Slashdot Mirror
Bush Says Americans 'Ought to Have' Broadband and a Pony by 2007
wrttnwrd writes "George Bush is calling for universal broadband by 2007. He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough? (for all of you Boondocks readers out there)" First step to universal broadband: don't have your Justice Department argue against communities providing their own broadband service. And don't forget the pony!
Fetch the man his coffee, post haste!
Some Americans have yet to receive their forty acres and mules.
This is the same group of people that think it would be a 'good idea' to reclassify fastfood workers as manufacturers because they 'make things'.
This, much like the Bush anti-terror policies are all about getting Bush a win in 2004. They are not about solving they problems at hand.
1. Anger most of the population
2. Attempt to win them over with cheap internet
3. ???
4. Pro...Re-election!
Bush will have broadband in everyone's home about the same time he lands humans on Mars.
Rank Presidents by th
homeland security plans.
When everyone has XP and DRM and ABC and DEF and CIA, then braodband to boot, no amount of tinfoil on earth will cloak your activities from BB...
Of what a joyous future ahead...
Presidential candidates say absolutely anything to get themselves elected. More on this at 10:00pm...
Is this anything like a certain other organization stating that everyone "ought to have" universal health care, without saying how, or who's going to pay for it, etc? This is a normal function of politicians, folks, nothing to see here.
As much I would like to have cheap broadband. This is obviously a last ditch effort to get the /.er's vote.
But hey, wouldn't universal broadband be kewl!!!!????
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
If we're going to have "Universial Service" for Internet access, we first need to determine what level of service is going to be considered the universial level.
For example, lets consider phones... The USF for telephone service assures that everybody can get access to POTS. But, it's exactly Plain Old Telephone Service, a dialtone. Any advanced services are not included in the subsidized rates, so customers are on their own if they want Caller ID, Call Waiting, or Three Way Calling to work. Cellular customers have to pay into the USF fund because they are connecting to the phone network, but they get no subsidies out because cell service is most definitely above the universial level of service. However, this also means that cell network operators are not responsible for getting their networks extended into areas where they don't think it would be profitable to operate.
The other key thing about phone service is that it only costs about $5 to get the hardware you need to fully enjoy all of the features of Plain Old Telephone Service. Sure, there are more expensive telephones are the market, but those all ofter additional features beyond what it takes to interface with the telephone network. It's not an unfair burden to expect somebody to be able to afford to buy their own phone hardware. But, just what is the minimum feature set of a computer to enjoy the Internet? Is Lynx a good enough browser, or do we have to assure that the subsidized level of service can deliver Mozilla?
And, just what technical definition of "broadband" will the subsidized service use? Afterall, DSL and Cable Models come in various speeds of upload and download last-mile links, and how congested the network is after you get off the last mile is also variable and hard-to-quantify. The debate as to what would be defined as "Plain Old Broadband Internet Service" is far from settled.
Bush is giving off a nice thought for an election year proposal... but it seems like this is so lacking in details it can't exactly be taken seriously yet.
I advise all slashdot readers to vote for this patriot on the upcoming election!
Bush is all about freedom, has been and always will be.
This man knows every american has a universal right; and that is to download pornography at high speeds.
the reason the Justice department is arguing against co-op broadband systems is then his big business buddies in the telecom and cable industry don't get paid....see, he wants to get a spending bill passed that will subsidize the expansion of DSL and Cable, but if co-ops form, that means less money for his porky friends.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
...has been replaced by a bold new "don't tax, and spend" policy.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What he meant is that he wants broads banned, universally.
What a sexist pig!
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
Although I am in favor of broader adoption of broadband, I do see a couple of downsides:
1. More telecom taxes to support universal service (including taxes on VoIP)
2. more zombie boxen and virus datastorms from clueless broadband users
We shall see if universal service improves the economies of scale enough to cover the increased costs of taxes and AV/firewall.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Has there ever been a stronger cause for Americans to unite behind?
Who needs broadband when you have AOL with TOPSPEED technology?
oh wait...
I agree. All Americans ought to have it.
When GWB proposes spending government money on this, please get back to me.
Ok, great. so he's proposing all these programs, like hte Mars mission, ubiquitous broadband-- the thing is, he doesn't actually plan on coming through on any of them. It's called "starving the beast".
In bold print on the first page of the long-term conservative playbook is a tactic called "Starving The Beast". It goes like this:
* lower taxes (especially for your friends) to the point where a fiscal train wreck finally ensues.
*declare that "raising" taxes (returning them to a prior level) would destroy the economy, and that the only solution is to gut Social Security and other unwanted New Deal programs.
"Starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario -- it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.
Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants, like missile defense.
Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system -- the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical -- continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve.
But yeah, ubiquitous broadband is a great idea, if he actually meant it.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I am sorry, but broadband in the household is not like FDR's Public Works Proejcts of the 1930's. Roosevelt used such initiatives to give work to those hammered by the Great Depression while simultaneously modernizing the US infrastructure - electricity for rural communities and the like.
I agree people should have broadband, but Bush needs to let ECONOMICS drive that, not legislation. When demand is high enough, providers will answer. Until then, there are plenty of other issues our government needs to take a look at.
