Slashdot Goes Political: Announcing politics.slashdot.org

With the US Presidential Election coming up, we've had a lot of story submissions that we would like to post, but they don't fit very well on the Slashdot main page. To address this, we'll be running special political coverage between now and the election in our new Politics subsection of Slashdot. Please submit stories directly to the section for consideration. As with all sections on Slashdot, there will be stories available within that section that don't get posted to the main page, so please visit the section if you are interested in more coverage. We'll do our best to be fair with story selection. We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies. The discussions are up to you guys. Here's hoping the experiment works!

Comments

Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll do our best to be fair with story selection. We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.

LMAO!

Malda-Bates 2004!

[gevmage]

It had to be said.

Rob's platform:

• Suspected terrorists will have Rob's in-box forwarded to them until they turn themselves in for questioning. Even if people could stand the flood of messages, their ISPs would turn them in just to get them off the system.
• Hmm...the people with the 10 highest karma scores (I know the numbers are hidden, but they're still available internally) get cabinet positions.

Re:Malda-Bates 2004!

[drinkypoo]

Before the Karma scores were hidden, they were kapped at 50. However, because of this kap, many of the people who get the most positive karma do not have 50 karma, because you get modded up and down for the same comment and the (punitive) negative mods usually occur late in the story's moderation so no one comes along and corrects them and gives you your karma back. Then there's the fact that Funny moderation does not raise your karma, but offtopic, troll, and redundant mods lower it - and they are often applied to jokes by people with no sense of humor.

Re:Malda-Bates 2004!

[SpaceLifeForm]

Offtopic, troll, and redundant are often applied to comments that the moderators either don't understand or they disagree with. Instead of replying with a logical argument, it's easier and quicker to just moderate down. The astro-mods prefer that especially in the case of disagreement, because they hope that others don't read what you have written.

Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[garcia]

Every discussion has some sort of political slant to it. You are somehow labeled as "right" or "left" depending on the whim of the moderators or random members of the community. People routinely claim you are some sort of radical communist just because you don't support the paying-off of public servants to create laws that benefit only the corporations. Obviously this is just one small example but it certainly reflects a good bit of what I experience here... We might really want to think about how the normal Slashdot moderation system is handled on this side of the site.

If anything Karma changes should be eliminated due to politically motivated moderation in this section. Some serious damage could occur to someone's account that is diametrically opposed to the rest of the Slashdot mentality.

I have been scouring books, articles, and random conversation for some intelligent and fair discussion about the state of politics today. I doubt that I will find too much "intelligent discussion" and I know we won't find any fairness here on Slashdot but we can always have hope ;-)

It's a Slashdot Flamewar Section!

[Anonymous Coward]

Here come the flames...

questions that matter.

[sweeney37]

any chance for /. interviews with the candidates for the issues that concern us nerds? I mean, this new sub section would hopefully give /. a little more clout.

Mike

Re:questions that matter.

[sosuke]

i can see it now slashdot interviews with presidential canidates, submit your questions

Re:questions that matter.

[sweeney37]

an attempt was made back in 2000, why not try again now?

Re:questions that matter.

[Anonymous Coward]

The level of political involvement is dangerously low if we want to keep having a democracy. Anything that increases it has to be a good thing.

What our politicians do has a huge effect on our future well being. Things that kill off our ability to innovate (like DMCA and software patents), kill our future jobs. It really does matter to us and we really can have an effect if the politicians think enough votes are at stake.

Re:questions that matter.

[globalar]

Interesting you mention this section positively, because I am undecided. The first thing I think of when you say politics on the Internet is "ugh". I enjoy the analysis and perspective of others, but it can also be a great tinderbox for flamewars and trolls. Add that to the dangers of misinformation - deliberate or ignorant - and the spectrum of motivations. /. can either fight these problems or become another battleground.

If /. really makes this something a respectable candidate would participate in, I would be extremely impressed.

Will global/regional politics, political economy, neo-classical economics, development, war, foreign policy, etc. fall into this category? If so, why not? I would prefer a middle-class global perspective rather than a U.S.-president centric one (I assume most readers are middle class and know something about the world around them).

Re:questions that matter.

