Slashdot Mirror
The Software Politics Of 2004's Presidential Race
mjamil writes "The NYT(free registration required) has an article talking about the polarized use of OSS in the building of campaign Web sites. Specifically, it states that the sites for John Kerry (Democratic candidate for President) and the Democratic National Committee are built using OSS, while the site for President Bush's re-election campaign uses IIS. Linus and ESR are quoted. It's an interesting look at how even presidential politics are no longer immune to the free software war (free as in beer)." (David Brunton, pictured in the article, wrote to say "Now I'm going to go call my mom... won't she be proud? For all those girl geeks and gay geeks out there, I'm already taken, but it is an awful nice picture, isn't it?")
I dont know, maybe i'm wrong? It just seems to me that most politicians wouldnt really *care* about what platforms their websites are hosted on..
Could someone please explain what this means. It comes up often and I don't get it.
In a campaign season of polarization, when Republicans and Democrats seem far apart on issues like Iraq, the economy and leadership style, it is perhaps not surprising that the parties find themselves on different sides in the politics of software as well.
The Web sites of Senator John Kerry and the Democratic National Committee run mainly on the technology of the computing counterculture: open-source software that is distributed free, and improved and debugged by far-flung networks of programmers.
In the other corner, the Web sites of President Bush and the Republican National Committee run on software supplied by the corporate embodiment of big business - Microsoft.
The two sides are defined largely by their approach to intellectual property. Fans of open-source computing regard its software as a model for the future of business, saying that its underlying principle of collaboration will eventually be used in pharmaceuticals, entertainment and other industries whose products are tightly protected by patents or copyrights.
Many of them propose rewriting intellectual property laws worldwide to limit their scope and duration. The open-source path, they insist, should accelerate the pace of innovation and promote long-term economic growth. Theirs is an argument of efficiency, but also of a reshuffling of corporate wealth.
Microsoft and other American companies, by contrast, have long argued that intellectual property is responsible for any edge the United States has in an increasingly competitive global economy. Craig Mundie, chief technical officer and a senior strategist at Microsoft, observed, "Whether copyrights, patents or trade secrets, it was this foundation in law that made it possible for companies to raise capital, take risks, focus on the long term and create sustainable business models."
The dispute can take on a political flavor at times. David Brunton, who is a founder of Plus Three, a technology and marketing consulting company that has done much of the work on the Democratic and Kerry Web sites, regards open-source software as a technological expression of his political beliefs. Mr. Brunton, 28, a Harvard graduate, describes himself as a "very left-leaning Democrat." He met his wife, Lina, through politics; she is a staff member at the Democratic National Committee.
His company's client list includes state Democratic parties in Ohio and Missouri, and union groups including the United Federation of Teachers and the parent A.F.L.-C.I.O. "The ethic of open source has pervaded progressive organizations," Mr. Brunton said.
The corporate proponents of strong intellectual property rights say, in essence, that what is good for Microsoft, Merck and Disney is good for America. But they argue as well that the laws that protect them also protect the ideas of upstart innovators. They have made their case forcefully in Washington and before international groups, notably the World Intellectual Property Organization, a United Nations specialized agency.
"This is a huge ideological debate and it goes way beyond software," said James Love, director of the Consumer Project on Technology, a nonprofit group affiliated with Ralph Nader that advocates less restrictive intellectual property rules.
But the politics surrounding open-source software do not always fit neatly into party categories. The people who work on software like the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server and others are an eclectic bunch of technologists. "You'll find gun nuts along with total lefties," Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, said in an e-mail message.
Still, those who find the cooperative, open-source ethos appealing tend most often to be libertarians, populists and progressives. Not surprisingly, open-source software was well represented in Howard Dean's Democratic presidential primary campaign, which so effectively used the Internet and Web logs in grass-roots organizing.
Those open-source advocates will presumably find Senator Kerry more appeal
http://www.johnkerry.ccom/ seems to be /.
The Libertarian presidential candidate's websites are running FreeBSD and Windows 2003. Interesting. :>
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
If you don't want to register at the Times you can go via this page.
Struggling to find a day everyone can make? WhenShallWe.com
someone (anon) posted an interesting, if not on topic, piece with all the same stuff as in this story (slightly skewed) but in the Eye transplant thing below. It made more sence than the current posts so far.
"Persistance is Fertile" - Me. I can quote myself if I want to.
I guess it's good time to keep our eyes on what Microsoft gives to political parties.
Been reading slashdot for some time now and this expression 'free as in beer' often comes up when it is about free and open software. What does it mean? Beer is not usually free where I come from.
That garbage is worse than no link. You don't have to make every name a link, you know?
this has to be the single most unimportant issue in world politics today. I really struggle to believe that anyone would read anything into, or make any kind of an issue over what webserver hosts a politician's website.
What's the reasoning here? "Kerry's webserver runs teh linux, so if he wins he will destroy MS and the world will be happy and live as one with no more wars or fighting."
No registration link
Already posted
It's obvious that the parent hasn't read the article. Read the second part of page 2.
Why was that comment moderated up?
But not all girl geeks are straight, dammit!
use bugmenot. you are using firefox, right?
if not, you can go to the site and get a login.
I think you have the best sense of timing as far as making yourself look like an idiot. Look up, buddy!
You will die if you register? They pay to hosting, the guy /gal wrote the article, admins running that mega site, staff...
So, if you register, they will mail "make your xxx 5 inch bigger"? NY Times? What happens if they show you a damn gif file to cover costs, you will die?
Karma whoring at its best...
I believe that Bush also fills up his American car with American fuel such as Exxon, instead of giving money to terrorists by buying that cheap, imported, oil-based stuff.
Your written correspondence is currently broadcasting a postal address. With this, someone can begin attacking your house!
