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 can understand how your post was modded Flamebait. Still... it was beautiful and made a point most either don't get or completely ignore.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
I am pro-military, in the sense that I respect the sacrifices soldiers have made and that I don't want American soldiers (or anyone else, for that matter) to die by violence. I think Kerry would agree with me on this. He's also more likely than Bush to agree with me on the following two stances, so I support him (over Bush; he's certainly not my ideal leader) for president.
I am anti-military-funding. I question whether the American taxpayer, or the world at large, is getting the best return-on-investment for the $~500 billion spent annually by the USA on its military. (Ironically, that military investment has in many people's estimation less secure: had we not meddled militarily in the Middle East by setting up bases and such, some argue, it's unlikely that we would be a target by those who interpret that meddling as an act of war. I'm not sure if I agree with this viewpoint, but I do know that there are things we could do with that $500G-per-year that would provide more security than the US military.)
I am anti-military-use, for two reasons. First the escapade in Iraq has cost the American taxpayer on the order of $200G. Have either Americans or the world received their money's worth for that? If you want to help Americans with that money, either return it to the taxpayers or spend it on infrastructure/health care/whatever. If you want to be altruistic and help the world with it, fund Third World education, or buy out American pharmaceutical/agricultural patents. Second, there's the human cost of war. Military action usually results in far more bloodshed and instability than military planners foresee when they embark upon it. (The Vietnam War resulted in a lot of Vietnamese and Americans getting blown up for no real reason.) The maintenance of a sufficient military to defend one's borders is prudent, but it's also prudent to refuse to use that force--especially offensively--except as a last resort.
So, in short: I am pro-military, but I think we spend too much on it (maintain too great a force), and are too eager to use that force abroad.
If you are living in a dangerous part of town, you might be wise to buy a pistol for protection. But you don't need a Kalashnikov, especially when the criminals are twelve-year-olds with knives, and you don't shoot anyone unless you absolutely need to to protect yourself.
"Completely anti-military"?
OK, let's look at his voting record, then!
"An examination of Kerry's real voting record during his 20 years in the Senate indicates that he did vote to restrict or cut certain weapons systems. From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.) It is true that the B-2 came in handy during the recent war in Iraq--but for reasons having nothing to do with its original rationale.
"The B-2 came into being as an airplane that would drop nuclear bombs on the Soviet Union. The program was very controversial at the time. It was extremely expensive. Its stealth technology had serious technical bugs. More to the point, a grand debate was raging in defense circles at the time over whether, in an age of intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range cruise missiles, the United States needed any new bomber that would fly into the Soviet Union's heavily defended airspace. The debate was not just between hawks and doves; advocates and critics could be found among both.
"In the latest war, B-2s--modified to carry conventional munitions--were among the planes that dropped smart bombs on Iraq. But that was like hopping in the Lincoln stretch limo to drop Grandma off at church. As for the other stealth plane used in both Iraq wars--the F-117, which was designed for non-nuclear missions--there is no indication that Kerry ever opposed it.
"The RNC doesn't mention it, but Kerry also supported amendments to limit (but not kill) funding for President Reagan's fanciful (and eventually much-altered) "Star Wars" missile-defense system. Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites.
"Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons.
"At the same time, in 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget. In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion. In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier. In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget. In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)"
http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/
Also, do I really need to point out that Kerry actually has fought in a war and is a decorated veteran, while Bush didn't even complete his service? Kerry has actually fought for his country, and he came by his positions on the appropriate uses of the military honestly.
"Can you imagine the U.S. reaction to terrorism under Kerry?"
You mean: Restoring funding of our emergency services? Not getting into wars that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism? Not locking up people for years and depriving them of their civil liberties? Actually trying to combat terrorism rather than using it as an excuse to fulfill extreme agendas?
Sign me up!