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?'."

90 of 1,029 comments (clear)

  1. How much press will it get, though? by Denyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given that much of the media is similarly controlled?

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
    1. Re:How much press will it get, though? by Rick.C · · Score: 3, Funny
      Given that much of the media is similarly controlled?

      But at least the press leaves a paper trail.

      --
      You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
      "Math in a song is good."-Linford
    2. Re:How much press will it get, though? by javiercero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, right now I can go through my AM dial and hear all those "liberal" media outlets. Or pick up all those "liberal" newspapers, or listen to the "liberal" clearchannel owned stations, and of course FOX news is as "liberal" as it gets....

      Jeez if the media is "liberal" in American I just do not wanna think about how much those poor conservatives must struggle to get their point of view accross the news....

    3. Re:How much press will it get, though? by GMontag · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Correct, which leaves a whole lot more on the Left, like major newspapers, magazines and all the rest of the networks plus the rest of 24 hour cable news..

    4. Re:How much press will it get, though? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not quite. Time magazine recently yanked an archived article quoting Bush Sr. as basically saying that invading Iraq would not be a wise thing to do.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    5. Re:How much press will it get, though? by Mr+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah cause when I think radio, I think AM dial.
      Or pick up all those "liberal" newspapers,

      This one is just laughable, do you really want to count paper for paper over whether papers are more liberal than conservative? Maybe a few of the big ones are known for conservatism, but the vast majority are certianly not.

    6. Re:How much press will it get, though? by magarity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since even supposedly indepented media is created by people who are hardly perfect, yes, completely unbiased media is extremely rare. What is important as consumers of media is to realise that behind every news item may well be slanted toward the leanings of whoever presents it.

    7. Re:How much press will it get, though? by Peyna · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most libraries keep archives of old newspapers indefinitely. You can go there now and probably find any New York Times paper since it has existed in one form or another. (not necessarily in paper form, but maybe microfiche?)

      --
      What?
    8. Re:How much press will it get, though? by bitrott · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The majority of political talk radio shows are on AM. There are very few FM talk radio shows that aren't also on AM. That's why people refer to AM radio as conservative radio. There are plenty of conservative media outlets out there. There's a very simple rul of thumb about this rediculously conflated issue. If you ever feel compelled to consider the bias of the media please follow The Money. Most all major media organizations are owned by conservatives. Most of them are publicly controlled companies. How many industries do you know go out of their way to confound their employers? Many press outlets are known for doing so, but not nearly as many as you think. BTW, news and media, like people, do not easily fall into your convenient liberal/conservative buckets. Most people have very complex feelings about most issues. Just like people, the media often tries to portray issues as a series of "grays". I find that the people most willing to become irrationally angry about "liberal media" are the ones that don't really understand the industry and would prefer a world perfectly in-line with their own world view. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

    9. Re:How much press will it get, though? by DirtMcGirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude, the democrats aren't liberal. Even *if* those democrat-voting anchors make editorial decisions, the resulting bias would still be very conservative.

    10. Re:How much press will it get, though? by guacamolefoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, right now I can go through my AM dial and hear all those "liberal" media outlets.

      I agree! This "liberal bias" stuff is hokum.

      Or pick up all those "liberal" newspapers,

      The NYT, the W. Post, the LA Times, the Phila. Inquirer, the Baltimore Sun, the Miami Herald -- all of 'em are fucking John Birchers! I'm sick of their conservative crap. They should shut up and give someone else a voice!

      or listen to the "liberal" clearchannel owned stations,

      You already talked about radio. You did leave out that bastion of conservatism which is NPR.

      and of course FOX news is as "liberal" as it gets....

      I'm so sick of TV - all the conservatives make me sick -- it's just one after another: Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, the CNN crowd, 60 Minutes, 20/20, Barbwa Walters, the morning hosts like Katie Couric, Bryant Gumbel...fire breathing conservatives, all of 'em! Where's the balance?!?

      Don't even get me started on Hollywood -- They're all sucking Reagan's cock still: Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Ed Harris, Babs Streisand, Spielberg, Janeane Garafolo, Paul Newman, Martin Sheen, blah, blah, blah. Remember when Elia Kazan was up for a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars a few years ago -- heck, nearly ten people in the audience stood up to applaud, and I bet that nearly all of them were Republicans who cheered when he ratted on the communists in Hollywood in the fifties.

      Fucking conservatives -- they run everything. We'll get our chance someday, though. Until then, blow up your TV!

      GF.

    11. Re:How much press will it get, though? by kableh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you asshats give a fuck about democracy?

      Regardless of your politcal bias, regardless of who gets elected, ANYTHING that casts doubt on the democratic process is an anathema to the people's faith in their government and their country.

      At least Gore Vidal contributed something meaningful to society over the course of his life.

    12. Re:How much press will it get, though? by Wah · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you know that 90% of the people you see on CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC news broadcasts...all of those toadies vote Democrat.

      Funny how you left Fox out, since that would bring it closer to 50%. BTW, where do these numbers come from? I'd guess a conservative book about the media, but I could be wrong.

      BTW, having a 'liberal' media, is a whole lot better than 'totalitarian' media. But why am I trying, chances are that 'liberal' is such a connotated and evil word for you by now that actual thought concerning its use is problematic.

      Also, those are public companies you've listed. Mind telling me the political affiliation of the majority of their stockholders?

      --
      +&x
    13. Re:How much press will it get, though? by pbox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bravo Rush! Give it to them!

      I didn't know they let you surf from the rehab.

      --
      Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
    14. Re:How much press will it get, though? by Texas+Rose+on+Lava+L · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Plus, I know the VAST influence that AM radio has.

      20 million Dittoheads must have at least some influence. That's 3 Rush Limbaugh listeners for every comment that has ever been posted to Slashdot. And, thanks to the Bush economic policy, there's more and more people with nothing better to do all day than sit around and listen to talk radio. 3 hours a day, 5 days a week of that drivel and people start to believe it. And that's not even counting Dr. Laura, Michael Savage, Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, etc.