Here's a hint, turn your head East.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
I'm sorry, but I read slash dot for tech news. Not political opinions, if I want to read that I'll check out the opinion page of my local news paper. I think it's disgraceful for the slashdot editors to allow this story be posted.
Bush is probably looking to propose a plan comparable to FDR's REA (Rural Electrification Administration) which funded power lines to rural developments and encouraged rural businesses to adopt newer technologies. I hope Bush will take a lesson from FDR and not only extend BB access to rural homes and businesses but to give funding to poorer families and rural businesses to help close the "digital divide". For more information on the REA, see http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/1930s/newdeal .html
Before we get all excited about universal broadband, we should consider parts of the country that haven't even received narrow-band telephone lines.
massmailing free AOL for Broadband CDs to every known address in the US.
AOL for broadband - It's faster! It's smarter! It's included!
On dial-up surf the web upto 5x times faster than a standard dial-up connection with AOL TopSpeed(TM) technology all through your existing phone jack at no additional charge!
That could work.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
Broadband for everyone? That's just what RIAA needs to stop the music pirates. I heard that 50 million figures for p2p networks are way overblown, but with the help of W they will become a reality.
I say, kudos to the president Bush.
I mean, this is a news site, right? We just wouldn't make things up out of thin air to push our agenda here, would we?
I ask this because the Pony part seems unbelievable to me.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Howard Dean had proposed this, we'd be seeing tons of posts on how visionary it was.
I loved "independent" thinkers.
This is just nuts, both technologically, and unprofitable wise, as going to Mars by 2020.
The amount of switches needed to put everyone on ground based broadband is nuts. I live out in an area where there is no cable TV, and a sparse population, so there is no highspeed option. And you can't consider Satellite an option yet, because 2 way is too expensive for a single household, and one way you still need the expensive dialup account.
Canada promised to give highspeed access to everyone by about this time, and the project just needs technology to catch up with consumer will.
I also don't think it is a good idea to give everyone and their dog access to highspeed Internet. With the inherent insecurities in the Internet's design, it is stupid to give attack capabilities to people who are unable and unwilling to keep their computers free of worms and trojans. The very safety of the Internet relies on some people not having quick service to the net.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Before that, maybe the U.S. should first tackle the phoneless problem, seeing that there are 5 million households(5%) without a phone(pdf.
5.6% unemployment: Low for Clinton, High for Bush.
See how life is unfair: Al Gore invents the Internet, now Dubbya profit from it. The system should have some kind of protection to prevent people from stealing each other's ideas...
Hey Ace,
;-D
This isn't politics, this is Our Great Commander coming up with a brilliantly daring strike to lasso-up broadband for the benefit of all Americans.
I wouldn't be surprised if his experiences with AOL Top Speed led him to this inspired proposal to free all of us from the agony of slow access. If this doesn't just put a cherry on top of all the ways he's thought about the little feller, I don't know what does.
You made a mistake. The mistake is you made the assumption that Bush is a conservative. He says he is, but his actions prove otherwise. (But he sure has fooled a bunch of people)
He just wishes to be stay in power and will damn near say anyting to stay in the whitehouse.
The unemployment rate is going down ... the current rate is better than in most other industrialized nations and is about the same as clinton's during his first term.
It's just that with all the, ahem, "technological advances" we've made in the past few years, reporters now have a much easier time finding unemployed workers to interview every single night than they did a mere 10 years ago. Ain't technology grand?
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Just figured I'd let you know, your poll is unscientific as its a voluntary response poll - they're most likely biased because people with strong opinions, both positive and negative, are most likely to respond. Besides, every American knows that Jimmy Carter was the worst President ever.
Broadband for everyone probably means broadband taxes for everyone.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
If one were going to make a broad comment like "every American should have broadband" by a certain date, it seems to me like the point has been missed completely.
Public schools are woefully behind in technology. This should not be a surprise to anyone. But the bigger issue, I think, is that what President Bush has suggested is that every American should have Broadband in their home by 2007. It would seem to me that if students aren't learning computers in school, the only advantage to having Broadband at home would be to spend all day on Slashdot (not that there's anything wrong with that) wishing you could find work or get into college with your underdeveloped skills.
Putting the cart before the horse, aren't we?
Choice quote: "make sure that as soon as possible thereafter [that] consumers have plenty of choices" What do you think that means? I can tell you.
In Kentucky, they are pushing state deregulation of telcos to encourage new investment in broadband in new areas.
The result? They will charge competitors more thus pricing out competition allowing them to charge exhuberant prices to consumers.
I expect this is an announcement of similar steps on the federal level.
In the end, these are attacks on small startups and consumers in the form of ruthless monopolistic practices on the part of telcos and high prices for consumers.
But this is what big business is all about and Bush is a big business kind of guy. Thus I am perplexed why the common man would be so in favor of him but that is another discussion altogether.
First step to universal broadband: don't have your Justice Department argue against communities providing their own broadband service.
For my part, I don't care whether you like George Bush or not. (I do, but that's my opinion, and nobody says you have to share it.)