[soyuz_2]

Damn, look at all those low uid's.

Re:questions that matter.

[LiquidCoooled]

It appears as thought the entire conversation is stored in UID order.

It makes it look like the thread has been active for the entire 4 years.

Re:questions that matter.

[rho]

How on earth can you be undecided? I have never understood the "undecideds" that the media makes such a fuss over. Does that mean you have no opinion on the War on Terror? I choose that issue because it's an issue that cuts across every demographic possible, except for dead people, who can't vote anywhere except Chicago. Assuming you have an opinion, then which candidate meets your approval? Do you favor taking an aggressive, pre-emptive stance on terrorism and terrorists? Then G.W. is your man. Do you favor... well, whatever the hell it is that John Kerry stands for? Then vote for him. Simple!

This image of the archetype "undecided", who wanders into a voting booth and making up their mind with their democratic dick in their hand... well, that sounds EXACTLY like a stupid, uninformed voter who is more or less tossing a coin. These are the lame-brained fools and morons you DON'T want voting come November. They aren't "moderates" or "centrists"--they're ignoramuses. They don't know enough about the issues or the candidates to make an informed decision until they can't dither about it anymore.

We don't want these people anywhere near a ballot, ever.

If that is you, sir or madam, you need to stay home. The mechanics don't want you "helping" while they're under the hood, and the informed citizens don't want you invalidating their vote because you're fucking guessing.

(Your snide remark about how you assume most readers know something about the world around them is particularly ironic, coming from somebody who is undecided in what has to be the most polarized election since 1860.)

Here's what I think, and I'm pretty confident that I'm right. You don't like Bush because you've come to believe through pop-culture repetition that he's an idiot chimp; but you can't bear to vote for Kerry, because he's obviously some kind of space-alien in a Lurch costume. So rather than say "I don't know who to vote for because the winds of popularity have not coalesced behind one cadidate with such force that I can feel comfort in joining the bandwagon, so I call myself an 'undecided' instead."

Re:questions that matter.

[maxpublic]

How on earth can you be undecided?

I suppose someone with your ego would indeed have a difficult time with it, especially since you believe that your 'informed' vote is actually worth more than those who have yet to choose a candidate.

How can a person be undecided? Well, it's a fairly easy thing to be when you take a good, long look at both candidates and realise they're both fucking douchebags (see sig). Mouthpieces for existing power structures, both interested only in increasing government power and destroying individual rights and freedoms. Where choosing either gets you the same result, i.e., a bunch of power-hungry assholes shitting all over the Constitution for their own gain, although the reasons they pay lip-service too are different.

I'm voting for Kerry. I think he's a sleazebag of the worst sort, a typical politician through and through, but I'm going to vote for the fucking bastard anyway. Why? Because just as it's a truism that politicians are corrupt wannabe dictators, it's also a truism that the two parties fight like gangs arguing over turf. If the Republicans control Congress and the Democrats the White House, it's my best shot at deadlocking the government over the next four years, and making it as ineffectual as possible.

So far as I'm concerned the government is pretty much a tool for power and control, far too large and far too hungry in a land that supposedly values individual freedom. The two primary political parties have all the morals of a Colombian drug cartel; less, actually, since drug cartels usually don't lie about what it is they're selling you. So my only hope, in this gods-forsaken system, is to do my very best to break it; or at least slow it down and tangle it up with infighting.

That's why I was undecided until recently. The candidates are scum and neither are worth voting for. But a vote for Kerry is just about the only way I can see to muck up the fucking gears and keep the goddamned government from getting even more powerful over the next four years.

It's easy to be undecided when the only candidates who have a real shot of winning the election are swine. The question becomes "which of these pigs will do less damage?"

Max

Oh God...

[romper]

So does this mean all comments will be automatically moderated to -1 Troll? =)

Re:Oh God...

[Donoho]

I sense a great disturbance in The Force. As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, then were suddenly moderated to -1 Troll. I fear something terrible has happened.

Re:Oh God...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's really funny is that got moderated as a Troll. Was someone trying to be ironic? :)

Re:Oh God...

[identity0]

No, it means there will now be a (-1, Nazi) and (-1, Godwin) mod.