    15. Re:How much press will it get, though? by Catbeller · · Score: 2, Informative

      Phil Donahue had the best rated program on MS-NBC (or CNBC?). He was canned because he was allowing people with views that contradicted the President's view on war. And no, this is not a liberal "conspiracy theory"; the internal memo concerning Donahue's cancellation got leaked. Go look it up.

      They put on a show, replacing Phil's, that presented some psycho right winger who eventually told a gay caller to get AIDS and die. Savage, I think his name was. His show now has zero ratings, becaue they canned his hate-filled ass. But since they knew who he was when they hired him, they obviously wanted him to say such things.

      There aren't any "liberal" (read: people who do not regularly profess hard-right viewpoints as facts) talk shows on television, none, that I can see. The few reporters who are old enough and smart enough to understand what is going on are too afraid of losing their jobs and their standing if they even utter a peep about the bias. Read about that CNN reporter who said CNN toed the Bush line hard to placate the Fox viewship; she got spanked hard. Fox went wild smearing her, proving her point. Rather said in a Euorpean interview that reporters are no longer permitted to tell the truth anymore, and that he would be "necklaced" (read South African history for a reference) if he said anything the hardrighters didn't like.

      You DON'T GET AIRED if you contradict the right-wing for very long.

    16. Re:How much press will it get, though? by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 2

      and what, exactly, did Saddam Hussein have to do with 9/11?

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    17. Re:How much press will it get, though? by CrazyDuke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Do you want fries with that?"
      "Do you want fries with that?"
      "Do you want fries with that?"
      "Do you want fries with that?"
      "Do you want a CS degree with that?" ...Oops sorry, I was just thinking about what a waste the CS degree I got this Spring is. Yeah, the economy is recovering very well, from what I hear. Corporate profits are up thanks to them using the Bush tax cut to ship all the high end technical jobs overseas. Jobs are comming back, too. I can pick any burger joint in town to work at. I can even get a job at the local Walmart now for $6.25 a hour now! The bucks are just rolling in, aren't they?

      And next to no one is buying computers right now around here. And thanks to all this supercorp merging, this towns factory got baught by the competition just to close it down! All hail His Magesty Bush and his court's super spin cycled reports.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
    18. Re:How much press will it get, though? by antiMStroll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There it is again, the Saddam/9-11 link. Bush no longer maintains this fiction, it's time to drop it here too. BTW, if it was due to just the book excerpts why did Time remove the entire article and any reference to it in the table of contents (instead of, obviously, deleting just the excerpts or replacing the TOC entry with a short explanation.) I'll take off the Tin Foil Hat when you remove the Tin Foil Glasses.

    19. Re:How much press will it get, though? by DavidBrown · · Score: 2, Informative

      Time magazine recently yanked an archived article quoting Bush Sr. as basically saying that invading Iraq would not be a wise thing to do.

      The article was written in the mid 1990's, not last week. This is an important distinction to make, as your post implies that Bush the Elder disapproves of the actons of Bush the Younger.

      But your major point about Time magazine yanking their archived article off the Internet is valid and significant. Unless it was part of a routine culling of articles off their online archives in order to preserve their resources, it is certainly a great wrong to pull this, or any other article, away from free public access.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    20. Re:How much press will it get, though? by willtsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Al Franken is a satirist. What is truly disturbing about his book is the "funny guy" does much better research than most of the news media.

      Everyone has been happy to engage in personal attacks against Franken. What they haven't done is challenge his material. Why, because conservatives aren't interested in facts.

      Unlike some (Bill O'Reilly) Al doesn't claim to be unbaised. I wouldn't say that his book "debunks" the myth of liberal media bias. But it does explain why it's a stupid thing to say in the first place.

      The media is a business. They look out for their bottom line. I keep hearing about one poll where 80% of reporters voted for Clinton. Who gives a shit. They don't decide whats printed.

      The owners and editors decide what is printed. They do what is in their own best interest. They have been a big friend to Bush since Bush has been a friend to them. The FCC de-regulation was a BIG help. Even better help was a war. WAR = Ratings!!!!!!

      As you pan through the radio spectrum, you'll have a hard time finding any of those pinko liberals they love to bitch about. Search the number one news network, Fox any liberals their. Hardly. How about the major networks. The only one that hasn't sold old to being a corporate conservative shill is CBS.

      The most telling fact of a liberal media myth is that real liberals HATE the media. You would think they would be pleased with the New York Times. Check out some REAL lefty liberal sites like Buzzflash.com and OpEdnews.com and my favorite DailyHowler.com. They hate the media even more than "conservatives" do.

      As Al Franken said. Asking whether the media is liberal or conservative is like asking if Al Queda uses too much oil in their Hummus. The question really doesn't apply. They have their own agenda and it doesn't have SHIT to do ideology.

      At the end of the day, their bias is revealed in accepting news articles written by third parties and think tanks. They don't sufficiently research their content. They go to press before they've checked their facts just to get scoops. They write stories to sell advertising.

      The basic gist is that the media has lower standards for content. That is their bias, sloppy, cheap, profitable.

      --
      -------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
  2. Who cares about paper trails? by eurleif · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They just let us know there was cheating, but no one in power will look at them. Look at the presidential election in Florida 2000!

    1. Re:Who cares about paper trails? by JWW · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Boy, I think you actually have every "fact" in your post backwards, quite an accomplisment.

    2. Re:Who cares about paper trails? by HomerJayS · · Score: 2, Informative
      Didn't they try to recount the republican counties 3 times but not the democratic counties

      Look here for a complete recap of the recount. It was Gore requesting recounts in democratic counties, not vice-versa.

      From the site: Thursday, Nov. 9--Gore's camp requests a hand recount of the approximately 1.8 million ballots cast in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward, and Volusia counties, Democratic strongholds

  3. Re:Why oh why by eurleif · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Also why don't most normal American's a have a problem with Bush yet?
    Normal americans wouldn't have a problem with a reincarnated Hitler. As long as they have TV, plenty of food, etc. most of them will be happy.
  4. Ugggg.... by TedTschopp · · Score: 2, Troll

    Why do people need to believe this is some conspriracy. Bad Code /= a vast conspiracy to steal the election. Bad Code = Bad Code. Lets get upset at that. Bad code on a voting machine = potential to steal the election, but until you have proof please keep your fingerpointing to yourself. Both sides of the political debate here in the States and abroad would love to steal an election.