Seriously though Michael, if you want to show ANY sort of objectivity on this kind of thing, don't make such statements--they totally sound like flamebait. There may be pros and cons to the idea of communities providing their own broadband service, but I wouldn't know it from listening to you, michael. I don't see any facts backing up what you say, either.
However, all this aside, I think there IS a legitimate case to be made that it is better to have private business (corrupt as it appears to be right now) do such things than have governments attempt to create a virtual government-run monopoly. After all, I'll agree with you ANY day that our Big Business Community(tm) is corrupt. But by that same token: why on earth should we simply to assume that the government is totally free of corruption?
but with wi-fi hotspots everywhere like that what will happen to hte poor chaps with the tinfoil hats? Won't all those radio signals fry their brains?
because unlike free health care this is something big companies (RIAA, MPAA, etc) want to see happen. It'll let them kill off those nasty buy-once/unlimited-play formats (CD/DVD). As for who's gonna pay for it, well, I don't know about you but Bush raised my taxes (on about $10,000 bucks in earnings no less; while cutting the taxes for millioniars. But that's another rant all together).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is the same group of people that think it would be a 'good idea' to reclassify fastfood workers as manufacturers because they 'make things'.
This, much like the Bush anti-terror policies are all about getting Bush a win in 2004. They are not about solving they problems at hand
While its a nice political gesture to want everyone to have broadband ( its not a necessity, but its nice to have ), how about everyone having a job to pay for it?
That would be much more useful, with how jobs are flying out of the country at a frightening pace.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
if this trial ballon of his goes anywhere:
1) Ban all granting of monopolies to broadband service companies. This does mean pulling rank over state and local governments, but the Democrats have tortured the Interstate Commerce Clause a lot worse than this.
2) Stop forcing the telcos to share their networks, but mandate network interoperability. The latter is redundant since it's part of the definition of the Internet, but the average journalist and politician doesn't know that so it's best to specify. After this, the telcos will have to put up or shut up about building proper broadband networks, and if they don't, someone else will hopefully come in and kick their ass.
3) Put the DOJ on the short leash over their trying to block community-run broadband. So long as local governments don't grant themselves a monopoly or do anything else blatantly anticompetitive, leave them alone.
Basically, get the frickin' lawyers out of the way and let the usual process of Darwinian natural selection begin.
This seems to be the only thing this guy is good at making a lot of noise about stuff that will never get done because with all the tax cuts, there is no funding to actually do anything like fix the schools, go to mars or build infrastructure of any kind the only thing our govt is doing is wasting what money they do have.
You can legislate morally you can't legislate morality
Even though this is from 1994 let me guess that the survey asked for landlines and the increase is due to switch to mobile. Second I did a little googeling and it seems the the Phone question was one of the ones targeted as a NOSY question and a few groups were advocating "Just say no" to that one.
Young men even in the lower income bracket is the one with the most discretionary money.
Meaning most likely wrong and the portion that is "right" it is of Choice not Necessity
Help fight continental drift.
I thought most communities don't allow ponies for pets these days. Couldn't imagine what all those apartment dwellers with ponies anyways.
The problem with unemployment stats is that they only tell the story of how many people applied and how many are still on unemployment rolls. The do not reflect those who have run out of unemployment, or took shit jobs asking if you want fries with that. The fact is, good jobs that pay a living wage are growing more and more scarce. Except, of course, unless you happen to be a CEO, in which case you are making more than ever!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I submitted this story 3 days ago. I guess my post wasn't Anti-Bush enough to be accepted.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
the reason the Justice department is arguing against co-op broadband systems is then his big business buddies in the telecom and cable industry don't get paid...
That's an interesting interpretation.
Especially given that they're NOT arguing aginst broadband operated by co-ops. (Which, by the way, the explicitly support, along with broadband supplied by other little companies, even if it competes with their "big business buddies".)
They're arguing against broadband companies run by county and local GOVERNMENTS. And even then they're only arguing against them when they're implemented in violation of the objections of the STATE governments from which the smaller governments derive their powers and mandates.
The issue was STRICTLY whether an FCC regulation allowing "any entity" to operate a broadband company free of state regulation could be used by cities, counties, and the like, as arms of their state, to escape control by their state legislatures and constitutions.
But of course certain rabid Bush-haters just LOVE to lie about it, claiming that the Bush administration is trying to block small broadband carriers, rather than to block governments from squeezing them out, with tax-subsidized unfair competition and conflict-of-interest driven regulatory roadblocks against any little guy that wants to compete with THEIR operation.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If they pay for it, they'll want to be able to control it, too. That means DRM and trusted computing, and Carnivore too.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
You need to have an economy with low deficit, high employment and healthy growth before you can have the funding for such lesser things as broadband.
bring it on! --- JFK
Politics blows. I really wish we could evolve beyond it, but some structure (read: flaw) in the human mind just won't allow it.
Damn these simian brains!
--- Ban humanity.
"He doesn't say how, or who's going to pay for it, or who's going to build it, but hey, isn't almost good enough?"
I'm noticing a lot of people don't seem to have a problem believing we'll all be watching hi-def TV's by 2005, but somehow this is beyond the realm of possibility. Not that buying a new hi-def TV will cost you any, right? Ask yourself the same damn questions posed here about Hi-def and you'll probably get answers that can easily be applied to braodband here. I mean, is it really such a leap, or does somebody bare a political grudge???