OK, but . . .

[frankthechicken]

Can we please ban the editorials from /. editors to any political stories?

Non-US Elections

[Your_Mom]

I'm guessing from the logo of the section that this will be a 'No', but will there be coverage of Non-US elections as well?

Re:Non-US Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really want editors and moderators most of whom are from the US to be selecting/moderating stories about politics outside the US? Have you SEEN US news programs? Do you KNOW the nonsense they tell us here?

Re:Non-US Elections

[WoofLu]

Well, this could be a possibility to relay information from other sources than the usual US media...

The slashdot community is not only us-based...

Re:Non-US Elections

[ackthpt]

I'm guessing from the logo of the section that this will be a 'No', but will there be coverage of Non-US elections as well?

Let's be brutally honest here:

the american flag is clodishly insensitive to furriners

furriners taking issue with the choice of colors are clodishly insensitive to american needs to vent (free speech)

Can we pick red/blue headings?

Re:Non-US Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-US countries have elections?

Re:Non-US Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-US? Non-US? What do you mean, non-US? Are you suggesting that there are other countries in this world as well? .... Have we bombed them yet? No? Are we going to? What? Stop looking funny at me and go back to CANADA, you meaple-syrup eating bastard.

Stupid non-USians. How dare they?

Re:Non-US Elections

[Cigarra]

Non-US countries have elections?
Well, yeah, but not exactly like the ones you USAmericans have. In most other countries, those who get more votes, actually win the election...

Re:Non-US Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Also, lets just bomb the heck out of them - what good does it do to have so many nuclear weapons if you never get to use them?

Re:Non-US Elections

[DAldredge]

Bush did get the most electoral college votes so he won. You don't understand our election system, I suggest you research it.

Don't forget their are 50 states in the Union and the EC system ensures that the smaller states get a voice in presidental elections just like the 2 senators from each state, regardless of population, is suspose to insure that each state gets it's uniqure issues heard.

Re:Non-US Elections

[delcielo]

Let's change the logo to be the Diebold logo!

Re:Non-US Elections

[Your_Mom]

Please note, I am not a 'furriner', but I think it would be cool to have coverage of other elections.

I have no issue with the flag being the logo, I just felt that is sort of provided an answer to my question before asking.

I just wanted confirmation of my suspicions.

Re:Non-US Elections

[ngrier]

Absolutely! And of course, there are those of us in the US who would like to know more than the blurb that we hear in the US news, if it even makes it that far. Even our best news sources often don't have time to cover politics abroad unless they have major international implications.

(For example, I'm a regular listerner to public radio, follow the AP wire etc. but nowhere did I see any mention of Blair sending Berlosconi to the hospital with a busted up knee save on a public radio quiz show. [Wait! Wait! Don't tell me! for those who are interested. It's quite good (both well done and amusing) and manages to catch you up on a week's worth of headlines, should you have missed anything.])

Re:Non-US Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet no. As Slashdot gets bigger and bigger it will probably being like the rest of the US forums, full of imperialistic attitude and disregard for others.

Anyway, I don't understand really the fuss about the presidential elections. If Bush wins US people get what they deserve, haha. However, if Bush doesn't win US people don't get what they deserve.

The root cause of the problem is totally undemocratic election system into the senate, which is done superiorly in most western countries. In US, in practice, only the democrats or republicans can get into the senate, which makes the political field a dog fight scene with very little direction into progress. It can be argued for a fact that most european countries have far richer and progressive political field, it is not just the mean right wing and the not so mean right wing, there is people from green and left parties as well. Fyi, there's no such thing as a left party in US, at least not in any real position.

Re:Non-US Elections

[ackthpt]

Please note, I am not a 'furriner', but I think it would be cool to have coverage of other elections.

I have no issue with the flag being the logo, I just felt that is sort of provided an answer to my question before asking.

I just wanted confirmation of my suspicions.

I think if we included even a few other nations into a prospective mix here we could see the politics section eclipse the rest of slashdot. We see 'free speech' and 'intellectual property' items from the globe, but I do wonder what kind of scope we're supposed to expect here, i.e. the recent pissing contest over Bush's lack of Vietnam service (which a chunk of was actually spent on political campaigns) and the questions over Kerry's medals -- which I feel strongly about, but feel also has no place on slashdot. I don't come here for politics.

