatever pops into heir head. More importantly, why should I as a taxpayer have to fund the staff it takes to read all the email that he gets sent just so you get a cozy feeling about the democratic process?
You want to communicate with the President? Vote.
I would tend to agree with you; however, this...
We're not any more important than anyone else.
Everyone in a democracy is supposed to get equal time and treatment. The republic of the USA tries to face the (IMHO, old) reality of actually exercising a 1:1 democracy by having elected officials speak for chunks of the population. Furthermore all such officials at any ;evel are to be accessible as possible by the public in light of "for the people" as well as acknowledging the handicap of this neo-democracy.
So while I would agree that this is not really news insofar as the unlikeliness of any message to president@whitehouse.gov ever actually being read by the president, the new system in place now demonstrates a microcosm of what the GOP has become.
For instance, the pre-canned Subject: tags that you select out of a menu. Or the laughable pre-qualifier - right up front! - of 'For or Against'. I'd loveto see that as a web form:
You are:br> For
x Against
Mussolini had these radios, you may have heard of them, that could only pick up one radio station.
Put down the stick; I'm not saying Bush = Mussolini or that its even comparable. I'm saying this administration is very bold, does not tolerate criticism or dissent as part of their game plan, and certainly only pays lip service to many long-standing ideals of 2-way communication with the President.
You've seen the way President Bush is shielded in press situations. Now you've seen his email mechanism. Just observer them for what they are and derive what information you will from his actions.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Can't "Dubba ya", just run popfile like everyone else?
I can see his buckets now...
Republicans
Liberals
Kooks
Minions
Deaththreats
-William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
All part of Bush's War on Criticism
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.
Im my experience, snail mail is far more effective in getting your point heard and something done about it. I ALWAYS write a letter if I have a problem, and 90% of the time, the situation is adequatly dealt with.
I have never had any luck with email complaints, and only marginal success with phone complaints.
Just last night in fact, I heard back from AT&T wireless because I sent the CEO a letter about how his company was attempting to defraud me on my bill. Fixed, no problem. And a free month to boot. I had previously called 5 times and had been told that is was "impossible" to fix.
So use email for normal communications, but when you need something done, write a letter and fork over 37 cents for a stamp. The results are well worth the cost. I imagine that a letter to the president has a much higher chance of actually being read by someone than an email does, especially now.
T
Indeed it is...as lots of conservative organizations discovered during the Clinton-Gore regime.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Jimmy: "I just want to tell Mr. President that he's my role model and I look up to him."
Teacher: "Well, then you support his policies Jimmy!"
Janey: "I wanted to tell Mr. President he's funny looking."
Teacher: "That's pointless. Everyone already knows that. In any case, you disagree with his policies!"
Muffin: "Uh... I dunno if I agree with his policy or not..."
Teacher: "Well, in that case, don't even bother writing him anything."
Will slashdot make it to the terrorist organization list?
I'm sure you've read this already, but for those who haven't, there is an excellent history of the Israeli nuclear program available here:f arr.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/
Wrong. The Clinton/Reno DOJ brought up the case, and won it. The appeals process, unfortunately, happened during the reign of the Bush/Ashcroft DOJ. Cheyney and Ballmer had lunch, and two weeks later the "Seattlement" was announced. If it weren't for the change of guard at the White House, the outcome of that case would have been quite different. I'm no fan of Clinton or Reno, but I believe they would have finished the job they started.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
they'll probably just put a check in the "supporters" comment and throw the text away. Then they can say the measure has overwhelming support.
By that logic, the US should arm all the Arab nations with nuclear weapons too and give billions of dollars in military hardware to them. Because they "deserve" them just as much as the Israelis do. The reason why Israel shouldn't have nuclear weapons is because they are sitting in the most religously charged spot on earth, and because it hurts US interests to allow such an imbalanced foreign policy. And because nuclear weapons are bad and inhumane and we want to stop their proliferation. I can't even imagine the consequences of what would happen if the crazies in Israel used the Bomb on all their pesky neighbors.