    --
    Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
    1. Re:Ugggg.... by mapmaker · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The problem isn't bad code. The problem is hidden, unverifyable code.

      Hiding the process used to count votes, and making that process unverifyable (is that a word?) once the votes have been counted, is an execellent way to steal an election.

      Since all the electronic voting equipment manufacturers are insisting on hidden, unverifyable code, and all of them are "rooting for" the same political party, it isn't exactly a wacko idea to think there might be something fishy going on here.

      Yes, both parties would love to steal an election. But one party appears to actually be implementing the means to do so.

    2. Re:Ugggg.... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Informative
      Read my post here? IT really frightens me that Diebold is not only donating but campaigning for Bush.

      Yes you will never find any company unbiased but we need a trial and the database should be public. Hell, the code should be owned the states and government!

      People who count votes usually have both a republican and a democrat together looking over question ballets to decide. We need this as well.

      Who does count the votes anyway? Diebold??

  5. Demand a paper trail! by Eraserhd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sign the HR 2239 petition. It requires electronic machines to produce a receipt which is deposited in a lock box in case of a recount and mandates .5% of districts at random do a recount to verify accuracy of the machines.

    1. Re:Demand a paper trail! by Eraserhd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Er, how would the receipt be fake? It would have the name of the candidate you voted for printed on it. You verify that it says the right thing, then drop it in the box. Are you claiming that it doesn't say who you voted for when you receive it, or later when it is recounted .

  6. No Paper Trail = No Trust by visionsofmcskill · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For the first ten years (minimum) every one of these voting systems should print out a physical copy of voters selections for them to doule check and for submision in the ballot box (just like now)....

    From that point the ballots should be counted in the traditional manner and used to audit the eletronic reports. If there is any significiant discrepency the paper ballots should take precedence. This procedure should continue until the eletronic voting process is as reliably accurate as the ballot method for a period of years.

    After that point we can take the electronic method as the primary method, witht he printed results being automaticly placed into a ballot box connected to these machines.

    If there is ever a time the printed ballot form should cease to exist i cannot for-see it right now. If there isnt physical evidence of the voting process somewhere, i feel highly dubious as to the integrity of the entire system.

    --vision

    --
    --Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
    1. Re:No Paper Trail = No Trust by jimlintott · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you saying that to migrate to a new system that we should run the new system in parallel with the old system and cross check for performance and reliability?

      You crazy bastard!!

  7. Corruption? by jemfinch · · Score: 2, Funny

    The only corruption here is the horrible corruption of the English language that somehow lead to CmdrTaco thinking "to savage" meant "to ravage."

    Jeremy

    1. Re:Corruption? by RealErmine · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only corruption here is the horrible corruption of the English language that somehow lead to CmdrTaco thinking "to savage" meant "to ravage."

      From m-w.com:

      savage v. :to attack or treat brutally

      ravage v. :to wreak havoc on : affect destructively

      Seems like either of these is just fine in the context provided.

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
  8. I hardly believe by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I will hardly ever believe anything coming from a California paper or magazine. All this bigotry and hatred for anything Bush is totally ruining this country. You want change? Fine, then vote them out of office. But to constantly blast anybody in the media who doesn't think like you do, or believe in what you believe is like a child throwing a tantrum.

    Stop bitching and moaning and get out there and DO something about it. Jeez...

    That's the last political statement I will make on /.

    --
    This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    1. Re:I hardly believe by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nobody said he was the perfect president. That's why there are term limitations. You don't like somebody in office, next term vote them out. Its so easy even a child could do it.

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    2. Re:I hardly believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Voting against Bush only works if the votes get counted.

    3. Re:I hardly believe by javiercero · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, it is criticism that is ruining this country. Afterall this country was built upon consent and not dissent... I mean those damn pesky commies daring to say somethign bad about our beloved Fuhrer!

      Bastards! I right there with you brother, btw may I say you look smashingly good in you brown shirt today.

    4. Re:I hardly believe by micromoog · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Three quarters of them focus solely on Bush, NOT the war.

      The label on my fire extinguisher says "Aim at the base of flames".

  9. As noted author, Gore Vidal, was ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny

    led away to his Guantanamo relocation center, he was quoted as saying ...oh, wait. The Official Information Minister has informed me that reporting Vidal's final statement would make me an enemy combatant, and would mean that the terrorists had won. And that would be doubleplusungood.

  10. Fine hair products by GoofyBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why do I care what a popular salon owner says about this issue?

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
  11. He's a luddite, but a sharp luddite by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Vidal may be a notorious blue-blood, and clearly a luddite, but nonetheless he is the source of an incredible amount of scathing invective tracing back to The Decline and Fall of the American Empire, which somewhat dated now, is still biting.

    Vidal is one of America's sharpest social critics, although he only operates as a critic. He ran for office once but I suspect he would be a failure as a career politician despite his family ties.

  12. Corruption by MisanthropicProggram · · Score: 2
    ...all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration. Is this not corruption?'."

    No, I'm sad to say, it's the American way.

    --

    There is no spoon or sig.

  13. Time for Open Source Voting Machines by !Squalus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We need these things to be built upon Open and Inspectable Source and on machines that the public can trust as giving valid results. Otherwise - it is all BS. I have been calling for a Corporation for Public Software to do just this. I continue to do so.

    This simply is too important to allow hacked machines to spit out as answer that somebody pre-determined in a back-room deal.

    We can do something about it now, or we can pay the consequences of an untrusted election system come next year. The choices are few, the ooportunities many. Write me off as stupid if you just don't give a rat's, but you will sooner or later.

    --
    All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
  14. Isn't potential election stealing worrying? by Kinniken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Bad code on a voting machine = potential to steal the election, but until you have proof please keep your fingerpointing to yourself.