Bush believes in supporting hard working American workers. Even if he has topay for it, he knows that it's worth it to put food on the plates of his citizens and subjects. He probably also eats American grown food, flies in an American buiolt plane and drives an American car Kerry on the other hand uses foreign imported free software. He thinks that cost is the only area that matters. He probably drives an imported car and flies using foreign airlines such as Quantas and Aeroflot.
I know, I know, don't feed the trolls, but this one is too good. My bet is that you are typing this on a computer that has large chunks of the hardware manufactured in Taiwan and assembled in mainland China(China actually doesn't do much high tech manufacturing...yet). Probably on Microsoft software, Microsoft has had large development centers in India(thus foriegn) for a while.
And while linux may have originated in Finland, a very large chunk of the code was written in the US.
So I find it hard to believe that Kerry's platform is any less American than yours...
He probably also eats American grown food, flies in an American buiolt plane and drives an American car
Ahh and don't forget, he probably smokes american pot too.
That would be more revealing than what their websites run on. To the best of my recollection, Kerry didn't answer the question "Mac or PC?" at a debate among the democratic contenders (Al Sharpton was the only Mac user). I also recall reading that Bush used a Mac, and that he used to be an enthusiastic emailer until he was informed that records would be kept of all his email. I may be wrong about all this. Maybe someone could provide better info.
-1 redundant!!!
Since it was a response to part of the news summary... dysproia is making a VALID comment.
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
In 2000, I remember noticing that GWB's site used Apache and Gore's used IIS.
Hacker terrorists attack George Bush's website causing it to go down.....
I have to wonder if Timothy would have posted this story had it been the other way round? Same as the Greenpeace story earlier. Ooo, political organizations that Timothy personally likes use technology too!
This is not news, Timothy.
The right wing favors the economic theory that says that everything would be better looked after if it were privately owned. The government should get out of everything according to that theory. The profit motive will (according to them) look after the public good much better.
Open source software puts the lie to the theory that everything must be driven by the profit motive. Its mere existance should be a thorn in the Republicans' side because it proves that their favorite theory is a crock.
I thought IBM was an American company. They're pushing hard to sell Linux and related services aren't they?
Funny how your focus is on Kerry being "guilty" of driving the wrong brand of car and somehow ignoring how Bush Jr. is screwing hard working American workers by not repealing tax incentives for big corporations to send jobs overseas. Free market is good but having our govt pay for outsourcing is ridiculous.
Remember how often the term "draft dodger" was applied to Clinton and "war hero" was attributed to Bush Sr. by the so-called liberal media? I suppose you think all of us Americans are stupid enough to believe the media is liberal if the media keeps telling us they're biased liberals 20 times a day. We heard more about Monica this year than the Whitehouse scandals such as INTENTIONALLY LEAKING IDENTITY OF OUR CIA OPERATIVE or VP REFUSING TO DISCLOSE HOW NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY WAS SHAPED BY CROOKS--and that was before Clinton's self-serving book came out.
Thanks to assholes like you, its gotten so fucking embarrassing to be a conservative that I don't tell anyone I'm a conservative Republican anymore because they'll mistakenly assume I want to lie and rape the US constitution to fatten my bank accounts or bloat the national deficit for short-term profits so our children can get royally screwed with 80% taxe rates 10-20 years from now.
see http://www.fair.org
This is only redundant in that what the poster says should be blindingly obvious to anyone smart enough to turn on a computer and navigate to slashdot.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
the article
Call me crazy, but I think really this has as much or more to do with their web designers and/or sysadmins as it does with their political stance. I mean, I guess their webservers do somewhat match their political standing, but I doubt it was really a concious decision. Bush could have just as easily hired some Unix heavy group who would probably run Apache or John Kerry could have just as easily hired some sort of ASP.net dream team for his site. If I recall correctly in 2000 Gore DID run IIS and Bush DID run Apache.
I would bet that if you were to look at political websites beyond those of the Democratic and Republican candidates the division would be far less clear (although I would bet you would still see some of the same division).
Does this mean SCO is going to go after democrats now?
Guy has a good point.. how can one RTFA when /. keeps posting links that require registration? not everone wants to cop spam for a stupid NYT article.. should be compulsory to have a google news link in there or something.
Extending upon your arguments we can also note that the global economy puts us in a bind against foreign competitors where the country with the lowest cost of living (think of it as a large scale TCO) is the best choice to make a product. A U.S. company can come in and pay the workers there peanuts but still beat the average sallary by 200-300% easy. Plus with the increasing political stability of places such as Japan, China, India, and Pakastan there is little to no reason for companies to stay in the U.S. if the government were to begin cracking down on outsourcing in bulk. The solution is not to force jobs that can be done elsewhere to be done here, but to create jobs avaliable nowhere else here.
Essentially the trend for U.S. based products has been 1)develop in us 2) market in US 3) market elsewhere 4)develop elsewhere 5) sell new products back to US. Now what our government should do is examine what technologies will be the most benefit to mankind/corp-kind in the next 20 years and encourage development on that. Then as phase 3 begins to kick in we begin new development.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
Bush only smokes the "good stuff" imported
from his buddies in Mexico. How else to
explain greater trafficing in illegal aliens
AFTER 9-11, and Mexican trucks passing thru
US Customs unchecked (a Bush policy)?
OTOH, Cheney has definitely been smoking
"crack", (since cocaine production makes
extensive use of his "his" oil).
As one who rather likes open source, but whose job can potentially be offshored, I am having trouble making up my mind about this offshore outsourcing thing. I know there are other differences and complexities. The "free software" advocates want code to be free-as-in-speech, but the momentum is really behind the free-as-in-beer motive. Also, there are some who argue that offshore outsourcing will be detrimental to the US economy as a whole, but those who argue otherwise -- and back their arguments with data -- seem to have the better argument. So the above paragraphs distill the state of my reasoning at the moment. I have trouble seeing how I can favor one and oppose the other.
Please, argue with me.
(Pardon this repost ... didn't get any response last time).
The incumbent Liberal party (which is actually very conservative) uses IIS. The opposition Labor party (which is slightly less conservative) uses Apache.