Yeah, thought so.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
We can have broadband in every home now w/o stringing more wires. We would have to launch more satellites. Do the same for satellite connnected Internet service through the FCC, as the FCC did for satellite based television. Allow for up to a 1 meter dish (actually make it 1.5 meters since this is an uplink as well) in the 48 "lower states" and give AK and HI up to 6 feet, preempting any restrictive covenents, local ordances, homeowners agreements, etc. in the name of fostering competition. Then lower the barrier to entry for getting a licensed satellite in orbit for the purpose of delivering Internet service to foster competition on that side. So lower taxes on Internet distribution companies, etc. to allow builduout of the infrastructure to keep the rates on par with cable modem delivered Internet. And allow up to 2 meters for combined two-way satellite and DBS dishes if it is a single combined dish installation (that lets one install the more compact higher gain double reflector "orange peel" elliptical dishes.
The short side is, I'd rather see tax breaks for companies that deliver phone and network services to the rural areas on par with the suburban and urban prices rather than have my bills go up (or have me raise my ISP customers bills) to pay for the rural service areas.
Just like I feel for individual taxes, we ought have a uniform flat rate for corporate taxes with a single small/new business deduction (no taxes for the first $50,000 earned, flat rate above that would be nice but you'd have to work out the level of the deduction to encourage and support new and small businesses). Then give limited targeted tax breaks for the areas you want to encourage. Capitalism will then take over and do the heavy lifting.
If it did not cost anything to get the license for a satellite for dedicated Internet two-way service and the launch was done at cost (or subsidized if you were flexible about the launch timing) if all the technical and saftey details were met, etc. We'd have multiple folks offering cheap internet service from space at that point.
Free to the community to use. Launch a constellation of satellites (similar to the GPS ones) that all communicat with each other and communicate with ground stations that use GPS-like control to find the satellites and track them. When traffic drops on the connection to a low level, change the connection point. Put a radome 1.5 meters in diameter on your roof that covers the antenna and if in an area with snow or ice, steal exhaust air from the house and blow it through the radome before doing further heat recovery or flusing it to the outside world. Equipment could be subsidized through the length of the contract for service (just like free cell phones) to reduce the initial sticker shock.
Or, subsidze research to limit or elliminate the nasty side affects of interference from powerline distribution of Internet service. For example they would be greatly reduced if during routine powerline maintenance they replaced the ground wire of the high tension line with "fog wire" (fiberoptic core with a copper / steel reinforced wrap/cover). One could allow for limited powerline distribution for 5-10 years to be gradually replaced by "fog wire" style distribution (require all new or repaired rural power grid systems to use fogwire?).
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
...he's driving hard to win Hispanic voters (along with Jeb) in Flordia...
Frankly, I think that Jeb would vote for Dubya even without that.
#1. Bush was AWOL. Absent WithOut Leave. He was not at the place he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there. It doesn't matter how long Bush spent training, what matters is whether he was where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there.
/ petition. cfm?itemid=15977
#2. Bush attends funerals? Do you have any support for this statement? Everything I've seen says the opposite. In fact, here's a petition to get him to change:
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism
#3. Yet the suicide rate amongst our troops in Iraq is significantly higher than other times. I find it strange how you can know what "most" troops over there believe. Particularly when there are reports of low morale amongst many of them.
#4. The failure in Iraq is Clinton's fault? But Clinton's policy was what made the invasion so easy. Clinton kept up the sanctions and Iraq was not able to rebuild their weapons. Or did you mean that Clinton was responsible for the lack of planning about how to handle Iraq AFTER the invasion?
#5. Yep, under Clarke, 5 attacks did happen. So, because he wasn't infallible then, he's wrong now? Nice "logic" there.
#6. Whatever. The guy is a registered Republican and worked for Bush the Elder. I find it hard to believe that he couldn't get another job in Washington.
#7. No. Halliburton only met the criteria because the criteria was designed to choose Halliburton. A better use would have been to contract with other ARAB companies to do the work.
"First, we're up to 591 now."
When did Iraqis cease to count as people?
My Blog
We'll get our broadband and our ponies. As soon as he figures out how to get them to Mars.
Situations like this reiterate the need for the government to subsidize fiber to every home. We could put phone service, cable television, and internet access on the 1 fiber line going into each home.
The technology is available, why don't we embrace it?
Obviously we can count cable modems out. Cable television isn't generally availible to those people in the fringes that receive service subsidized by the USF.
The biggest issue is those customers that are "on fiber." DSL works by transporting the data signals alongside the analog phone calls. In rural areas, they use multiplexors to provide service. This means there is no way to colocate the DSL equipment at the central office and extend service, since the layout is more distributed and connected by fiber.
If the multiplexors were upgraded, or new cards developed there shouldn't be much of a problem pushing the speed of the fiber up and then using that excess bandwidth to provide DSL service. In the remote multiplexor you could house new circuit cards that provide DSL + Analog capability.
There are plenty of companies out there working in this market, and this type of solution probably already exists. If nothing else, they could buy DSLAMS from eBay and rack them out remotely.
It might even be possible to exted ISDN (64k channels) off of the multiplexors.