    Proof? No, but what looks like frightening bugs in one of the most critical tasks of a democracy, from companies whose owners are heavily involved in politic. Now, that does not necessarily mean that election-rigging is under way, but IMHO it is cause enough for public scrutiny.

    Both sides of the political debate here in the States and abroad would love to steal an election.

    So what? Should we let them do it, trusting that some sort of balance will be kept by the rigging on both side?

    --
    What do you know about World Politic? Find out in this quiz
  15. Must be Bush's fault by obsid1an · · Score: 2, Informative
    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?

    And if Clinton was president odds are they would be donating to Clinton. It may be corruption, but at least it's universal.

    1. Re:Must be Bush's fault by fenix+down · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, if you just go to opensecrets.org and look it up, you could see who they were donating to while Clinton was president. Three Republican senate campaigns (Voinovich, Faricloth, Dewine) and the RNC. That's all, at least since '97 when they got involved in Deibold. None of the three he speaks of ever donated to Clinton.

  16. Re:Gore Vidal is an idiot by sulli · · Score: 2

    So you think Vidal is an idiot (debatable). What is your position then on Bush's assault on the Constitution? Do you support the wholesale destruction of our freedoms that Bush is presiding over? Stand up and be counted if you really think this is better for the republic.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  17. Obligatory Simpsons' Reference by SplendidIsolatn · · Score: 3, Funny

    Marge: So, did you call any of your friends?0
    Lisa: Friend? [scoffs] These are my only friends.
    [holds up a book]
    Grownup nerds like Gore Vidal, and even he's kissed more boys
    than I ever will.
    Marge: Girls, Lisa. Boys kiss girls.

    --
    sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
  18. Donors to the "administration"??? by magarity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    all three owners of the companies who make these machines are donors to the Bush administration

    Everyone who pays taxes in the US is a "donor" to the executive branch. Perhaps you mean the Bush campaign? In that case, you may be suprised that most companies actually donate pretty equally to both sides just to cover the bases. What were these companies' total donations to political campaigns compared to just to just Bush's? Without that info, this is a meaninglessly paranoid "article".

  19. Re:enough by bark · · Score: 2, Funny

    it's not al gore we're talking about ... it's gore vidal, some wierd person

  20. electronic voting/paper trail by jdruyjdruy · · Score: 3, Funny

    If we're talking about paper voting, don't paper mill companies give big bucks to the Republican party?

  21. Huh? by schon · · Score: 5, Funny

    The USA PATRIOT Act is as despotic as anything Hitler came up with -- even using much of the same language.

    Really? The PATRIOT act was written in German? :o)

  22. Re:enough by saddino · · Score: 2, Informative

    Newsflash, you're confusing Gore Vidal with Al Gore.

  23. Well said Mr. Vidal. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful
    In this, Gore calls the current US administration Despotism several times. This is not true yet because the American people still have the power to reverse it by voting new rulers in. How long this will be tolerated though is another question. Look at how the risk of being voted out has caused problems for Bush - the Whitehouse is having to draw up plans for pulling forces out of Iraq due to its unpopularity and the looming elections. I'm sure they would love to stop the stupid people exerting such an influence on their superior plans :)

    Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps the USA already is a despotic state but with better PR. After all the last election wasn't actually won by Bush, and there was that scene of Republicans battering down the doors of the Democrat offices where they were holding ballots. You wont know if you're living in a dictatorship until you test the boundaries. But if the voting machines get in then you'll lose your chance.

    Gore also mentions the partiot act part II which he condemns utterly. An old quote I came across recently now seems frighteningly prescient:

    The process by which a determined organization can seize control of a government was encapsulated in a 1957 book by Jan Kozak, a member of the Secretariat of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. The first step involves having the organization's own people infiltrate the government. These infiltrators... must be in a position to bring in at least some legislation.

    The second step is to create a real or alleged grievance with the government. This involves either an action the government took, or a required action it failed to take. The third step is to field a mob in reaction to the manufactured grievance, demanding that the government solve the problem by legislation. The fourth step is for the conspirators to bring in legislation - oppressive legislation - that fails to solve the problem.

    The last three steps are repeated again and again. The mob demands more and more legislation, which the government enacts, until the government has become totalitarian... which was the initial goal of the conspirators.
    --Gurps Illuminati, by Nigel D. Findley, used without permission but with Just Cause(tm).

    --

    Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    1. Re:Well said Mr. Vidal. by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Excellent points all round. See also this report from Greg Palast at BBC Newsnight that shows one of the conspirators _literally_ running away when confronted by the fact that the state of Florida paid a lot of money to have a purge list from the electoral roles checked for its accuracy, but the work was not carried out.

      Thousands of innocent black and latino voters were prevented from voting. Gore "lost" by less than 600 votes.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Well said Mr. Vidal. by guacamolefoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After all the last election wasn't actually won by Bush,

      Please point me to a link to one recount effort by the press that would have resulted in a Gore victory in Florida.

    3. Re:Well said Mr. Vidal. by Watts+Martin · · Score: 2, Informative

      While I don't want to put words in the mouth of the guy you're actually replying to, Bush didn't win the popular vote no matter how things are recounted--he won the electoral vote. And, the question of whether the way the election was actually decided was appropriate is a separate question from the vote count. Bush was, in effect, selected by the Supreme Court. Yes, you're right that subsequent investigation showed that Bush would have won the electoral vote regardless; that doesn't make me more comfortable with the way the election was resolved, because "it wouldn't have mattered anyway" isn't a sufficient rebuttal to a charge of not counting everyone's vote in a democracy.

      There's a separate question that came up a lot as to whether the electoral college should even be used, a question which is bound to come up in the rare cases like this when it seems to "thwart" the will of the people. Of course, setting aside the questions revolving around the subsequent legal case, the electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to--its point is to keep rural, sparsely populated states from having their votes overwhelmed by major population centers. (Whether it ultimately serves or hinders democracy to effectively give each resident of, say, North Dakota a greater proportional weight than each resident of New York is another question.)