The Greens (progressive) use Apache on Linux for all their websites (including the one I built) and have a pro-F/OSS policy in general.
Yes, this is shameless self-promotion.
I sure as heck ain't changing my vote because of this issue. Anyone who is voting for any person because of only one reason is not thinking about the whole picture. So what? Bush probably is hosting their site and their host uses Windows and IIS. Bush uses Movable Type on his Blog too. Does that mean he's a worse candidate then Kerry is JUST because he paid for his software? Again, this is just probably how it worked out and neither candidate probably has a clue WHAT software their web site runs on.
Gorkman
I find it more likely that the Kerry organisation chose OSS simply to lower their running costs. The Bush camp has more cash to burn ($200m) and so can afford to go for a more user friendly OS(I'm not trolling,Windows IS more user friendly). I wouldn't have put it past MS to have 'donated' serveral hundred licences and server software to the current administartion.
.NET will probobly crumble at the first YRO slashdot headline.
Though the situation in the Bush camp does seem to compliment their politics, I doubt Kerry and his followers give a danm about the OSS/CLSS debate. They just went with the cheapest option.
Of course they will benefit from ability to handle higher email loads and site requests. If the bush site is an aspx, then
May the Maths Be with you!
Of course (s)he'll die if (s)he registers. I bet every single person who registered at NYT will be dead in at most 130 years.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
HAW-HA!
</nelson>
This election may become more entertaining than I thought.
During the last elections over here, I first checked the party's standpoints on free software and software patents. Not that I decided to vote for them because of that, I was already planning to do so, but if their opinion was "Our computers run on Microsoft Word and it is a very good operating system" or something like that, no chance they would have gotten my vote. It turned out they were the only party to propose free software use and they supported protests against software patents. Sweeet.
I think I'm not the only one checking those things out before elections.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
"You'll find gun nuts along with total lefties," Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, said in an e-mail message.
;-)
Any prizes for guessing who he was referring to?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
So, after all these years....when I finally found a girl on /. she's not straight. Damn!
Deap breath....k, just keep searching...
He probably drives an imported car and flies using foreign airlines such as Quantas and Aeroflot.
I know this is offtopic, and feel free to mod me down, but it's spelt Qantas. Queensland and Northern Territory Airline Service. You wouldn't write or say Athalon, would you? You'd say Athlon.
And anyway, I should point out, Linus Torvalds lives in Oregon, IIRC. But, it's not my country, so I could be wrong.
Who do you turn to for the latest breaking news and issues of Campaign 2004?
A.) Slashdot
B.) MTV Rock the Vote
C.) Whitehouse.com
I'm asexual, you insensitive clod!
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
I thought IBM was an American company. They're pushing hard to sell Linux and related services aren't they?
Yes, but Kerry isn't buying Linux from them.
Remember how often the term "draft dodger" was applied to Clinton and "war hero" was attributed to Bush Sr. by the so-called liberal media?
That's because clinton was a draft dodger, whereas Bush spent some time in the armed forces during the vietnam war.
We heard more about Monica this year than the Whitehouse scandals such as INTENTIONALLY LEAKING IDENTITY OF OUR CIA OPERATIVE or VP REFUSING TO DISCLOSE HOW NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY WAS SHAPED BY CROOKS--and that was before Clinton's self-serving book came out.
The PR machine in action. The publishers of books are often the same people who own newspapers.
Thanks to assholes like you, its gotten so fucking embarrassing to be a conservative that I don't tell anyone I'm a conservative Republican anymore because they'll mistakenly assume I want to lie and rape the US constitution to fatten my bank accounts or bloat the national deficit for short-term profits so our children can get royally screwed with 80% taxe rates 10-20 years from now.
How about not being a conservative Republican? You are allowed to change your political opinions.
Point noted. I shall remmeber for future trolling. ;)
Usually its legal to copy an article out of a newspaper and photocopy it etc. Same with photocopying a few chapters out of a textbook (something my professors do all the time).
;). An idea I have is that copying a segment of an MP3 is allowed under fair use. A way to get the whole MP3 is have various users host different parts of the same mp3 on their website, with a program taking all the 'fair use' parts and putting them together.
Since these articles are 'stand alone', (are they stand alone?) it is not allowed?
I think we should push fair use as far as it will possible go, and then keep on pushing
with a gap in financial support in the tens of millions of dollars, the kerry campaign has had to save every penny it could, and free software and low-cost LAMP hosting is certainly one way to do that.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
The NYT doesn't require google referred links to register - so paste the link into google the surf from the link google provides (firefox users paste straight 2 your google box).
easy (3 clicks *sigh*) way round the foolishness.
But can anyone write a firefox plugin so google is always your referrer. I tried the bugmenot plugin but it isn't automatic or quick 2 use (4 me NEhoo).
- regards jMHz
P.S. end all copy restrictions now - freedom of information - Arrtists are the real pirates stealing from the public domain
The principal consideration, Mr. Ellis said, was computer security and protecting the privacy of personal data on the Web site. The programming tools, procedures and the larger pool of workers skilled in using Microsoft software, he said, prompted the Republicans to opt for Microsoft's Web server, called Internet Information Services, running on the Windows 2000 operating system.
This guy obviously has his head so far up Microsoft's ass that hey's bought everything they've said about secure computing. Let's see, there's currently a worm that's infected thousands of IIS servers across the internet (who knows, it could have even infected the GOP's), and it's spreading via Javascript to millions of IE users, for which Microsoft has issued no patch, and yet this is somehow the most secure solution? The mind boggles. Even joe sixpack by now knows that MS is not secure after his Windows box sends him popups when there is no browser loaded and he has to reformat it and start over every three months after being infected with the worm du jour.