Phone companies don't seem to want to do things until shoved. Bell Atlantic (now Verizon) kept the prices of ISDN at $250 a month well into the day of cable modem deployment.
My parents retired to an area that lacks broadband. It isn't that it would be hard to do, it is just the telcos don't seem to care. And there would easily be enough subscribers to support racking out a DSLAM in a cabinet next to the fiber mux that is servicing the community. If I lived closer, I would probably try to do it.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
You overlooked this vision with $1B funding increase over 5 years with a complete reorganization of NASA (and $) toward this vision.
Our President "actually proposed spending government money on [this vision] during his term" along with hundreds of other initiatives. Iraq may be important but perhaps we're too focused on it (a tree - a big one, granted) and missing the forest.
1: The Bush admin states that the US economy is doing great, and has been for 12-18 months.
2: They have also issued reports stating that offshoring of our tech business will be a 'good thing'. Please explain why China will need us after they get all the tech from the USA they can.
3: Appalachia is still one of the poorest areas in the US so you may want to rethink using that area as an example.
No one can say what the Vietnamese government would have been like if the French hadn't insisted on resuming colonial control in 1945, which was when the Vietnamese switched from fighting Japanese occupiers to fighting the French who had American assistance. The only assistance they could get was from the communists, so of course they took it, just as our own war against a colonial master was assisted by the French, who we were at war with just a few years later. To ignore all that is about as ridiculous as possible. A whole lot of the crap that has gone on in Vietnam is directly attributable to the natives trying to shake off colonial powers. We appointed ourselves their saviors, they did not ask for our help or want it. To claim that the South Vietnamese government was in any way better than the north is a sure sign of someone who knows nothing.
There was absolutely no rational reason for us to be there. The first torpedo boat attack on our destroyers was a direct result of our destroyers backing up a South Vietnamese attack on the north, and would not have occurred if we hadn't been attacking them to start with. The second attack, which triggered the congressional resolution which started the massive US involvement, was a complete fabrication and never happened.
And the US isn't controlling things in Iraq, wow that is news to just about everybody else in the world.
Why don't you check out what it means to be the controlling power in Iraq, to be the occupier? How you can claim we aren't the controlling power is beyond me.
Of course, I do not expect you to understand this.
Infuriate left and right
Ah yes, they "knew the risk and accepted it"--good to see you have a solid grasp of class issues. More like: really needed the money and joined before Sept. 11th with the pretty justifiable assumption that the US wouldn't be going to war any time soon.
Or something
But since you, obviously, are wealthy enough to have avoided military service, I guess you can't ask them how they feel about being in Iraq.
Bush says Americans 'Ought to Be Working' and the working, homeless 'Ought to buy a House'. Get out your bootstraps and pull man, PULL.
just me. Still, I doubt I'm the only one paying more in taxes. Moreover, why the hell should a millionaire be getting a tax break in the first place. It seems to me those who are recieving more benefit from society (i.e. the wealthy who owe that wealth to society, since no single individual could possibly gather that much wealth alone) should shoulder the most burden.
And what 'services' are you talking about? I pay for my own education, health care, housing and transportation (and yes, I know education is subsidised, but that ought to come from my state taxes). If you mean the military, I say let's cut back on oil use by forcing public transportation on everyone (and maybe building a few more nuclear power plants) and we'll see how much of a military we really _need_ (apart from the nukes to keep China at bay, which we really do need).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Except the AWOL aligations were false, and the White House proved otherwise. This was a blatent attempt of the Democrats to portray John Kerry as the "war hero" while Bush as a deserter.
1 -bush-guard-usat_x.htm
In fact, the White House didn't have a leg to stand on. They talked out their asses for a while until they convinced everyone who doesn't pay attention that they had a case. If you paid attention, like I did, you'd have a different view. To give you some documentation, I googled it. Here's a good article on the subject:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-1
It's from USA Today. A relevant excerpt (boldfaces mine):
In an interview that aired Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Bush said he fulfilled his Guard commitment and offered to make his records public. Host Tim Russert asked, "Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush replied, "Yes, absolutely."
Since then, White House officials have released only documents concerning whether Bush fulfilled his service obligations. White House statements have not addressed the release of any papers that could show disciplinary actions, medical exams, legal scrapes and the like.
On Tuesday, the White House released pay records from a military archive in Denver that it said showed Bush was paid for at least the minimum training time he was obligated for in 1972 and 1973.
But the records showed only what days he was paid for, not where he was or what duty he performed. Neither did they address outstanding questions about why Bush missed a required physical in 1972, forcing him to stop flying, or what happened during a five-month gap in 1972 when Bush didn't show up for training.
Here's another article for your perusal (boldfacing mine, again):
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the records "show that he was paid for his service, and you get paid for the days on which you serve."
That's the proof the white house had, BTW. Pay records. I've heard members of the national guard at the time say that they had managed to get paid without even showing up for duty. We'll assume for the sake of argument that GWB was 'getting paid for the days on which he served,' though:
The records indicate that between May 1972 and May 1973, Bush served 14 days -- two days in October, four days in November, six days in January and two days in April. The White House offered no indication of why there was a gap in Bush's service from April to October, 1972.