    4. Re:Well said Mr. Vidal. by malibucreek · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2001-11/10879 74.gif

      If you count every ballot on which a candidate preference could be determined, including ballots in which a voter punched the chad and then wrote in the name of that same candidate, Al Gore wins Florida by 107 votes.

      --

      Why is it called COMMON sense when so few people have it?

  24. Re:Why oh why by gantzm · · Score: 2, Funny

    Also why don't most normal American's a have a problem with Bush yet?

    Because if Al Gore had been president any of the following may have happened:

    1) We would have surrendered before the second plane hit the WTC.
    2) Only criminals would have guns.
    3) Even more money would be taken from my pocket to support inner city kids who don't understand "Gang Banging" isn't a productive life style.
    4) We would be paying $5.00 for a gallon of gas, to put in a sub-standard 1000 pound car that would be destroyed when it collided with a june bug.

    Ya know, there's more, but I'm getting angry just thinking about it.

    --


    Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
  25. Left vs. Right by AdamHaun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really wish we could abolish "Left", "Right", "Liberal", and "Conservative" from political language. They've become no more than insults. The "Left" is in charge? Oh, then the "Right" is a bunch of evil zealots come to crush us under their heels! The "Right" is in charge? Now the "Left" is a bunch of evil terrorist sympathizers who want to bring about the downfall of America!

    Stop it. Just stop it.

    It disgusts me how easily people are blinded by their preferred camp. Both major parties(and their associated platforms) have major problems. Pretending otherwise is foolish, but it seems that that's just what people want to do. It's especially amusing when we have repeats of previous incidents that garner the same response from opposite sites. Clinton lies about blowjob? IMPEACH!(if "Right"), FORGIVE!(if "Left"). Bush lies about WMDs? CONDEMN!(if "Left"), IGNORE!(if "Right"). Sound similar? They are! What happened to lying itself being bad? Why won't people admit that their own side can fuck up too?

    It doesn't matter which side you claim to be on. Evaluate people based on what they do, not what views they pay lip service to. If you do otherwise, you're just being a sheep.

    And for the love of all that is good and right in the world, come up with some new insults while you're at it!

    --
    Visit the
    1. Re:Left vs. Right by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Clinton lies about blowjob? IMPEACH!(if "Right"), FORGIVE!(if "Left"). Bush lies about WMDs? CONDEMN!(if "Left"), IGNORE!(if "Right"). Sound similar? They are!

      They may sound similar but they really aren't. Clinton lied about a personal sexual affair, like just about every married man would've. The right wing response was impeachment which was an insane overreaction designed to massively damage the Democratic party and help the Republican's win the next election which they did, by hook or crook. They got away with it because they controlled the House at the time. The founding fathers designed impeachement as a tool of last resort, not as a poltical tool to be used in such a petty manner.

      Contrast this with Bush's big lie on Iraq where there was apparently an intentional campaign of deception to fabricate a case for a war. It led to tens of thousands of people, and hundreds of Americans, getting killed and 100's of billions of dollars disappearing in a quagmire. It may well lead to more attacks against the U.S. in the long run, not less, since most of the world is now inflamed against the U.S. and now views the U.S. as the biggest threat to a stable, peaceful world. It is also unfathomable how anyone thinks Iraq will be a stable pro Western democracy anytime soon . The majority in Iraq are Shia who will eventually vote for an Islamic republic, like Iran's. The Sunni and Kurd minorities are unlikely to ever tolerate Shia dominance. I doubt the Bush administration really thought any of this out past "shock and awe".

      The Democratic response to Bush's big lie has been nothing but empty rhetoric since they are completely devoid of power at present. If the Republican's succeed in rigging or buying future elections, in stacking the Judiciary with right wingers and in doing away with the fillibuster in the Senate the last checks and balances the founding fathers designed to restrain them will be gone. Today's bizarre 30 hour session in the Senate is all about eliminating the last checks against their unrestrained power, the Senate fillibuster and a balanced judiciary.

      It is true both political parties, or more likely all political parties are corrupt. But today's Republican party is going off the scale both in its fanaticism and its willingness to use any means necessary to take and hold power. The Republicans appear to be dedicated to a goal of a white male dominated, far right, fundementalist Christian global empire pandering to a plutocracy, small in number but vast in wealth. They also have control of an extremely powerful military, intelligence and police apparatus that can and may well be suppressing dissent at home and abroad.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:Left vs. Right by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I really wish we could abolish "Left", "Right", "Liberal", and "Conservative" from political language. They've become no more than insults.

      While it's true that they are often used as insults and inaccurate labels, they have a place. If the words didn't exist we'd invent some. If you have groups of things, be they people, animals, or even concepts, they'll get labelled. It's true even if the groups are fuzzy. While the labels can be harmful, they can prove useful tools to identify people with similar viewpoints.

      Part of what your complaining about is simply groupthink and mindless obedience to a cause or organization. All of this can lead to highly divise politics where none of the sides are listening to each other. Getting rid of the labels won't get rid of the negative behavior.

      And while there is some about of groupthink there, part of the reason for the disagreement isn't groupthink, but differing opinions on the issue; opinions that often happen to roughly align across these labels. This might point to groupthink, but it might point to a good set of labels that accurately divide common points of view.

      For example, you cite the differing reactions to Clinton's lies about sexual behavior and the Bush administration's misleading behavior regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That the two sides appear to flip-flop on the topic of lying isn't necessarily hypocritical, it could point to the two issues being different in their minds.

      It's a bit crude, but "World's Smallest Political Quiz" is an interesting way of sorting out the labels. It actually divides people into five labels Left/Liberal, Right/Conservative, Libertarian, Centrist, and Authoritarian. Using their guidelines a key distinction is how much government should meddle in ones private lives or economic lives. A liberal by thier definition would be someone who wants government involved economically, but not personally. A conversative by their definition would be the opposite.

      By that definition to a liberal Clinton's deception is not a big detail because it's part of his private life while the misleading about Iraq's WMD is a big detail because ultimately war is about economics. The opposite would be true for a Conservative.