The IRS is a great agency for exacting revenge on people idiotic enough to declare themselves your enemy.
That's no joke. Just ask the Christic Institute. The Christic Institute is a government watchdog agency that has been a thorne in the side of Uncle Sam for a great many years.
I first hear about Christic during the Iran Contra "guns for drugs" scandle in the mid 1980s. They were the ones who actually brought the suit against the government.
An apt description of the Christic Institute (as appearing in this article)"The institute has won several landmark civil lawsuits, including the "Greensboro massacre" case against members of the American Nazi Party and Ku Klux Klan who assassinated demonstrators in 1979, and the "Silkwood" case against the nuclear industry. The institute does not charge legal fees and depends entirely on contributions from churches, Jewish philanthropies, private foundations and individual supporters."
Another decent (and slightly more in-depth) history of the organization can be found here. The sad truth is that the IRS is likely to revoke their not for profit status making them liabel for back taxes for all of the years they have been in operation. Many feel that this is in direct retaliation to the Avrigan vs. Hull lawsuit. The government is alredy quite fond of issuing hefty fines to the institute for what it deems to be "frivolous lawsuits" (I'll let you judge that one for yourselves) as a means of intimidating them into not persuing their just causes. But if this IRS thing the IRS has in mind at the prompting of ultra conservative members of the house, it could mean the final curtain call for a heroic agency that has done much to keep america free.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Politicians are, like virtually anyone else, interested in advancing their own agendas and the agendas of their allies. They see their constituents in three groups...
- People who will support them no matter what.
- People who will oppose them no matter what.
- People who can be persuaded one way or the other.
Politicians will play enough to the first group to keep their "base" support strong. They'll completely ignore the second group, if they are not outright working against them.The key to effectively communicating with a politician is to appear to be in that third "swing" group.
Think about it. If you were the president and received two letters criticizing policies on "domestic spying" - the first called you a "fascist pig" - and the second acknowledged "you efforts to provide safety and security to the American people", then asked you to "reevaluate the balance between security and the civil liberty that we all cherish" - which would be more likely to make an impact?
And just another comment... Many of the "/." community talk about terrorism in their posts as if the threat is made up hysteria. I live in the NYC area. My wife watched the second plane impact and the collapse of the towers from her car on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. Later that morning at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge she picked up refugees fleeing from lower Manhattan and ferried them out of the area. We know 4 fire fighters who gave their lives in the rescue effort.
It is not a hysterical witch hunt.
Muslim countries like Persia and Southern Spain preserved the science and literature of the greek, roman, and egyptian civilizations while the holy roman empire was burning books and people.
Don't judge an entire region by the acts of a few zealots.
This web mail thing is not-uncommon. I absolutely hate it.
I once wrote to Joe Lieberman, my Senator, via e-mail. Now, while he did reply, eventually, as part of the reply I was told that in order to get better attention I should use the web form on his web site. When I tried that, the web site refused to accept my brower, IE only. I still get hot over that.
It seems to me that if you can now file your mortgage and other documents (see ESIGN, First Online Refi and probably others) that the President's office should be able to accept comments, and letters via regular e-mail.
Why is regular (read "real") e-mail important? If I am fired up enough to write the President, it is likely that I'll want to include my congressman, senator or the OP-Ed of a newspaper, along with a copy back to myself. Not possible with this "tool." Beside's, websites are vulnerable to the Slashdot effect. E-mail may not be perfect, but I don't have to sit and wait for the compose window to render.
Technically, I'm not sure if PGP or GPG meet any necessary standards, and the technique is far too obscure to casual e-mail users. I submit that all e-mail software should be delivered with a signing tool. That should go for web-mail too. I do not know of any that are. (Check that, Mozilla does, although I cannot see how to use it, yet.) Maybe that would be a start in the right direction.