Re:Non-US Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget their are 50 states in the Union and the EC system ensures that the smaller states get a voice in presidental elections just like the 2 senators from each state, regardless of population, is suspose to insure that each state gets it's uniqure issues heard.


The electoral college was originally designed to make sure that the President was selected by the land owners, and not by the mob.

Today's electoral college (which resembles the original electoral college in name only) is used in conjunction with the winner take all states to ensure that the 2 political parties which hold power cannot be defeated by a grass roots candidate.

You don't seem to understand our election system. I suggest you research it.

Re:Non-US Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you research it

Why? Like many other things in life, just because it affects the US, doesn't automatically mean anyone on earth else gives a great flying shit about it. I could not care less how you elect your C+ average, barely literate, alcoholic, cocaine abusing, drunk driving, deserting, leaders into office. Seeing his resume, it is obvious that almost half of America doesn't either.

Since you seem to understand it, doesn't this mean that "one man, one vote" is a sham? I mean, if the EC ensures that small states get heard, doesn't that make some votes worth more than others? Which ones are worth more? Is it by race? Religion? Political affiliation? Population? If me and my buddy decide to buy a state, say North Dakota, and split it in two, how much would each of our votes be worth? The same as 10 million Californians? If an election can be lost, even when one person gets over 50% of the vote, is that democratic? I guess this is the same democracy that you all will install in Iraq, where 6 votes for YOUR candidate, will certainly be worth more than the 4 million votes for a secular leader, right.

On second thought, don't bother explaining it. It is much easier to look at you and laugh, than it is to understand you.

Yours truely
The rest of the world

Re:Non-US Elections

[DAldredge]

Note every state has a winner take all ec setup, some do it on a proportional basis.

Re:Non-US Elections

[ZackSchil]

The only thing the electoral college system does is give a disproportionate number of votes to white southerners. I guess this would be considered a troll according to someone else's post and I don't have time to go into semantics (late for physics lab) but step back and you'll see that it's true. -Zack

Re:Non-US Elections

[jfruhlinger]

The only thing the electoral college system does is give a disproportionate number of votes to white southerners.

No, you're completely wrong. It also gives a disproportionate number of votes to white midwesterners.

jf

Re:Non-US Elections

[DAldredge]

I always thought that Alaska, and the other less populated states in the Upper North where in the North.

Re:Non-US Elections

[quantaman]

I'm guessing from the logo of the section that this will be a 'No', but will there be coverage of Non-US elections as well?

Ack, I hadn't even noticed the logo there, nothing against Americans but as a Canadian I have to say that I already see quite enough of your flag :) I have nothing against patriotism or anything but after a point the sheer quantity of stars and stripes I see around tends to get a little annoying.
Now I can see the reasoning behind US-centric stories for the next few months, what with the election and all, but there is certainly a lot else going on in the world, even a story already in the new section on The Australian Prime Minister. Also note all the stuff currently going on in the EU relating to patents and IP, China with it's massive population and strict media control, not to mention countless other events going on all over this planet. While the majority of the IP's that hit the front page might be from the US I'm sure anyone who reads the comments can attest to a strongly international presence that shows up. I feel that using a clearly pro-American logo not only incites the "I'm not an American" trolls (seriously do they want to make this a trollfest?) but also causes the perception that the politics being discussed are isolated from the rest of the world and people outside the US can neither affect nor are being affected by it, a perception which is extremely dangerous. Politics is a truly international affair, as a Canadian I can say that I'm much more scared by who might win the US election then by any of the candidates in my own, as well American's should be greatly interested by events all over the Middle East as well as what happens in the EU and China for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure what a good logo would be but clearly an American flag is highly improper for a wide variety of reasons.