I personally find it interesting that the vast majority of the people I talk to consider this to be a "normal" computing experience. When my landlord told me the other day that they'd been infected by Bugbear and had spent a difficult few days trying to clean it off, I said "Well, that's one of the reasons I switched to Mac... No worms or viruses (yet)." He said "Oh, really? You don't have to run Norton's?"
I find it amazing that the majority of computer users out there think that spending $30 a year on subscriptions to AV software and firewalls is a normal expense that you just have to pay for, like the electric utility or water bill, if you want to use a computer. They have no clue that this software is only necessary to make up for a lack of security in the OS to begin with.
The only analogy I would compare it with is if Ford, rather than recalling all of the Explorers that rolled over, simply said, well, you'll have to buy a subscription to our special "tire tread enhancer service", and bring in your car every week to have the treads updated to the latest and greatest treads that won't separate. That way you won't roll over in a crash and explode in a ball of fire. Can you imagine the outcry if that happened? Why isn't MS held to the same standards?
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
More confirmation that *BSD is dying?
Specifically, who created more jobs?
I don't care what servers they run. The Bush website is *way* better.
Amen.
Every ./ user should be using bugmenot by now. And every person who whines about subscription required should be using and promoting bugmenot! I don't think there's anything wrong with the NYTimes asking for registration. I think it's wrong that you slackers are complaining about it, rather than showing them the futility of trying to gather information this way.
It's similar to people who protests against copyright laws, but aren't actively distributing copyrighted material. The only way to beat the system is to BREAK it. If you aren't being civily disobediant, you are supporting the law.
Finally, as regards the article itself:
So the real point here is that support of open source has nothing to do with political ideology?
So, the article says CLEARLY that open source is not a stricly republican or democrat favorite.
And of course Libertarians are further right on the political line graph than republicans, and they are big supporters of OSS. So OSS views actually have NOTHING to do with your political party?
This story is pure and simple propoganda. The headline and opening paragraphs make it seem like republicans are against open source. It would be like saying Democrats are against gay marriage just because John Kerry is The reality is that politics, like OSS decisions are all about choice. In this case, one person chose their platform of choice. For example, This Repbulican introduced legislation in Texas which seeks to ensure that free/open-source software is given a level playing field when competing with proprietary products in state agencies There was a /. article about it a year ago, but damned if I can find it now.
That doesn't mean all republicans are pro OSS either. It just means that
OSS is prefered by everyone who gets to know it
the NYTimes is pro-Kerry
if you must read the Times, read the whole article.
Sometimes (pun intended) the reporting is good, but the headlines are rarely written by the reporters who know the story. Editors write headlines, and they write the headline that will get the most people to buy the paper. They slant them as per their personal choice and perception as to wh
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Or you could get the BugMeNot extention for Mozilla Firefox:
Roadfield extention page which includes the BugMeNot extention.
I think the article makes a large omission when it doesn't point out that the Internet was a government funded project that grew up with the proto-free software movement. DARPA first approached ATT, then the owner of all phone lines in the country (when modems came along you weren't allowed to plug them directly into a phone line), about building a network based on open protocols and ATT turned them down because they wouldn't be able to control it. Remember AOL before they built in access to the Web? That probably is what the Internet would have looked like had ATT had control over whatever the Internet might have been in that alternate universe. Hell, even in the late 80's the head of ATT said there was no need for NSFnet because they could provide ISDN to the desktop.
It was a specific type of policy oriented towards open-ness that led to the Internet being the way it is. The software that underlies the Internet is free software, it has been and still is the dominant form of software in the infrastructure which makes up the Internet. Open source is not "counter culture" on the Internet as the article portrays. The only reason MS has any role on the Internet is they have leveraged their desktop monopoly.
I wish reporters understood these things.
Well, I guess you wanted to mean NY Times registered users should be dead 130 years ago ;)
Seems /. staff aren't that clueless about politics as I once thought of :)
And yes, nothing will change. One kills those Iraqis openly, other will use more "elite" way to kill them, e.g. food embargo.
Just like Aliens at Simpsons going for president elections, you will select one of them...
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
I disagree. I'm not in the computer industry.
I'm a long time linux user at home, however I use NT at work.
My friends and family use windows 2000 and XP. I can't figure it out. I spend a lot of my time asking them how to do the simplest of tasks, different applications have different default save locations. I don't know where the configuration files are.
I like knowing that when I use an application it will save in ~
The user specific configuration is in ~/.application.
When I reinstall windows I am sure to forget some details like IE bookmarks, or other preferences buried around the computer in random locations.
I know linux isn't the simplest easiest most straightforward OS. But once you learn it, it is really easy to use. Windows IMO works okay if you click around and hunt, but it has so many odd details to remember that it is a frustrating user experience if you haven't done something recently.
The odd details in linuxland tend to be command line switches, which are typically documented in the man page. Where in the windows help system is the location of my IE, netscape or opera bookmarks documented?
Let's assume that Dems use open source because they like it and Reps use closed source because they like it.
The truth is probably the following: they use whatever comes for $0. The Dems and The Reps can use legally opensource for $0 , as the skilled godblessed programmers who make opensource proggie have invested in the the concept of opensource, making a lot of their work avaiable at $0 to the public and demand only respect of their goodwill by respect of opensource way of thinking.
Both the Reps and the Dems have a problem using closedsource (read Microsoft proggie or other proprietary proggie) as it could be seen as a form of non monetary contribution to their parties.
You can also bet your preferred body part that the owner of the closedsource will come back and ask party for favors as they could quickly remember they forgot to enforce their copyright-given rights on the political party.
How many licences of Word did you say you have bought ???? MMhhh let's check shall we...? Oh don't worry, just forget to vote that law ok ? Oh Senator I heard your private law studio has got one less licence then needed..mmhhhhh...let's call the press shall we ?
You think that Microsoft is going to charge them for a copy of Windows Server after they let Microsoft off the hook on that little antitrust matter? :-)
I've got three words for you: quid pro quo.
...but I like how the first line in the post's text with the headline including "software" and "politics" contains "registration required" simply to view the article.