      Now the Quiz's definition isn't perfect, but few definitions are. And in practice these crude definitions work fine. While someone identifies themselves as liberal, I know I'm more likely to share similar views on controversial issues than I am with a conservative. However, I'm certainly a free individual and I hold some opinions that are not traditionally liberal. There are some conservatives who views really resonate with me. But in general liberal summarizes, if a bit crudely, my views.

  26. Just use a POS terminal by blair1q · · Score: 2, Funny

    How hard would it be to hack up a cash register to work as a voting machine, complete with e-reporting to the vote counting center and printing of a hardcopy receipt in duplicate, one for the backup ballot box and one for the customer?

    You could revel in your contribution to democracy with the sound of the cha-ching! .

    --
    "Every time a bell rings, a founding father gets his wings."

  27. Paper trail not the issue by boatboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I live in Mississippi, where they're still untangling a mess made by malfunctioning electronic voting machines that do have a paper reciept deposited in lock boxes. As just an example of things that can still go wrong:
    -Some poll workers didn't put reciepts in lock boxes.
    -Some poll workers decided to "manually enter" data from back-up paper ballots once they got the machines working.
    -Some reciepts/machines did not make it back to the main office until two days after elections.
    -State law requires initials on paper reciepts. Some unititaled ones were counted anyway.
    And before you come down too hard on Bush, it's the Dems who are benefiting here. From a developer standpoint it is clear to me that the problem is poor system design. Every company is trying to design an electronic equivalent to a paper process that is already suprisingly flawed. For example, because of civil rights issues, it is illegal to require a voter ID here. Which means in the electronic world, you cannot store a 1-to-1 relationship between a voter and a vote. What needs to be done is a standard design process: gather requirements, design the system, and implement it. Because state and federal laws come into play, legislatures should be envolved in the whole process and revamp laws where necessary. In the end, it all comes down to poor design.

  28. Re:Just another leftist whiner by javiercero · · Score: 2, Funny

    Like the onion once said:

    "Our 8 year nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over" -GWBush

  29. So it all comes back to Al Gore? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 2, Funny

    "It requires electronic machines to produce a receipt which is deposited in a lock box.... "

    Lock box.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  30. Re:Why oh why by jandrese · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn, I blew my last mod point earlier today, otherwise you'd get a funny. That's one of the most hilarous spoofs of the right's view of the left I've seen in ages. You forgot to include the line about requiring everybody to participate in homosexual marrages.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  31. Educate yourself before you dismiss that by ianscot · · Score: 4, Informative
    Go do a google for "Diebold" and "Republican." Browse a bit. Sample result:

    "Wally O'Dell, CEO of Diebold Inc., this week sent out letters to central Ohio Republicans asking them to raise $10,000 in donations in time for a Sept. 26 Ohio Republican Party event at his home."
    -- Port Clinton News Herald

    Wally O'Dell has sworn to deliver Ohio's electoral votes for G.W. next year. That's well beyond the level of the generality you've just expressed.

    And no, companies and industries don't give money equally. In some industries they do, in some there's a much more slanted bias. Think the energy industry's giving money to Howard Dean much? Trial lawyers give money to Democrats. HMOs give money to Republicans. For some mysterious reason, there's a very real Republican slant among these vote-counting companies. We're not talking about them covering their bases both ways, we're talking about openly advocating for one party while selling machines that count votes.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  32. Re:sure, but... by Frobnicator · · Score: 2, Informative
    and now want to give driver's licenses to illegals
    This is an old issue. Drivers licenses have been given out to illegal aliens for decades in some states. I know of several states where it is already legal, and there are probably more (Tennessee, North Carolina, Utah, Kansas, New Mexico, and Virginia).

    A quick google search pulled up this: [This year]"at least 39 states have considered more than 100 bills that affect immigrants' access to driver's licenses." Some of them moved in favor of granting licenses, while others were against it. The controversy lies in what a drivers license means. As codified in law, many states just use it as permission to use the road. It just happens that so many groups also use them as identification cards or proof of nationality, which is a bad thing.

    It seems you are a little late in your discovery.

    --
    //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
  33. no! motor voter != all drivers can vote by ClarkEvans · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Liberals are the ones who pushed for Motor-Voter legislation and now want to give driver's licenses to illegals. Who's up to their eyeballs in corruption?

    This is mixing two issues. Motor Voter is about allowing you to submit for voter registration *at* the DMV. It is not about giving the right to vote to people with drivers licenses. They are two entirely different processes. Motor Voter was a _huge_ success in increasing voter registration by making it convient for the average person.

    Right. And I'm sure they were donors to the Clinton Administration as well.

    From what I've been reading. O'Dell, CEO of Diebold, has been reliably quoted as saying that he will deliver states to the Republican party.
    Chuck Hagel, a republican senator, was at one time (and probably still is) a part owner of Election Systems and Software (ES&S).

    It does not matter if they *are* being evil, what matters is that they should not even be _close_ to voting companies. It is a clear conflict of interest and smells bad no matter how you put it. I'd go further and say that all voting machines should not be done by companies at all -- too much at risk.

    This has nothing to do with conspiricy theory, it has everything to do with common sense. You lock doors of your house, not to keep bad people out, but to "keep honest people honest". Power corrupts. And these people should not be putting themselves in to places where they could be corrupted, or even give the appearance of being corrupt. Its just wrong.

  34. Re:Why oh why by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only reason 95% of Americans wouldn't like Hitler is because they KNOW about Hitler. If Hitler was starting today, he'd be Bush's campaign director, or Secretary of Defense (since he came from the military initially - and with the Iron Cross to boot).

    A large number of Americans supported Hitler in the 1930's - including Prescott Bush, George's grandfather who eventually had his bank taken away from him by the US government for supporting the Nazis.

    Bush is at least as much a raving rightwing religious lunatic as Hitler was (he has allegedly been found face down on the Oval Office floor praying) - and he has much more power and much less control and much less opposition in this country than Hitler did in Germany.