Re:Non-US Elections

[mark_lybarger]

actually, under a popular vote, the smaller states get a voice still. and in the case of a popular vote, every voice counts, not just the ones from the swing states. you see, in places like florida, ohio, pennsylvania and maybe Michigan (the swing states) are where each and every vote counts. every vote makes the difference between those ec points. you're not going to see rigorous "get out the vote" campaigns in wyoming or vermont where each electoral vote represenets 200,000 people. in places like ohio, each ec vote represents ~ 500,000 people. but in a state where 20 ec votes are on the line, you'll see that each campaign train stops in to visit more than once per week during.

let the small states have their voice in the senate, and even a similar ec voice in the house, but when it comes to electing the national president, let the people of the nation have the voice.

even the electorial college makes those swing states too important. we all remember the 2000 fiasco. well, after the fact, it seems a study was done and concluded that gore would have won that state had all the ballots been re examined nationwide:

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/U.S.-pr es idential-election,-2000

does it really make sense to have the 27 ec votes from florida hinge on ~500 difference in voting numbers? those 500 people make the difference for the entire nation.

Re:Non-US Elections

[rainman_bc]

Not in Canada they don't...

In fact, any former British Commonwealth country that lack a President (in other words not a republic) doesn't have a basic majority rules system either. You have constituencies, and each constituency votes a representative, and the leader of the party who's got the most seats is Prime Minister. Usually that means there's a dispairity between the votes and the seats, although it's usually close. Canada, Australia, and England are all under this system.

New Zealand tries to solve this by having extra seats awarded to bring the seat count as close as possible to the popular vote...

Re:Non-US Elections

[pjt33]

And in England there's additional fun due to the West Lothian question remaining unresolved.

Re:Non-US Elections

[jb.hl.com]

I come here for politics. I for one think this section kicks ass-I've been waiting for something like this for some time. Tried Plastic, couldn't get into it, tried Kuro5hin, couldn't get into it, hopefully this will be better :)

Re:Non-US Elections

[halivar]

In most other countries, those who get more votes, actually win the election...

A true testament that US foreign intervention works!

Fa la!

Re:Non-US Elections

[GGarand]

from the logo? mmh, let me see... there is indeed some hint of a white star on the far left, sort of fading away, but the rest is positively a french flag.

Ooops... I think I just spoiled a subliminal message :)

Re:Non-US Elections

[ackthpt]

I come here for politics. I for one think this section kicks ass-I've been waiting for something like this for some time. Tried Plastic, couldn't get into it, tried Kuro5hin, couldn't get into it, hopefully this will be better :)

You might want to visit CostCo first and stock up on Tin Foil.

Re:Non-US Elections

[CrimsonAvenger]

Seems to me that Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, DC, North Dakota, Maine (as examples) get way more out of the Electoral College than the Old South does. In general, the Old South has few, if any, low population states (Arkansas and West Virginia are the smallest, I think, and neither is in the bottom 10).

In fact, the Electoral College was part of the compromise introduced to convince small states to retify the Constitution, to avoid being dominated by Virginia.

Re:Non-US Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

I have nothing against patriotism or anything but after a point the sheer quantity of stars and stripes I see around tends to get a little annoying.

Gotta agree with this. Even here in Australia I see a lot of stars and stripes. Why is it that so many US flags appear to be draped across kids' bedroom walls, school gyms, businesses, in movies, on websites, everywhere! I know it's meant to be patriotic, nothing wrong with that, but it just seems kinda fake, like people need to remind themselves of something. I dunno, it just looks like some form of cheap nationalism to me. I get turned off by it.

even a story already in the new section on The Australian Prime Minister.

The current PM here is so close to the USA that he fits right into this section, no problems there...

clearly an American flag is highly improper for a wide variety of reasons.

It's a US site and all the editors are American I'd guess, so it makes sense to me. If I ran a site like this it would be extremely biased to what's happening in Australia, seems natural really. That said, I think I've been turned off /. enough to stop coming back by this. Not in a bad way... and I could just register and set my prefs so none of these stores are shown... but for some reason I feel uneasy about it, and it is still reflected in a lot of the comments anyway. So I'm outta here, seeya...

Re:Non-US Elections

[siriuskase]

Hi "rest of the world", I hope you get modded up, you are quite funny, but your humor shelters some insightful truths.