*giggle*
You can't fight offshoring without causing the protectionist death spiral.
If a US firm can't compete in an area, they must either become competative or get out.
If the governement protects them it will result in higher costs for other US firms that depend on this. This will continue until all US firms are globally incompetative and the US is completely isolated.
When the population at large gets their high standard of living from cheap imports, cutting them off will result in a significant lowering of the standard of living for most people.
I'm not trolling,Windows IS more user friendly
Stating opinion on a controvercial and hotly debated
issue as objective fact is the definition of trolling.
Sadly, the content of your post (minus the troll) was
actually quite insightful. Next time you have something
insightful to say, you'll reach a larger audience if you
don't interject unrelated and inflamatory statements
that turn off some of your audience.
*sigh* back to work...
Yeah maybe one uses Linux and the other is MS, but both of their developers can't code worth beans
John Kerry W3C
George Bush W3C
On choices like which OS to use for the campaign website, a good manager like Kerry won't micromanage. But their actual management, picking a good campaign manager, who picks a sysadmin, who picks OSS, shows essential differences from Bush, the mismanager in chief. Like picking a VP who picks a disastrous, irrelevant war in Iraq instead of the war against Al Qaeda. In November, you'll get a chance to pick an updated Kerry team, and dump the outdated Bush team, doing your job in the larger "democracy" team. Now get cracking!
--
make install -not war
"Bush appeals to business people" ...and to morons and to people who only do what they're told, and to people who believe whatever they see on the news, if they're also told it's "fair and balanced".
--
make install -not war
As usual, the rightwing idiot laughs at talk about their repressed mind, while reaching for the first programmed attack, no matter how inaccurate or groundless. And screws up the presumed acronym.
--
make install -not war
Interesting that you decide that "Kerry:OSS; Bush:MS" is antiBush. Then deny its importance. Issues that create immediate, implicit opposition in the minds of even critics are the mainstay of politics.
--
make install -not war
Aren't you just lying?
The truth:
Candidate: George W. Bush
Internet Address: www.georgewbush.com
Web-Site Software: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
Internet Access or Hosting: Exodus Communications in Austin, Texas
Candidate: Al Gore
Internet Address: www.algore2000.com
Web-Site Software: Apache/1.3.9 on Linux
Internet Access or Hosting: Exodus Communications in Sterling, Virginia
More thematically consistent 2000 candidate website stats:
Candidate: Gary Bauer
Internet Address: www.bauer2k.com
Web-Site Software: Microsoft-IIS/4.0
Internet Access or Hosting: Atlantech in Silver Spring, Maryland
Candidate: Bill Bradley
Internet Address: www.billbradley.com
Web-Site Software: Apache/1.3.9 on Sun Solaris
Internet Access or Hosting: Shore.Net in Lynn, Massachusetts
Candidate: John McCain
Internet Address: www.mccain2000.com
Web-Site Software: Netscape-Enterprise/4.0 on Sun Solaris
Internet Access or Hosting: US West in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Candidate: Alan Keyes
Internet Address: www.keyes2000.org
Web-Site Software: Apache/1.3.9 on Sun Solaris
Internet Access or Hosting: SimpleNet in San Diego, California
Candidate: Steve Forbes
Internet Address: www.forbes2000.com
Web-Site Software: Netscape-Enterprise/3.5.1 on Sun Solaris
Internet Access or Hosting: USinternetworking in Annapolis, Maryland
So you're lying to the OSS website to make Gore look bad, and Bush look good. You probably even believe your own lies. What a perfect Bush partisan.
--
make install -not war
Im not even sure what to say about this.. The state of american politics is in ruin..
:: rolls eyes ::
Do you morons actualy believe there is some sort of secret conspiracy between President Bush and Microsoft to eradicate oss?
My god this is so comical anymore.. it would be terrably funny *IF* there wernt people out there who believed this kind of nonsence.
"It's on slashdot" is being cited as proof!
It's really only a matter of degrees. Democratic representatives ride on the same corporate jets to industry sponsored fund raisers in exotic locations, among them Hilary Clinton. Big business has infused itself into the legislative process so tightly I don't really think it matters who is in power.
But I do agree it seems as though the Republicans, with a few notable exceptions, have scraped all pretence of representing their constituents and sold out US taxpayers without shame or mercy.
Strange thing is I was a Republican...right up the Max Clelan incident. I think that really highlighted when the Republican party stopped representing traditional Republican values and turned into what some people describe as neo-con but I would say is just good 'ol neo-facist. Which would be partially characterized by big government propping up big companies as you suggested.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
John Kerry: The guy would kiss anyones butt for a quarter.
The parties, or more accurately Kerry and Bush, are far apart on the issue of Iraq. Not on whether it was proper to go to war at all, granted, but rather on the conduct and overall strategy of the war and, even before that, whether to gather support for it through international diplomatic channels or to flip the world the collective bird.
Just because neither party agrees with you personally doesn't mean there isn't a huge practical difference in their views.
Bill Gates is a big contributor to Democrat politicians and causes. So are a number of other big-software moguls. If I were a Republican, I'd be going open source wherever possible, even if a number of its adherents are somewhere to the left of the Communists.
and the parent:
The grandparent was referring to George H.W. Bush, who was, in fact, a war hero, having been shot down as a dive bomber pilot during the battle of Midway. George W. Bush, on the other hand, was a pilot of obsolete Air National Guard jet fighters during the last years of the Viet Nam conflict who occasionally appeared for drill.
Many of us who were on active duty at the time considered that to be the "moral equivalent" of draft-dodging.
utter rubbish
Every single one of your points shows how ridiculously narrow-minded and shallow your perceptions of not only politics, but the world, really are. It's enlightening and frightening at the same time. That's quite a skill.
A liberterian? Voting for bush? NEVER.
Bush has grown the size of the govt more then any other president in recent history.
He runs up record debt.
He invades sovereign countries which are of no threat to the US.