That's a five month gap. Nobody knows where he was during those five months.
AWOL----absent for 30 days or less.
Desertion-----absent for more than 30 days with evidence of no intent to return to duty.
Five months-----150 days
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
#1. Yep, that link says that. Pity it doesn't examine the DATES. :)
. ph p
e /
:)
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/printDS/9872
Seems that Bush was seen somewhere he wasn't.
#2. Okay, you've gone from claiming that Bush did attend funerals to claiming that OTHER presidents did not attend funerals.
You don't understand this "substantiation" thing, do you? It isn't about what OTHER presidents have done. It is about what BUSH DID and DID NOT DO.
#3. You say: "It's possible that troops are depressed in Iraq due to a number of factors (heck, they are being shot at), but this does not mean they do not agree with the efforts."
But you had previously stated: "I know, personally, many marines who see that rescuing 25 million as a worthy cause, and one to risk their life for."
So, they feel that the goal is worth risking their lives for, but they get depressed over risking their lives?
#4. "You're taking what I said out of context, which is what you Demo'rats like to do."
No, what I'm doing is showing that the FACTS do not agree with your story. Clinton's policy of continuing the sanctions is what kept Iraq from rebuilding their military. Which means fewer US troops died during the invasion.
The "failure" is that there was no plan for AFTER the invasion.
#5. Which is why Clarke wants ALL 6 HOURS DECLASSIFIED.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/28/clark
The GOP and White House can claim ANYTHING (much as you do). That is, until the information is actually released and the facts are available.
#6. Your link refers to Wesley Clark, not Dick Clarke. Big difference.
#7. You have enough trouble with established facts. I'm not going to get into planning and whether something would have been "better" or not.
Allow me to give you props for turning a broadband thread into a Bush bashing war hating thread. You should all be proud of yourselves.
It is nothing more than rebellion against God.
Actually, banning gay marriage really has little foundation in divine command, even in Christian belief.
Leviticus 18 deals with homosexuality, and prohibits it. However, there is a huge quantity of other old Judaic law in these sections, containing other commands that are ignored by modern-day Christians, mostly because they are inconvenient (don't eat pork, treat your deceased brother's wife as your own wife, etc).
The idea that Christians have is that Christ established a new covenant, and that the commands they have to obey are listed in the New Testament (which contains nothing banning homosexuality). However, there was an arbitrary mishmash of Old Testament stuff that just happened to be kept and shoved into Church doctrine. It's a serious inconsistency in Christianity -- essentially, there are no Biblical grounds for both eating pork and condemning homosexuality. It's really nothing more than a cultural thing that happens to live on with the church.
May we never see th
Can you ping me now? Good.
Anybody want a peanut?
Oh so Clinton never presided over a low unemployment rate, he just was president while a lot of people fell off the unemployment insurance dole and took crap jobs. My that IS a convenient explanation, I'll have to remember that.
Certainly, some people were forced to take crap jobs during the Clinton administration. But there's no comparison to what's happened under Bush.
Under Clinton, most Americans saw their net worth grow. The prosperity of the average american was greater under Clinton then at anytime in the past.
Bush has done an absolutely horrible job of managing the economy. Unless you are very rich, it's likely that you are in worse financial shape now then you were under the Clinton administration. In addition, unless you are rich, you most likely have a higher overall tax burden now then you did under Clinton.
abolish the FCC.
This
Whats the source on your projections?
NewsMax? Aunt Hilda's Polling service?
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
A ridiculous case of telling a lie with an over-specific truth. Under Clinton the press do not appear to have had any difficulty gaining access since they were able to film the return of troops killed in Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Aden.
What you are doing here is playing games, the Bush order said that no filming was permitted without prior permission from the Whitehouse. This was always granted refused under Bush I and Bush II and consistently granted under Clinton.
All this flim-flam about when the order was given is just another GOP camouflage, a way of lying with the absolute litteral truth. And they criticized Clinton for prevaricating about the meaning of 'is'!
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
100% Agreed - but please understand that 1) This isn't a good thing, and 2) this state of affairs had nothing to do with either of the two presidents in question.
Bill Clinton inherited something called the dot-com boom, which resulted in tremendous employment and profits. But it was a bubble that burst. It would be short-sighted of us to simply say that it was a good time economically. Clinton inherited the bubble as it filled. Bush inherited the bubble after it burst. Neither president had any effect on either of those two things.
Every upside has an equivalent downside. Instead of cheering whenever times go well, and booing when they go poorly, we should cheer when we reach the stable point. If the stock market goes through the roof, the government has a surplus, and unemployment is at 2%, maybe we should all demand a tax increase! :-) Nobody will ever do this, but it is the logical approach.
I'm sorry to be so harsh, but that statement is purely propoganda. Both the republicans and the democrats would disagree with it! The democrat party line isn't that Bush raised taxes on anyone - they acknowledge that everyone now has lower taxes. No question there. If you are going to argue against Bush, stick to truthful arguments, there are lots of valid ones. The basic counterargument against Bush's tax plan is that although he lowered them for everyone, he lowered them more on the rich - which means he is playing the trickle-down card.