First, like it or not, the US is the most powerful nation on the earth, so whoever our president is, it matters to you. Who knows what little country for whatever reason will next get his attention? So you have as much stake in the US Elections as those of us who have the opportunity to vote. In fact, you have as much influence as I do since I don't happen to be one of those 10 people in Ohio that the candidates care about. Lucky me, presumed to be Red no matter what I think.

Second, the US is the oldest nation on the planet with a winner -takes-all election system. Newer democracies either imitate us or try to come up with something better, usually a proportional voting system that represents the opinions of every voter, not just those who agree with the majority party. If 10% of the electorate votes Libertarian, then 10% of the congress should be Libertairian, right? And if this could happen, I think we'd see a lot more votes going to Libs and other "Third Pary" candidates.

Third, I think that you, rest of the world, should become as politically active as anyone in US politics. You may not have a vote, but you do have influence. Write directly to those of us who are supposed to be represented. Give concrete facts regarding how the "rest of the world" does it better. Speak to your own leaders. Let them know that they should expend some energy influencing the US on its electorial issues.

It's a screwed up system, we have the technology to administer a proportional system. Since we are messing around with these computerized touchscreen things anyway, this would be a great time to implement a more modern, representative, and accurate electorial system.

Re:Non-US Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooo, burn!

Re:Non-US Elections

[siriuskase]

How has the European Community solved this problem? I know from news reports that proper representation of different sized countries has been an issue.

Sure, the US is one country now, but when its Constitution was written, it was simply a confederation of independent states who were sold on the benefits of being one big country without giving up the benefits of being individual political units.

It's been a long time since the US has made major changes to its election law. Since those in power wouldn't benefit from major change, it's up to the rest of the world to come up with a more modern system that represents everyone fairly with proper incorporation of technology if it helps. Then, all of us, no matter the nationality can apply pressure wherever we can.

Re:Non-US Elections

[ZackSchil]

I'm sorry, in my rush to post before class, I forgot to mention the "heartland" too. Generally the old south and a strip up from Texas to Montana. Ditto for all the other posts pointing this out to me. Same demographic with disproportionate votes though.

Re:Non-US Elections

[EriDay]

6 votes for YOUR candidate Actually GWB only got 5 votes.

Re:Non-US Elections

[Canthros]

No, the original restrictions on the voting franchise were intended to make sure that the President was select by property owners. This was, at the time, a reasonable means for determining competence with respect to voting. Today, the electoral college helps balance the interests of larger states' cities and urban centers (such as New York City, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and others) against the interests of rural areas, which are more sparsely populated (cf. Wyoming, Montana, outlying regions of many states with very large urban centers). These two broad sets of interests correspond fairly well with Democratic and Republican strongholds, respectively. This is similar to the function filled by the US's bicameral legislature.

One hopes that this provides a greater diversity of values and ideas, which is vastly more important than diversity of ethnicity, and prevents the national government from becoming too far skewed to the needs of either particular demographic.

Re:Non-US Elections

[Cally]

Due to desperate financial straits I've been reduced to hitting slashdot once a week in a terse frenzy of HTTP GETs, grabbing everything I see that looks interesting in one frenzy. I then get to sit reading for the next week/fortnight without running up bandwidth charges.

I just broke my rule and went back online to reply to this as soon as I saw it.

I beg the Slashdot editorial staff with as much emphasis as I can - PLEASE, change the Stars and Stripes logo!!!

I know in the US everything gets draped in the flag, but for much of the rest of the world it's a symbol with many more layers of cultural meaning than you perhaps realise. You risk blowing away one of the key features that has kept Slashdot interesting for me since I first started reading - before there were user accounts, IIRC - namely the nationality-neutral way stuff is presented. The 9/11 coverage was a great example of the unexpected benefits of this - the US, and other western (Canadian, European,..) and other posters from all round the world contributed to those stories. It risks cheapening and diminishing something very precious. Please, change the logo.

full disclosure - yes I'm from the UK.

Re:Non-US Elections

[rpdillon]

He wasn't talking to you. He was talking to the original poster.

But what he said goes for you too, if you're going to make incorrect statements about how the US system works. After all, even if /.ers think differently, /. is news for *nerds*, and I would presume that a nerd would like to know about a topic he posts about.