He is the champion of the patriot act.
He wants to amend the constitution to prevent gays from marrying.
He fights states that want to legalize medicinal marijuana.
He fights states that pass right to die statutes.
Like most people who call them sleves liberterians you are simply a republican you is ashamed to say so. Please don't besmirch the liberterian party by calling yourself one while voting for the least liberterian candidate.
evil is as evil does
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The Free Software Definition
We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.
In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't effectively block your freedom to release modified versions. Rules that ``if you make the program
But what does Kerry run on his own personal computers? What does George W. Bush run? Well... Ok, Dubya is probably still trying to turn the thing on.
I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for Kerry just because he supports open sourced software. Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not going to vote for George W. Bush either. Nader? Bah! You've got to be kidding me. Modern democracy has become a farcical onanism, and it's disgusting.
Third party candidates, no matter what their operating system of choice may be or no matter whether or not they support Open Source or Free Software, aren't going to be represented at all.
They do, however, sometimes show nonvoter turnout.
What does it mean when people do not vote? It means either that they have no interest in voting or they do not consider any of the candidates good choices (and aren't being jackasses and voting for the 'lesser of two evils').
"None of the Above in 2004."
Speckpot?
Libertarian Party Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik has his own blog.
He was comparing all the hateful invective thrown at Clinton over this with the kid-gloves with which the media is now handling Kerry (well-decorated war hero in Vietnam) and Bush Jr. (who, despite an astounding amount of research, was unable to demonstrably prove he fulfilled his obligation to the National Guard, and who (AFAIK) never saw anything resembling warfare).
Why is the point not as valid or pressing this time around? Maybe people have concluded (as parent apparently has) that Bush spent a little time in the armed services, and that's better than nothing. Or maybe that's a delusion they use to justify the hypocrisy of the situation.
To be honest, until someone holds up a smoking gun (Fox News Exec:"God, I hate those Democrats, with their moderately different political views and their... ties... and shirts... grr... let's make military service a non-issue this election year. And eat babies."), I'm inclined to believe that all claims of bias in news reporting are whininess by people who don't know how to properly configure their RSS readers.
There's no such thing as free beer. Somebody always pays for it.
Regards,
Maggie Thatcher
I don't what to think about this discussion, but I think that it is ridiculous to assume that either Bush or Kerry even knows or cares what there website runs. And to those morons on this topic that think that because Bush hires "like-minded individuals" there is an instinctive love of MS in everyone that works for him, GROW UP!
Think about it like this: IBM is big business. Period. They are a huge company. They use linux. They also happen to use Windows (on systems they sell). They also happen to make chips for a lot of different companies. My point is this: the conflict of open vs. closed is NOT a political statement. I know a lot of Republicans that use and love Linux, Apple, and all kinds of open source tools. I also know a lot of Democrats that love Windows.
All that said, there is a certain amount of overlap. Personally, I tend to agree with the libertarian philosophies, and think that Linux (and the *BSD's) are the best expression of personal freedom available. Traditionally I have voted republican, but don't particularly care for every thing that the republican party stands for.
To whomever decided that this was a worthy topic:: you should have discarded the article itself as flamebait--that's all it was, and resulted in almost pure flamewar. Enough for now.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
This article has been prepared for tomorrow edition of an Italian leftist newspaper, L'Unità.
Maybe there's a little bit of populism about that too (actually, there is a lot: L'Unità has always expressed its bad feelings with the Bush family and decisions), but it's interesting seeing that:
a) Someone there often reads Slashdot (this isn't the first article appearing the same day in both places)
b) Although they can't spell "Mozilla" in the right way, they give a try to explain what are the advantages of Free Software over proprietary one (doing a little bit of confusion with OpenSource, but unfortunately we're used to that here in Italy)
Well, some conscience is far better than none.
If you're an italian speaker, here's the link.
42.
(who, despite an astounding amount of research, was unable to demonstrably prove he fulfilled his obligation to the National Guard,
Why is it up to him to prove his innocence on the charge of dessertion? If he wasn't there, there must be a lot of better evidence than hearsay.
and who (AFAIK) never saw anything resembling warfare
Thus proving himself to be in touch with the views of the populace at the time, that vietnam was a mistake.
Why is the point not as valid or pressing this time around?
I thought it wasn't valid last time around. That's what the Democrats seemed to be saying. Suddenly it's important not only that someone did serve in the armed forces, but also killed a load of foreigners? And why should he have to account for his presence at all times? It seems that the air force was satisfied with whatever his explanation was.
I'm inclined to believe that all claims of bias in news reporting are whininess by people who don't know how to properly configure their RSS readers.
The whole bias thing is a myth anyway. "Bias" to a politician means that there are people who have differing political opinions.
It's a metaphor, son. One side in this race believes in unquestioned authority, tight control, sacrosanct wealth, and operation through secrets. Care to guess which? Hint: It runs as deep as the software they choose.
To a liberal, you're talking about Republicans. To a conservative, you're talking about Democrats.
Surprise, not everyone believes what you believe.
But one thing's for certain, if you take politics so personally that you even harbor vitriol over the webserver they use, you need to seriously get a little perspective. People can use IIS if they want, or they can use Apache.
how 2 register on slashdot?
It doesn't say anything about a candidate's political positions. Period.
If George W. Bush is against open source, then why is his online shop hosted by Apache?
"Al-Qaeda likes anti-war dissidents, as outlined in this handbook."
Al Qaeda terrorists like using weakminded Americans to supress one another. It breaks down their enemy by using the opponent's weakness against itself, without risk or expense to Al Qaeda. So what they like even better is when closet fascist Americans suppress the rights of their compatriots, taking the bait from some words published in a manual.
The story you cite doesn't mention "anti-war dissidents" even once. You're making that up to suit your agenda. It does have (unverified) Al Qaeda rhetoric appreciating the collapse of the American military effort in Iraq, but that doesn't mean they "like anti-war dissidents".
