Slashdot Mirror
Gore Vidal Savages Electronic Voting
gribbly writes "aging author and social critic Gore Vidal savaged electronic voting in an interview with the LA Weekly. The interview deals mainly with (what's wrong with) the Bush Administration, but halfway down he says: 'We don't want an election without a paper trail...all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?'."
Oh, wait, the primaries, let alone the generals, don't actually happen until 2004. Guess I gotta wait and spend the time bitching about Dubya, don't I?
This sig no verb.
OK, Gore Vidal is an idiot, and I'd pay no more attention to him than I would a Frenchman trying to "educate" me about how the U.S. ought to work.
But despite my Republican affiliation and support for Bush, I agree that current electronic voting systems are shamefully flawed. The lack of a paper, human-readable ballot receipt prevents any sort of independent audit of the results to confirm their accuracy. And the various statements attributed to Diebold's C.E.O. about "delivering" the electoral vote to Bush is just ludicrious and rightfully cast serious doubts on his company's credibility in this arena.
Electronic voting can be done right. But currently it is not...
Coming from someone that probably wasn't even born in the USA, I disregard this comment entirely. You even start with a bogus premise: that the American media is not Democrat biased. Did you know that 90% of the people you see on CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC news broadcasts...all of those toadies vote Democrat. Don't tell me that those people are just news-readers either.
There's always been a liberal bias among the editors (and many posters) on Slashdot, and I've accepted that, given the amount of other interesting stuff that shows up here.
However, I think we're starting to see the editors, like many others on the left, become totally unhinged. Come on, LA Weekly has a long diatribe from Vidal, and in one small section he basically says "E-voting sucks!", and this is "news for nerds"? This is just the flimsiest excuse to link to another "Bush sucks!", "Bush=Hitler" screed.
We get to read yet-another limousine liberal bemoan how this administration is just as bad as the Third Reich, and how their free speech rights are being suppressed -- somehow the irony of them constantly reminding us of this in various news media is lost on them.
Remember this moment folks, you were there to see Slashdot Jump The Shark (not an exact analogy, but the best I could come up with). I think it's all downhill from here. The Slashdot editors should just go with their true hearts' desire, and start posting wholesale articles from Chomsky and the folks at A.N.S.W.E.R. -- c'mon guys, you know you want to...
GE is a bunch of leftist peaceniks,
That certainly would be the impression by watching their news, attitudes of the editors/directors and the rest. Too bad what you say in jest is really the truth.
and Disney is controlled by the unions.
As for Disney, they are attacked for their social policies by the Evangelicals and Conservatives alike, certainly not the mark of a socially liberal organization. The only people on the Left who attack them are those who actually care about Copyright abuses by Hollywood. Certainly not controlled by Unions, but definately on the Left politically.
Oh yea, your little example left out the Hollywood entertainment industry. I suppose you wish us to believe them to be a bunch of Conservatives too?
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
you forget: Liberal Media == anything that has those sinful GAYS depicted as NORMAL!!! for SHAME!
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
This guy's first name is Gore and he is obviously against Bush. Is this not corruption?
Stay put Mr. Vidal, Barbra Streisand will be there shortly in a black helicopter to whisk you away to safety alongside Elian Gonzales and Vince Foster.
The vast right wing conspiracy shadow government zionist regime run by the aliens will never get their hands on you!!
The difference is the liberal viewpoint comes across as "unbiased" news, while the conservative point comes across as a conservative viewpoint.
I remember the UN not condoning the US actions, so basically in your utter moron logic you are pretty much claiming that the US had to ignore the UN to go against Iraq because Iraq was ignoring the UN?
Whoah.... keep it up! I also liked your whole "irrelevant" response. Jeez, so when you invade a country, kill thousands, and spend billions under the pretense that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And now that none are found, you claim that is "irrelevant"?
I am amazed, I wonder why are you so afraid of thinking for yourself, trust me it doesn't hurt.
I am sure that next time Bush tells you that we must attack the North Pole because Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are part of the axis of evil, I will expect you to come up with new and impressive
reasonings on why we must take care of that national threat also known as the tooth fairy.
I specially liked your "he got rid of the weapons in secret", so let me get this straight. He had weapons of mass destruction (according to you, you know he had them...), he -Saddam- gets invaded, and according to you the first reaction of this crazy psychopath is to hide them. I mean whoah...
Keep it up, you right wingers are way more enteraining now that when you tried to pretend that a blowjob was Americans #1 enemy. LOL!!
I need more popcorn...
I remember the UN not condoning the US actions...you are pretty much claiming that the US had to ignore the UN to go against Iraq because Iraq was ignoring the UN
Wrong. The US actions were a direct result of Iraq's violation of UN security counsel resolutions. The US was not ignoring the UN, they were enforcing the resolutions that were passed by the UN.
Jeez, so when you invade a country, kill thousands, and spend billions under the pretense that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And now that none are found, you claim that is "irrelevant"?
The point of this war was not to go find all the clever places that Saddam hid his weapons. It was to neutralize the threat that those weapons posed to our national security. With Saddam removed from power, this threat has been reduced, and we will stay there until the threat is eliminated.
I specially liked your "he got rid of the weapons in secret", so let me get this straight. He had weapons of mass destruction (according to you, you know he had them
There was no question whether or not he had these weapons. This fact was accepted by the worldwide intelligence community and was recognized by the UN security counsel. Even President Clinton knew Iraq had WMD. Clinton attacked them because they were not cooperating with the UN weapons team. To claim that these weapons do not exist, despite Iraq acknowledging they had them (as they did in 1993), and having used them in the past, is both ignorant and dangerous.
Saddam gets invaded, and according to you the first reaction of this crazy psychopath is to hide them. I mean whoah...
He had 12 years to hide them, including 4 years without any monitoring or observation from the UN weapons team (because he kicked them out, remember that?). He had no reason to believe we would actually attack -- for 12 years we would only slap his wrist. Saddam was trying to call our bluff to prove we were weak. By the time we were dropping bunker busters on his "secret" location, it was too late for him to do anything about it.
Weapons that actually exist in the real world, compared to the Iraqi weapons - which exist only in the fevered imaginations of certain deranged individuals.
... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years