If you wish to be willfully ignorant and demean a fairly brilliant system by acting as though you have all the answers with no downsides, go ahead.

But don't expect those of us that
1) understand the system
2) took the time to research it and its alternatives and
3) understand the advantages and downsides of it

to take you sersiously. I don't.

Re:Non-US Elections

[siliconjunkie]

I have nothing against patriotism or anything but after a point the sheer quantity of stars and stripes I see around tends to get a little annoying.

You know, I am an American living in Canada and *I* was going to say the same thing about *your* Maple leaf. I'm not knocking it or anything, but you Canadians put that leaf on EVERYTHING. It's in the middle of the McDonald's "Golden arches" up here, and finds it's way onto every single logo, it seems.

I guess what it really boils down to is BOTH our countries utilize the flag as a symbol of patriotism, and as citizens of our respective countries who are "desensitized" to some degree to our own insignia, we will notice the other's use of said insignia much more.

Re:Non-US Elections

[Lehk228]

I just wanted to add that the Slashdot in-depth discussions for non-tech topics will (hopefully) be great, possibly becoming for political discussion what slashdot has already done for Tech discussions (both the good and the bad).

Re:Non-US Elections

[Lehk228]

well aside from the old reason that the magority of americans were too ignorant to make such important decisions back in post-colonial America, the Electoral College system has helped stabilize elections, such that the only place where contesting vote counts would be even considered would be the most tightly contested states, and even then only if the difference in electoral votes was worth it, without it you would end up with Miami-Dade county in every county in the nation every time an election is close. honestly I am willing to accept the occasional signal artifact (popular winner not electoral winner) in order to have a long standing stable election system, since in the end neither party end up nominating a candidate so bad they would destroy the country (regardless of what their opponents' fanboys say) having a fairly distinct winner almost every election is more important than who actually wins in terms of long term political and economic stability of the nation.

Re:Non-US Elections

[dcmeserve]

...will there be coverage of Non-US elections as well?

I hope so. For example, Putin's political outlook may have changed markedly as a result of the last weeks' terrorism in Russia. I'd bet quite a few /.ers would have interesting things to say about that.

Doesn't need to go up on the main page, as it would probably only interest a minority of /.ers, but that's kind of the point of having a separate section, isn't it?

Re:Non-US Elections

[quantaman]

You know, I am an American living in Canada and *I* was going to say the same thing about *your* Maple leaf. I'm not knocking it or anything, but you Canadians put that leaf on EVERYTHING. It's in the middle of the McDonald's "Golden arches" up here, and finds it's way onto every single logo, it seems.

I guess what it really boils down to is BOTH our countries utilize the flag as a symbol of patriotism, and as citizens of our respective countries who are "desensitized" to some degree to our own insignia, we will notice the other's use of said insignia much more.

True to an extent though I find that the use of the Maple leaf is used primarly as a way for companies to signify that they're either Canadian, or more often, have a Canadian Division. This is used to give the impression of a Canadian company because we really don't like giving you guys any more money:) This doesn't happen with American companies partially becase they are often assumed to be American by default (and thus an additional symbol is redundant and causes problems outside the US) and I don't think the Stars and Stripes can fit into a logo as innocuously as a small Maple Leaf.

Outside of Corporate Logos I do feel that the proliferation of American flags far outstrips anything that happens in Canada. Consider the number of people who fly american flags on their lawns, I can't remember the last time I saw a Canadian flag on someones lawn, even on stores it seems the only time I see a Canadian flag is near the border and then it is often accompanied by an American flag. Not that anything is wrong with this it just happens that we just express our patriotism in different ways, mainly through insulting Americans and self-deprecating humour. Still I feel that using an American flag as the logo for the politics section is an inappropriate direction for /. to take.

Re:Non-US Elections

[Spy Hunter]

The idea that a simple picture of the American flag somehow will encourage a perception of being isolated from the rest of the world is preposterous. Slashdot is a US-based and US-focused site (see the FAQ that I'm too lazy to link to). This politics section has been started with the explicit purpose of giving better coverage of the issues surrounding the upcoming US presidential election (which will obviously include a lot of international coverage). It is perfectly appropriate for there to be an American flag in the section logo. Non-US focused but tech/media-related political articles can still go in the Your Rights Online section. If you are an international reader and you don't like reading about American politics, then feel free to start a political discussion site in your country and put up pictures of whatever flag you want.