Another terrorist complicity in that story is the unverified "handbook" reported by AFP. Unidentified "western experts" aren't even named - that's got even less credibility than the sources for WMD and Al Qaeda / Hussein propaganda.
Then there's your post claiming that to a "conservative", Democrats represent "unquestioned authority, tight control, sacrosanct wealth, and operation through secrets". Maybe to a "conservative" so paranoid that they imagine Republicans oppose those things, but there's no rational reason to believe that Democrats do, and lots of reasons to believe Republicans do.
And where's this "vitriol" you complain about, attaching webservers to politics? A little analysis shows that your entire post is a typically Bushite screed inventing facts, inventing selfserving categories, sarcastically inventing "elites", conflating your personal enemies regardless of their mutual antipathy. All that in 4 sentences - at least you're succinct.
--
make install -not war
Each candidate used what was expedient for them to use. Although, having looked at some of the code for the Kerry site, it looks like a pretty big mess to me. I don't think the FLOSS community wants the Kerry site being a poster child for Open Source.
If Bill Gates offered offered John Kerry 1 Billion dollars, would he say 'I do'?
I am on the web team for the Green Party candidate, David Cobb. Every member of the team is an open-source purist, and approached the project prepared to win over the others, though that turned out to be unecessary. We are currently using PostNuke on Debian, but this has proved too clunky for heavy usage by people with a wide variety of skill levels. We are currently developing a new site, which will be Plone (Zope) running on BSD.
David himself is not much of a technophile, but has the sense to use a PowerBook on the road.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
..another chance for ESR to push his description of "J. Random Hacker" (i.e., him and his mates) as the canonical definition. Please, one day, let him slip at the firing range and accidentally shoot himself in the ego..
"Many of them propose rewriting intellectual property laws worldwide to limit their scope and duration."
It's not just Free Software advocates - hasn't this guy read the 1st amendment?
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
Are you fucking kidding me with this post? This is the most insanely idiotic post in Slashdot history. Neither candidate has any clue what platform their website is running, nor do they care. If you think that Kerry gives two shits about OSS, then you should probably seek help, because you don't belong in the general population.
As someone that worked sys/dev back in Vermont on the Dean campaign, I cannot begin to tell you how much influence staffers can have. It can only be that way, since election campaign boils down to one person, who never can do everything. Dev/Admin team was comprised of almost ALL open source advocates. Of course we had to support the desktop; non-scientific #s: Win - 90% Mac - 9% Linux .8% BSD .2%; funny enough, almost all the techies either had a MacOSX machine or got bought one by the end of the campaign, kudos to OSX. Where we could (and it was apropos) we used Linux/BSD/MySQL/Postgres/Apache/PHP/Perl for workstations and servers. But we had those other systems that where 3rd party, and moving as fast as we did, it was impossible to implement from the ground up.
:).
Did Dean really know what we where developing on and the environment? No for the most part and really was it his job? No. But unlike probably most other campaigns Trippi did actually know the environment and the spirit of open source. It helped that he had worked with Linux in Silicon Valley, and that he has a deep love of technology.
So bottom line, do the candidates pick the software? Hell no. Do the candidates attract people with particular ideologies? Thats the name of the game of politics and from what I can tell the point that has been missed.
Oh, and it is worth noting that Gore is quite a gear head from what I understand
It should be noted that whitehouse.gov, the official site for President Bush, is apache running on linux. So in the end this is all just political propaganda, interesting but still just propaganda. Peace, Rovaedne
Actually, ESR updated his page about a year ago to claim that all good hackers were now "moderate to neoconservative." The NYTimes is quoting an older (but more accurate!) version of the Jargon file.
I wonder if they did so intentionally. It's more than a bit dodgy of ESR to project his political views onto J. Random Hacker, but it would be almost as dodgy for the NYTimes to misquote ESR (or to knowingly use an old quotation) to project their "vaguely liberal-moderate" views onto ESR. What goes around comes around. :)
...The bit with the list of problems with the Muslim world and saying each one is not the fault of Israel is a standard misdirection tactic. His entire rant has the form of reasoned opinion, but when examined it is full of lies, exaggerations, repetitions of propaganda, and racism. I am so tired of this BS that it's all Israel's fault that the Middle East is so fucked up. As the writer of the article astutely points out, there are MANY reasons why the Middle East has gone awry, not the least is the 11th-century attitudes and behaviors toward women. If there is anything "racist" or repetitious of "propaganda", it is coming from the side that would rather have the Western world sympathize with terrorists who would rather keep us women in the beekeepers' suits than get with the fucking 21st century for a change. I will give said two "Anonymous Clowns" this much--Israel isn't perfect, it as a nation HAS indeed unjustly punished its share of innocent bystanders in the Palestinian community. We as a world community can't keep enabling this behavior but neither should we allow equally innocent Israelis to continue to lose their lives. OK, maybe Israel's creation never should have come into being. It was a stupid-ass idea for the Brits and Americans to have the brilliant idea to stick an egalitarian people in the middle of a culture that insists on the subjugation of women. Of course, they're going to hate that kind of intrusion! But what the hell do we do with a nation full of two million people who won't budge? Nuke them? That would make us murderers and genocidal maniacs, and it would make any other nation also guilty of likewise. So then what would your alternative be? That Yasser Arafat et al had their way and were able to "push the Jews into the sea" so a democratic Israeli state ceased to exist? Fine--if I had Bill Gates's money, I'd gladly give the Israelis Montana and say take it, Robert Redford never did anything good with it; but then the only shred of forwardthinkingness gets engulfed in a sea of a return to oppression and religious fanaticism. Fanatics will get their way and terrorism will prove to have worked. I do not defend a lot of what Ariel Sharon and his hawkish government get away with, but neither do I want to kiss the ass of Arafat in the name of so-called "liberalism" and "anti-racism"--I thought we liberals were about anti-_violence_. People who defend the oppression of women--and the perpetuation of it--make me sick; and IMO they _should_ be squashed like the insects they are.