Has anyone else noticed that no matter what president is in office or what they have done, most people claim that their taxes are now higher than before? Maybe the Chocolate ration will be raised again next month.
I'm not going to say much, except that the parent was mostly correct except that he said "Republicans" and "Conservatives" and not "our current administration and their followers". Because if there is one thing I've learned in the last 4 years from observing him and talking with real Conservatives is that Bush ain't a traditional Republican. I mean, really, can anyone really call him a conservative? And have the word still mean something? Anyway, let me ask you to forgive the parent for mistaking Bush for the average, typical, median, or what have you Republican.
Whenever someone is criticizing "Republicans" and "Democrats", usually they're talking about the politicians wearing those labels, not the general public who holds those views. That's why both Dems and Repubs get lambasted for selling out to special interests and big corporations. Very few people actually believe in doing those things, but pretty much all of our wonderful congress-critters do. That's why I was torn so much in 2000 -- whatever the flavors of syrup the candidates applied to themselves, I knew their core was a double-scoop rocky road of graft and authoritarianism. Since then, Bush has done an admirable job of demonstrating the subtle differences I had missed.
Last thing -- don't assume evolution is so simple. It isn't at all. A member of the species who bears no offspring can still see provide for the survival of the species, and thus ensure the survival of gene carriers. Completely contrived example to bring the point home: Your gay older brother never has kids. However, he saved your life when you were eight, allowing you to grow up and have kids of your own. The trait was carried by your parents genes, which were passed on to you, and thusly does the trait survive.
Basically, the rule is: that which survives, survives. There's no rule that says how that has to occur.
Actual last thing: Seriously, it's because the drugs he used are legal? Wouldn't he have had to get them illegally? What's the difference between damaging addictive legal drugs and damaging addictive illegal drugs? Is it just the arbitrary rules of what's legal and not that are defining morality now? It doesn't make sense to me.
The enemies of Democracy are
www.awolbush.com
Go there, read the evidence, and come back when you've finished. I don't have time to lay out all of the facts for you. As to what kind of pressure might have been put on Turpinseed since his initial statement, I don't know, but he was just one tiny piece of the vast stockpile of evidence against Bush.
Good to see you have a solid grasp of personal responsability.
The US is not currently drafting civilians. You do not need to be wealthy to avoid military service, you just have to NOT voluntarily apply.
The military seems pretty straightforward about the "running risks, shooting people" part, they're not lying about it. They may not put it in the harshest light, but I don't see them selling the "Army of One" idea as "cushy job, easy salary". Rather, they try to sell it as heroism.
If you sign up for the military, you do it knowing the risks, regardless of your motivation.
While "I'll never see action" may be a "justifiable assumption", it is still a conscious risk to take based on the odds. You're still signing a contract that says you're willing to risk your life if necessary, and that's your part of the deal, regardless of how unlikely you think that necessity is.
If you wanted to take advantage of the deal and never pay up on your promise, we'll, it was your own bad decision.
Soldier is not the only profession that expects you to potentially risk your life in some undetermined future. We don't normally expect cops to say "well, I never really expected to deal with crime directly anyway" or national guards to neglect duty on the grounds that "I didn't expect to deal with REAL emergencies!".
We don't steal the responsability from their actions by assuming they don't know what they're signing for.
Instead, we expect them to be the proud professionals we need them to be; we're aware they'd rather not deal with the ugly side of things, but we hope they will rise to the needs of the situations they're trained for. We praise their outstanding character and do our best to make sure they can do their work as safely as possible.
In other words, we give them the benefit of the doubt of being decent people who can make their own decisions, good or bad. They can marry, they can have kids, they can join the circus or the military.
But since you, obviously, are wealthy enough to worry about the class issues and make the assumption their social disadvantage makes them defenseless children freeloading on the government, I'd suggest you use some of your ample free time to re-read the articles you link to, which do not support your argument and are actually orthogonal to the whole issue.
Freedom is the freedom to say 2+2=4, everything else follows...
The timeline you are drawing attention to constitutes necessary but not sufficient evidence to support your primary claim, i.e. that the credit for Libya should go to the president who started a nearby war for what amounts to no reason. However, the developments in Libya had been taking place over a timescale of years, and plenty of evidence exists linking Libya's capitulation to overtures made by the previous administration. The timing might make a nice anecdote, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Saddam also had ties with multiple terrorist organizations. While we can not prove, yet, that Saddam had ties with Al Qaeda, there is plenty of interesting evidence.
If there were "plenty of interesting evidence" then you'd be able to prove it. The fact that this oft-repeated falsehood remains unproven merely demonstrates that the "plenty of interesting evidence" alluded to is at best interesting garbage.
I believe they (Japan/S. Korea) are ahead of U.S. in broadband usage because their population density is higher and thus reachable with less cabling.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
Have you been in the military? I have. My experience is that most people are in the military to get away from the little town they grew up in. Second most popular reason is to have money for school. Third is because it was expected of them by their family.
Being a hero is way down there.
I do think the people who signed up AFTER 9/11 probably wanted to be heros though. Too bad they are just being cops instead. Hopefully that will be heroic enough for them.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
And I suppose eating snails, frogs, rotting cheeses and 1000 year old turds buried by woodland creatures is a better alternative. (Let's not forget the sulfites in the wine, too).