    Finally, Bush's cronies, the neocons, are mostly neo-Troskyites. It's amusing to me that the rightwing Christian Zionists are all supporting people who follow other people who were essentially ex-Communists! It doesn't get more bizarre than this.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  35. Re:A Republican agrees by dfranks · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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

    You may disagree with Gore Vidal, but while being quite inflamatory, he is articulate enough in expressing his position that I don't think it is fair to characterize him as an idiot.

    More importantly, not being born in the US does not in any way reduce the value of your insights and opinion on the American system. I was born in NZ, and have lived in several other countries since then. I can assure you that I know a lot more about the US constitution and current government than the average native, and seeing how things work in other countries provides additional insight into the best and worst aspects of different governments and forms of government.

    I have always believed, and continue to believe that the US is the best country in the world to live in, but lately the margin is getting smaller and smaller (IMHO).

  36. And what planet are you on? by lysium · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Maybe a few of the big ones are known for conservatism, but the vast majority are certianly not.

    So you are telling me that the majority of newspapers -- which are municipal, county, and regional publications -- are liberal? It goes to follow, then, that massively-syndicated columnists like Dear Abby are also liberal. Does this mean that staunch conservatives in your strange corner of reality read the The New York Times for their daily dose of news?

    ========

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    1. Re:And what planet are you on? by Jett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of those "small" papers are in fact owned by large companies like Gannet and Knight-Ridder. I know in my own town the paper was privately owned by a conservative businessman and while somewhat conservative was still relatively fair (unless business issues were involved). Until about 4 years ago when Gannet bought it out. They gutted the staff, brought in a bunch of out of town people to run it and now it is very conservative and even more "business is always right".

      Is there such a thing as a real independent newspaper anymore? As far as I know they all got bought by big companies.

    2. Re:And what planet are you on? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Funny
      It goes to follow, then, that massively-syndicated columnists like Dear Abby are also liberal.

      I take it that you failed your course in logic?
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  37. Vidal Opposes BushCo: +100, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you don't believe that the U.S. is a now a dictatorship and
    are not operating under Plan G, after you read this, you WILL believe
    the U.S. is a dictatorship and implement Plan G:


    Despots in the Whitehouse :

    We are the patriots

    How is it possible for the US to engage in
    wars without the consensus of a large part of
    the American people? Gore Vidal places the
    question within a historical perspective that
    reveals the remarkable foresight of Benjamin
    Franklin

    I belong to a minority that is now one of the smallest in the country and, with every day, grows smaller. I am a veteran of World War II. And I can recall thinking, when I got out of the Army in 1946, Well, that's that. We won. And those
    who come after us will never need do this again. Then came the two mad wars of imperial vanity--Korea and Vietnam. They were bitter for us, not to mention for the so-called enemy. Next we were enrolled in a perpetual war against
    what seemed to be the enemy-of-the-month club. This war kept major revenues going to military procurement and secret police, while withholding money from us, the taxpayers, with our petty concerns for life, liberty and the
    pursuit of happiness.

    But no matter how corrupt our system became over the last
    century--and I lived through three-quarters of it--we still
    held on to the Constitution and, above all, to the Bill of
    Rights. No matter how bad things got, I never once
    believed that I would see a great part of the nation--of we
    the people, unconsulted and unrepresented in a matter of
    war and peace-demonstrating in such numbers against an
    arbitrary and secret government, preparing and conducting
    wars for us, or at least for an army recruited from the
    unemployed to fight in. Sensibly, they now leave much of
    the fighting to the uneducated, to the excluded.

    During Vietnam Bush fled to the Texas Air National Guard.
    Cheney, when asked why he avoided service in Vietnam,
    replied, "I had other priorities." Well, so did 12 million of us
    sixty years ago. Priorities that 290,000 were never able to
    fulfill.

    So who's to blame? Us? Them? Well, we can safely blame
    certain oil and gas hustlers who have effectively hijacked the
    government from presidency to Congress to, most
    ominously, the judiciary. How did they do it? Curiously, the
    means have always been there. It took the higher greed
    and other interests to make this coup d'Ttat work.

    It was Benjamin Franklin, of all people, who saw our future
    most clearly back in 1787, when, as a delegate to the
    Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, he read for the
    first time the proposed Constitution. He was old; he was
    dying; he was not well enough to speak but he had
    prepared a text that a friend read. It is so dark a statement
    that most school history books omit his key words.

    Franklin urged the convention to accept the Constitution
    despite what he took to be its great faults, because it might,
    he said, provide good government in the short term. "There
    is no form of government but what may be a blessing to
    the people if well administered, and I believe farther that
    this is likely to be well administered for a course of years,
    and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done
    before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to
    need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
    Think of Enron, Merrill Lynch, etc., of chads and butterfly
    ballots, of Scalia's son arguing before his unrecused father
    at the Supreme Court while unrecused Thomas sits silently
    by, his wife already at work for the approaching Bush
    Administration. Think, finally, of the electoral college, a piece
    of dubious, antidemocratic machinery that Franklin
    doubtless saw as a source of deepest corruption and
    subsequent mischief for the Republic, as happened not only
    in 1876 but in 2000.

    Frankli

    1. Re:Vidal Opposes BushCo: +100, Patriotic by demachina · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Here is another good read that somehow hasn't seen any mainstream media play:

      http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm

      The gist of it is Prescott Bush, George W's grandfather, was a business partner of the Thyssen and Flick families, who helped bankroll the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party from 1923-1942. Flick funded the S.S. and S.A. in their early years. Thyssen wrote a book "I Paid Hitler" describing his financial support for Hitler from 1923.


      It is quite possible the Bush family helped make the rise of Hitler possible.


      In 1942 the U.S. Government seized the assets of Union Bank, Seemless Steel and Holland American trading, all run by Prescott Bush, for the Harriman family, for being Nazi fronts which were at the time trading with the enemy. Among other things it appears Union bank was a front for Flick and the German Steel Trust which was the major manufacturer of steel and explosives for the Nazi war machine.


      It kind of sounds like the Bush family were rather fond of totalitarian governments and were particularly fond of them in the 30's when the western democracies were in collapse and there was a lot of money to be made in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. They may well have endorsed the rise of Hitler as they saw it as a chance to make a lot of money banking and trading with Germany.