So, since I'm an advocate I spend a lot of time on both of these websites and have watched them as they were developed. I also had up my own website last year as part of a state effort for Wes Clark's candidacy. These things start off by someone volunteering something, usually time, and they use what they know. It starts from there.
The Kerry website is better designed visually, it's less hectic, easier to find the critical information you want.
But the Bush website has better tools, they have a very nice database of contributors that you can search. They've put together nifty features with video, automatic creation of PDF posters and different things like that.
Whatever.
It's not the tools people, it's what you do with them that matters.
See, I don't buy that statement that you were republican right up until that. You sound more like an anti-globalization green to me. Sure you might claim that the Max Cleland incident was what "turned you away" from republicans", but the reality is that your mind was changed long before that. Frankly, after watching what happened to Cleland, I can't say it was much different from how most political campaigns are. Both sides play this game. If one party has someone that served in the military, then anyone disagreeing with them on diplomatic or military policy is "questioning their patriotism" and is a horrible american for daring to disagree with someone who served their country so well. Standard straw dog arguement. The other party always says that the service (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to whether their policies would be good for america. The so called "Max Cleland incident" is just another exercise in wining and hand wringing by some partisans looking for traction with the voting public.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
I'm not a Republican defender by any means, but... perhaps they are just smarter than you?
The fact that the Republican party would choose to use an inferior commercial software package (IIS) when a superior free version of the same software is available (Apache) goes a long way towards showing what type of party they are.
Oh good grief, there's nothing about Apache which makes it superior to IIS.(I can't believe people are still going around pandering this lie)
As much as they say they want "small government", when it comes down to it, they want "big government" propping up "big companies" with taxpayer subsidies. Plain and simple.
I don't disagree here. The Republican party has several main interest groups and one of them is Corporate. Corporations are not necessarily bad, but you can take your protection of corporate interests to an extreme.
On the one hand you could argue that the Bush administration using Microsoft technology shows that they support American businesses. I don't see how you can conclude anything much beyond it from that. They aren't likely giving Microsoft a lot of business, they certainly aren't advertising for them.
One thing I do know, and that is that the Republican party is spending a lot more on technology than the Democrats, and they are targetting it in ways which are more effective for holding power. If you witnessed the congressional redistricting down in Texas, that was one of the most advanced uses of demographic data combined with a GIS system I've seen in a while. i.e. they put effort into it, building that database and doing the GIS modeling to come up with those maps.
Sure, the webserver expenditures are only a small part of it, but it shows how completely the GOP has been bought and paid for by large corporations.
You're overreaching. Their goal is to put together whatever they can that they think will help them be better organized. The one thing the Republicans have is a lot more money, and so they're able to buy some stuff. Although it's a bit of a dotcom goldrush spend money mentality, if you've seen the burn rates of Bush/Cheney, they aren't very well managed.
I'm not saying the Dems are completely innocent as well, but let's face it, they're much less in the pocket of large defense contractors, pharmaceutical companies, energy companies, and yes, software monopolies.
By and large yes. The Democrats believe more in free market capitalism than the Corporatism that the Republicans promote.
But again, I don't think you can conclude that based upon what they use to build a website. Technology is about doing, not religious or political statements.
You know, assuming you are correct that's quite funny, that makes Both GWB and talk show host Rush Limbaugh both big Mac fans. The irony is that Apple is a very "PC" company and Steve Jobs is very much the typical Bay Area denizen when in comes to politics. Al Gore was even invited so be on Apple's Board of Directors. Interesting stuff.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
These figures from opensecrets are a bit deceptive. They're really the sum total of not just what the company gave, but what individuals who reported that they worked at Microsoft gave.
You won't see Soft money given by the company to parties, as that's now been outlawed by McCain-Feingold.
1998 was the wake up call for Microsoft, when they were told "Look, your competitors are giving money, you better follow suit). That's when you saw the big increase not just in corporate giving, but even individual. That's the only way you can really read this, and I believe it shows first hand the effect that government intrusion into markets has on our political landscape. (If you want to stop corporate lobbying, stop government from interfering in markets, then they'll have no reason to want their voice heard)
Bush was outraising the Democrats by quite a large margin through the primary season. The last word I heard he'll have collected some $250 million by the GOP convention in September.
You have to understand, after the convention, you can't contribute to the Presidential candidate any more... It's kind of weird, but they both accept public financing(about $75 mil) and that's all they can spend. The $200 and some million they've each raised so far has to be spent prior to convention.
Understand, however, that this chart also shows contributions made to other candidates in state and local elections. Not just Presidential. For those, you can usually contribute all throughout the season.
Well now it all depends, was the Hillary Clinton healthcare taskforce ok? Now I really don't care who was on her taskforce because ultimately the executive branch and congesss have to make the policy. They can get advice and have secret meetings with whomever they want to, as far as I'm concerned. As long as the actual content of the policy is open in the end, I really don't care. Now you can disagree with me on this issue, but you need to be logically consistent. You can't have it one way for one group and another way for another group. (Note that I'm not saying that both situations are directly analogous, but you should be intellectually honest about it.)
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
See the links in some of the other followups.
But as I said, I don't hold any grudges against you for saying what you say, because I expected as much. And in doing so you also served to prove my point better than I ever could myself. How deliciously ironic that you pour out your spiteful anger about Max Cleland "treatment" (you decline to cite specifics, claiming that his opponents "fabricated lies") and in doing so commit the very same ad hominem attack against me that you so claim to dispise. You are committing, in your post, the very thing you argue that the "other side" is so evil for doing.
But as you almost admit, your conversion wasn't about Max Cleland's treatment, if you were honest, you would just say your ideological viewpoints have shifted and thus your political loyalties. Instead you indignantly wrap yourself in vitriol and hate for anyone who doesn't agree with you, at least you did in your post.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.