True friends are hard to come by... I need more money. - Calvin
Instead, you must navigate a multi-page website AND confirm your submission via email.
Kind of like subscribing to slashdot.
Seriously, you're making it sound like it's a bad thing. How much spam do you think president@whitehouse.gov gets? This isn't obfuscation, it's replacing a system with zero accountability with one with a bit more accountability. Considering it's the government doing this it borders on genius compared to solution I'd expect.
Well I get spam all the time from the whitehouse (www.whitehouse.com). If they are sending me spam, I think it is great they are getting it in return. And strangely enough, Bush is one horny individual. I guess this is why he is a "passionate conservative".
But in all seriousness, I wonder how many people accidently send things to the president (www.whitehouse.gov) that are intended to go to the aptly placed porn server (www.whitehouse.com). Or for that matter, how many emails for GW are actually being received by the porn server (www.whitehouse.com). Does slashdot want to interview Dan Parisi about this?
The Other Whitehouse. It's easier, and you can guarantee someone in the government will read it. ;-)
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Ever think that the reason so many people in the Middle East dislike Israel might have something to do with the huge nuclear arsenal pointed at each and every one of their cities? Or the fact that the US has been selectively supporting Israel through direct aid and diplomacy for decades?
It's amazing to me that anyone can dismiss Israel's WMD as inconsequential or justified. The US is tacitly approving of Israel's development of those weapons, and yet we invade and topple the government of an Arab nation that was merely suspected of possessing nuclear technology. That just might have something to do with the hatred for Israel.
Like it or not, suicide bombing is what got the Palestinians whatever weak bargaining position they have today. They can't fight against a modern military supported by billions in US aid and armed with nuclear weapons, so they do the only thing they can do to preserve the very existance of their own rights and freedoms. Palestinians support suicide bombing because without it Israelis would totally and completely smash their hopes for a state. It's their only bargaining chip and one that they can't give up if they don't want to see all their homes bulldozed for "settlements".
He seems to like the look, but he can't hack the walk.
He even went AWOL from his Reserve unit, which he was placed in so he wouldn't have to face real combat.
No, I don't think he'd fight in this war, or any war. He seems to like to talk tough when surrounded by security. But he's had plenty of chances go active military and he's never done so.
Wow, that's some fancy logic!
Reasons why Israel should have WMD:
1. Maybe it's because Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.
2. Or because Israel has had WMD for more than 20 years now and never even thought about initiating an assault (unlike the US, mind you). In fact Israel doesn't even declare officially that it has these weapons, unlike many arab nations that declare how much they can't wait to use them on the Infindels (that's you!). The fact that these weapons are quasi-secret just goes to show that they're there for intimidation - in order to keep the arms balance between then Billion arabs surrounding Israel and it's 6 mil. population.
3. Maybe it's because Israel protects the interests of the US in the middle east, provides intelligence for example - the only worthwhile intelligence the US has about the middle east, IMO.
4. Maybe it's because Israel isn't run by "crazies" - at least not more than the US is run by a war mongering illiterate. Such claims are prejudice.
Get your facts straight. The fact of the matter is that Israel has the same right to bare nuclear arms as the US has. Israel hasn't started any of the wars it was engaged in. Israel hasn't sponsered any military coos in south america or east asia. Israel didn't give the Taliban billions of dollars and training to fight the soviets. Israel's foreign policy is much more peacefull than the US's. You might not agree with it's current internal security policy - with regards to the palestinians - but that's a very complicated issue and peace isn't going to come in two years just because Bush decided to draw a RoadMap-To-Peace. It's going to take seperation from the palestinians. It's going to take generations of healing and trust-building. It's going to take a sane palestinian government that would put an end to suicide-summer camps for 6 year olds and fanatic islamic religious text books in the schools. Palenstine needs to be built on a stonrg democratic foundation and not on Jihad. The area in Israel has no natural resources like Saudy Arabia or Kuwait and if a palenstinian state is to rise it has to have a free market, an educated working market that could support it financially. Otherwise, what's stopping it from becoming another Syria? Nothing.