      --
      @de_machina
  38. Networks by BugMaster+ChuckyD · · Score: 2, Interesting

    you mean the ones owned by giant corporations? Like general Electric for instance? G.E. being a major defence contractor is sure to hire a bunch of pacifist lefties for their news operation because that would help their bottom line, right? I mean just look at the hard in dpeth questioning Bush got during the run up to the invasion of Iraq. The liberal media was out there all the time questioning whether Iraq had WMDs and whether they had ties to terrorists etc. Not.

  39. We don't know either way ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 2, Interesting
    if there are any American citizens at Gitmo. The current adminstration won't give anyone (including the Red Cross) a listing of who is there.

    We do, of course, have two American citizens (Padilla and Hamdi) declared as enemy combatants kept in Naval brigs, not charged with any crimes, not allowed access to lawyers, not allowed the right to remain silent, held indefinitely by fiat of W alone. But you're right, they're not at Gitmo. They're here in the US.

  40. Re:the 10% by ianjk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody ever seems to get this. I have a few friends (quite liberal) in media, mostly in entertainment (although this should apply to all facets). Nothing will ever make it to press without approval from the 'top 10%' as you put it.

  41. Vote!!! by ianfs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All I can hope for is that all of the people who are yelling about how evil Bush is get out and vote next November. If every person here on Slashdot votes next year we'll get him out for good. And if the guy we vote in sucks then lets vote him out as well and keep voting them out until they get the message that THEY work for US.

    --
    "Terminate?"
    "Terminate... with extreme prejudice"
  42. Re:Why oh why by Usquebaugh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are strong parallels between early Hitler and the current Bush. I'm not saying that Bush is or is going to be as bad as Hitler. The big difference to my mind is that Hitler served in the trenches during the WWI, Bush hid in Texas during Vietnam. If you cannot see the danger in :- the new laws like the Patriot Act, treating POWs as examples, Guantanemo Bay, the use of no-bid contracts by the executive, the new people employed to spy on Americans, the increased control exerted over the military, the attempts to obilterate any dissent, the new selective service jobs, then feel free to read what Hitler was doing after his first election. I take it you have the books you so freely ask others to read? Bush got rid of two dictatorships, I assume you mean Afghanistan and Iraq. My politcal knowledge is limited but I do not think Afghanistan was a dictatorship, no single leader you see. Also, Saddam is not accounted for, his dictatorship is seemingly gone. Why did the US invade these countries? We were after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and WMD in Iraq. 100% failure so far. Silly me I was forgetting the world is rid of two dictatorships. Now I see you're anger when people compare Bush to Hitler. Hitler could plan a decent shock and awe, I mean blitzakrieg, campaign. Bush couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

  43. EFF action alert on this. by Irvu · · Score: 4, Informative

    The EFF is running an action alert on the Voter confidence and Increased Accessability act of 2003 which mandates public review of the machines (i.e. opening the source for review) and including paper recipts for recounts. U.S. Citizens can go here to submit a letter to your congressional rep.

    What's a few minutes of your time for democracy?

  44. Re:this by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
    > The end result? Two and a half hours of badly edited and occasionally intelligible dialogue punctuated by random acts of violence, sex, and a lot of background nudity.

    Maybe I'm new here, but I'm really failing to see the problem...

  45. Re:gore vidal: lost all touch with reality by MKalus · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Another absurd statement; health care in the USA is the best in the world. Oh wait, he means health care paid for by the taxpayer. There are plenty of private health insurers and hospitals are forbidden to turn away patients who cannot pay.


    Though I am sure they do just what is necessary to not let you die.....

    Thanks to superior medical care and a solid national defence...


    Half of his time he spent in Europe tough....

    Umm, what about last week's unemployment numbers down to 6 from 61? Umm, what about the stock market up significantly from the first of the year? Umm, what about corporate earnings meeting and beating expectations (which are up from last year)?


    Actually those numbers, even though they look nice, don't paint an accureate picture.

    Once people loose their unemployment benefits they also fall out of the statistic, so in essence it could just mean there are no further job losses, but not necessarily the creation of new ones.

    Likewise, when the numbers were climbing, they were also understating.

    In comparision: In Germany for example anybody who is without a job and because of this is on any kind of welfare is going to be counted in the stats, thus the numbers in Germany for example, tend to be higher.
    --
    If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  46. Re:man with an agenda by WNight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now you're just trolling. If Slashdot is a "liberal" blog, you have a twisted idea of Liberal.

    I'm suprised there are so many ultra-conservative, love it or leave it, our president - right or wrong, types on here. It'd make me say that Slashdot had been invaded by Ditto-heads.

    It is very on-topic that these Electronic Voting proponents are connected to the Republicans. The Republicans who many people believe both cheated and unfairly took advantage of errors in the Florida election. The fact that these companies are very obviously Republican supporters, and that they have donated to the Republicans, goes together with the apparent corruption in that party and suggests that perhaps some of the insecurity of the electronic voting platforms (and the reason it's not generated a lot more noise in the government) is intentional.

    The fact is that these companies publicly support the Republicans, and that the Republicans are the largest proponents of using these machines. The conclusions are your own, but an article that mention how one political party seems to be embracing flawed technology (which has been discussed here) seems on-topic.

  47. Re:A Republican agrees by zo219 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Idiocy: The swift, wholly uneducated dismissal of that which is above one.

  48. an idiot? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Look, you may disagree with him, but Gore Vidal is one of the country's foremost writers and public intellectuals. He's been writing and publishing a sustained and articulate critique of the current directions of American political leadership -- from a decidedly patriotic, and small-r republican, perspective -- for decades. He was one of the most prominent intellectuals in this nation before I was born. Disagree with him all you like, but calling him an "idiot" like that betrays an incredible depth of ignorance.

  49. Sour grapes? by rnd() · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gore Vidal is related (albeit distantly) to Al Gore. Doesn't this sound like sour grapes to you? Plus, he's got a new book out so he's probably going after some free publicity. The new book looks pretty good, though, I must say.

    --

    Amazing magic tricks