1 - Buy yourself a gun To become a fully-fledged Yank, you'll need to get a weapon. Americans think that having more killing machines magically makes their country safer, and it helps them to walk around saying "I'll put a cap in your ass". Even though the concept of "no guns = no gun-related crimes" is alien to the average Yank, it'll give you a false sense of security in this country with the highest crime rates in the developed world.
"American == Gun Owner" is a common European misconception. In this country only ghetto troubelmakers, Elmer Fudd types, Cops, homeowners, and French-inspired Libertarians own guns. The first and last categories are regrettable, but it's only becuase we respect our constitution and don't change it like dirty underwear as the French do.
On the other hand, we don't have criminally-ispired Islamic ghettos where young women are gang-raped by do-nothings hanging around the hallways of tenements, while the government turns its head. But then again, we are not France.
2 - Put on at least 25 stone Skinny? Medium? Chubby? That won't cut it in the good ol' US of A. Because America has the highest obesty levels on the planet, you'll need to get those rolls of flab built up. Eating 18 waffles with Maple syrup for breakfast (and visiting Burger King five times in a day) is all natural when much of the world is suffering massive poverty. Get fat and fit in.
That's a lofty complaint from a national of a country where the average family spends 75 percent of its income on food, most of it is drenched in animal fat. It leads one to conclude that the reason there are not many Fat Frenchmen, is due to the fact they all die at an early age from congenital heart disease.
Heart attack on a plate, nicotine and spit-drenched stogies hanging from the lower lip, and booze are what kills Frenchmen. Inability to protect yourselves from invaders, and lack of air conditioning will probably kill-off whoever's left.
3 - Learn the lingo We've talked about issues affecting society, but on a personal level you'll need more knowledge (or ignorance as it may be) to fit in. First, forget proper English. Confuse "your" with "you're". Say "must of" instead of "must have". Whenever anything interesting occurs, say "shucks" repeatedly. Instead of clever spontaneity or witty insults, call people "asswipes". It's funny!
You apparently think language is only suitable as a vehicle for insults and vulgarities. If you want to beat the Russians at this game, your culture is already halfway there. It's never the language that is ugly. It's the the people who use it. They just have no class.
4 - Throw away all maps, history books etc. To really feel a part of American society, you must lose all knowledge of the world. Forget where Poland is. Scrap your knowledge of the lengthy Chinese history. Make cretinous remarks like "India? Is that in Africa?". Because ALL that matters is America, and it doesn't matter how pathetic you look to educated people the world over.
And that unfounded French egotism will make you all that more attractive to the world. Your "intimate" knowledge (and subsequent ignorant abuse) of other cultures will not buy you influence and respect you think you deserve.
I love it when the French complain about English being the defacto standard language of world trade and international diplomacy. They are so bitter about losing the cultural influence they once had. Acknowlege your has-been country is no longer what it once was to international diplomacy and world trade. Contribute to the furtherance of Western Culture and put something on the line. If you ju
That'll put an end to DailyKos and the rest.
Finding God in a Dog
For comparison, only about 40% of US households bought a book in the last year. So broadband has already passed books. Only 21% of US households subscribe to a newspaper, while about 75% of Americans with a phone line have Internet access. Only 66% of US households subscribe to cable TV, so the Internet has already passed cable TV. Cable TV isn't growing, so, if you take the trends seriously, broadband Internet will pass cable TV within two years.
What's the problem?
Instead of going crazy with the broadband, why not create a system of free dial-in connections that is administrated by the local library system? Imagine: when applying for a library card, your average American might be given a list of phone numbers to a local dial-in server, along with a unique user ID and password. Along with this service, library patrons might be allowed to check out various free software, such as internet browsers or a program that helps walk people through the basics of establishing a dial-up connection as well as teaching them how to browse the internet.
GWB is being so shortsighted here. The kind of people who could conceivable really =need= Broadband can afford to it on their own... nationwide availabilty will slowly evolve as demand increases. The most important thing is not to make sure that the most privileged people can have the highest tech internet access available, it is to make sure that as many Americans as humanly possible have the most essential, entry-level internet access.
CANADA:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 79.83 years
female: 83.38 years (2003 est.)
male: 76.44 years
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g
USA:
Life expectancy at birth:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
total population: 77.14 years
female: 80.05 years (2003 est.)
male: 74.37 years
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/g
The contract to build the monster has been given to Haliburton.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Bush: "Every home in America will have
broadband internet service by 2007."
(meaning: I intend to re-constitute Ma Bell
(the Mother of all Monopolies) and give
them enough tax credits to pay for wiring
Mars.)
Ohhh, yeah. A chicken in every pot, forty
acres and a mule, and free beer (just vote
for me).
Kerry actually voted against the purchase of the body armor. Trust me, military folks won't forget that.
I propose that Bush have a big tall glass of shut-the-hell-up and focus on fixing Medicare, Social Security, corporate malfeasance and skullduggery and our reliance on foreign oil instead. Broadband is spreading without his help, and given his track record on the above issues during his administration, I'd just as soon he not help.
Actually what Bush said was, "All Americans should pony up for broadband."