The worst thing you can do is fulfill the stereotype of the ingnorant american cowboy by oversimplifying a painful and serious situation and thinking every problem can be solved by using power and money. Take the time to really study the issue and don't post your Israel-bashing opinions until you read at least a few books about 20 century middle easy history.
The power of Christ compiles you!
First off, I don't think I disagree with you on this issue as much as you think I do. I don't deny that Israel is easily the most democratic country in the Middle East or that they have long been aligned with US interests. I'm not really arguing that Israel is evil or has acted badly with regard to their foreign policy. I don't have a serious problem with the Israeli government other than the nuclear weapons issue, and I certainly don't have a problem with Jews. I just think that it's unnecessary and dangerous for Israel to have such inhumane weapons.
Of course Israel will be aligned with the US and provide us with intelligence assistance. They are on the receiving end of a huge amount of US aid. Countries that we give large amounts of aid to generally like us. My question is, why can't that policy be extended beyond Israel? Why can't we give equal amounts of aid and protection to everyone involved and thus foster more good will rather than just one-sided anger and jealousy?
I don't consider the US to be any better than Israel on any of these issues and I certainly don't support the US deployment of nuclear weapons throughout the world. My problem is not so much with Israel as it is with US policy towards Israel and its neighbors.
Not knowing you, I don't know whether I'm more or less informed about the history of the Middle East in the twentieth century than you, so I won't argue that with you. I wouldn't consider myself too uninformed to talk about it or form opinions about it. I'm not getting my information just from the media - I've personally known several people from Israel, both Israeli and Palestinian. I based most of what I said on conversations with those people and things I've read. If you want to correct my facts feel free - I'm open to changing my mind. My father visited the West Bank several years ago as part of an international medical aid organization and told me quite a bit about his first hand experiences. For the most part he saw incredible poverty and heavily armed, arrogant Israelis. He actually changed his opinion to become more anti-Israel after returning from there. Comments from Israeli soldiers like "Why are you helping that scum?" didn't help.
Or maybe they were organizations that NEEDED to be audited, but were never gotten around to during the Reagan/Bush I era
comparing Israel to the US isn't really making your case. Its like comparing Stalin to Hitler. While Stalin may be better than Hitler, they are both very bad.
----> 1. Maybe it's because Israel is the only democracy in the middle east.
what does being a democracy have anything to do with nuclear weapons ? last time I checked the US was a (so called) demoracy, and it is the one launching preemptive strikes, propping up corrupt dictators, etc.
----> 2. Or because Israel has had WMD for more than 20 years now and never even thought about initiating an assault (unlike the US, mind you).
Israel has initiated may assaults, just not nuclear (yet). the six day war comes to mind. not mention the continuing settlements.
----> 4. Maybe it's because Israel isn't run by "crazies" -
sure it is. Sharon is a nutcase, who doesn't want peace any more that Arafat does.
----> at least not more than the US is run by a war mongering illiterate.
you do know that bush is the president, right ?
----> The fact of the matter is that Israel has the same right to bare nuclear arms as the US has.
as does any other country which wants to defent itself for preemptive strikes from the likes of the US.
----> Israel's foreign policy is much more peacefull than the US's. You might not agree with it's current internal security policy - with regards to the palestinians
I don't think Israel's foreign policy is peaceful at all. Assaginations of leaders, bulldozing peoples homes, ignoring UN resolutions. And its not internal security policy, as the palestinians are not internal to israel.
----> The worst thing you can do is fulfill the stereotype of the ingnorant american cowboy
ah, but the sad thing is that the majority of the people here do fit the description. just look at the approval rating for bush. Most people here are very intelligent, but very ignorant of things outside their own little sphere. sad but true.
In the early nineties I worked for the Alaska State Legislature. That was in the early days of e-mail, so we didn't get e-mail messages very often. However, we did have something that sort of worked the same way.
Alaska's capitol is in Juneau, which is not accessible by road. During the legislative session, it is simply not possible for the average citizen to "pop in" to his or her legislators' offices (unless that citizen is a resident of Juneau, of course). So the legislature put up Legislative Information Offices (LIOs) all around the state. One thing people could do at these LIOs was compose and send Public Opinion Messages (POMs) using an LIO computer. These messages were then compiled and sent to the various offices.
One of the problems is that the senders could choose who they wanted their POMs to go to. They could send POMs to their own representatives, or to legislators working on a particular issue, or anyone else. So usually, they'd just send them to *every* legislator.
The problem is this: It quickly became apparent that, if we were going to read all the POMs people sent in, that's all we would ever have time to do. And this was in the second-least-populated state in the Union! We eventually settled on a system where we at least *read* all the POMs from our home district, and even managed to respond to a few. The ones that came in from LIOs outside our district? We didn't even read them. I feel guilty about it to this day--after all, these people had taken the time and energy to go down to their local LIO and compose a message -- but there just wasn't the time or manpower!
A couple of lessons:
1. Want to get a message to a legislator? I know a way that practically guarantees it will be read. Get a pen and piece of paper. Handwrite a short, polite and thoughtful note, using correct grammar and good handwriting. It's always a good idea to work a compliment in there somewhere.
2. I think I share with most /. readers a desire for small, limited government. However, I usually disagree with those who want to slash legislative staff (in all three senses of the word!). In our complex world, a legislator needs a good staff to be effective. In monetary terms it's just a drop in the bucket anyway, and it's money well spent.
3. Finally, let me clear up one misconception -- that legislators neglect their constituents to do ... well, something else. This is rarely true. Elected officials know where their bread is buttered. It's far more common for them to focus so much on trying to please their constituents that other matters get neglected.
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.
It turns out that the real reason for the White House no longer accepting email to president@whitehouse.gov is that Bush's aides began noticing some worrying things about their charge.
It seems he'd been spending quite a bit of time reading all his email and had been receiving a large number of packages delivered in plain brown wrapping.
Turns out that the Prez now has a 32-foot-long penis, breasts the size of Dolly Parton's, has lost 399lbs of weight without exercising or dieting and is now awaiting the delivery of TWENTY FIVE MILLION US DOLLARS in unclaimed bullion from a secret fund in Nigeria.
Not only that, but he's also talking about quitting the presidency because he's been told that you can make more money stuffing envelopes just a few hours a day from home.
Well having worked on the original Whitehouse email system I seem to recall discussing this at length.
Some people did want to simply register approval or disapproval of some issue, which is completely OK. But in many cases people wanted to do something different, like bring to attention some problem that they did not feel was being addressed. Very often the emails would be questions about policy, in particular how a policy would be applied in a particular circumstance.
Sorting into 'for' and 'against' is absolutely the last thing the Clinton people wanted to do. You certainly don't want to force someone to make up their mind like that, they will probably go the opposite way to the one you want.
There seems to be a very different philosophy behind today's WH site and the Clinton site. In the Clinton era the whole site was about empowerment and giving people their information. The idea was that the press had become privilleged filters of the news and that the people had an equal the right to see press releases and all the other information given to the media. The current site is a product of standard corporate PR think, it is all about controlling the information flow - yuk!
If you want to know what happened to the people behind the original Whitehouse site look at the Dean campaign.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
isn't even listed! How can I comment on the pending legislation to define marriage as containing a 'man and woman' only? It wasn't a choice! I thought about choosing Pornography (which would reflect the administration's view), but give me a break! Is that just a sign showing that they shall allow no debate about gay marriage?
Just follow the day, and reach fo