Actually, I think this section is the most pleasing to the eye of all Slashdot sections (not that that's saying much...). Be careful what you wish for; we might end up with another it.slashdot.org. (not that CmdrTaco's likely to listen to your complaint anyway)

Re:Non-US Elections

[aggiefalcon01]

Very good point. /. is not entirely US-centric. Perhaps the admins should take a look at the 25 countries most visitors come from, and then have the flag rotate between them. That, or try something global, like UN or Olympics ... but, that'd be hard for many people who disagree with those organizations ... Maybe the logo should be a bunch of little flags. Blue for the color-scheme seems fine with me--not because it's in my flag, but because it's the color of 75% of the earth, during the day, and for something global, it makes sense.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[rokzy]

agreed having karma effected by politics is going to be fucking ridiculous and every 2nd post will be flamebait or troll.

Really?

[jejones]

We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.

Perhaps some examples are in order.

Re:Really?

[strictfoo]

Well, don't you remember that one time there was that story about how a criminal should actually go to jail for their crimes?

Or how the US government was doing something good?

Or how the current administration did something right?

(oh lol they haven't done anything right! LOL laugh loud! laugh! hahahaahaha laugh laugh! - Here you go nutball: First US federal funding for human stem cell research ever, and ~doubling the stem cell research funding over the past ~3 years - oops, wait, I thought they banned it?)

I remember them all like they were... uhmm... hmmm

Re:Really?

[Saint Nobody]

just read pudge's journal and jamie's responses to his posts. and then the ensuing wars of words as they both explain how completely and wrong the other's arguments are.

colors

[ack154]

At least they did a better job with the colors/logo than the nasty IT section... ;)

Re:colors

[TrentL]

IT has nothing on Games. I think the guy who designed that one was color blind.

Re:colors

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they just played way too many games...

Re:colors

[ack154]

Well the actual color of the games section is ok by me, it's just a little dark (especially the logo). The IT section, however, makes my eyes want to bleed.

Re:colors

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't changing it--they don't care that LOTS of people hate the colors. It can't take more than a DAY to fix it. (I'm being really really generous.)

Re:colors

[spaceyhackerlady]

Naaahhhh...this section needs a good logo.

The first thing that came to mind was a steaming pile of bullshit.

...laura, even more cynical than usual

Re:colors

[ack154]

Well, I must agree, that would be quite fitting for the topic.

Re:colors

[gatzke]

You can remove the politics from politics.slashdot.org to get your scheme back to "normal"

Works for yro.slashdot.org and it.slashdot.org

I have not figured out how to automate this.

Re:colors

[tqft]

I got someone who (Thanks Jesse) knows what they are doing to help me.

I knew what I wanted but was too clueless.

Create New bookmark.
Label something useful - "/. it fix"
In location insert this
javascript:void(location.hostname = "slashdot.org");

Save

When in story click with horrible color scheme click bookmarklet.

Re:colors

[gatzke]

Terrific!

I tried mucking around with my /etc/hosts file to get yro.slashdot.org to resolve just to slashdot.org, but it did not work.

You may be able to fix this to completely automate the color removal, but I have not figured it out.

Thanks!

Ed

Re:colors

[tqft]

Thank Jesse Rudderman (Moz/FF/etc guy).

I knew what i wanted to do but am hopeless with code. So I grovelled unashamedly at his feet saying what I was trying to do and that is what he sent back.

I tried to find a bookmarklet I could hack up by adding a reg exp that would remove the first bit (it. or games. from the front) in a general sense. As Jess showed I was working too hard at it.

That's all well and good

[feagle814]

...but how am I expected to read Slashdot politics without a color scheme that makes my eyes want to throw up?

New Moderation Proposals

[geeveees]

+1 Democrat

-1 Republican

-1 Commie Bastard

+1 Capitalist Pig

(Change + with - as seen fit)

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[stienman]

Take a page from Jib Jab:

-1 Right Wing Nutjob
-1 Liberal Weenie

-Adam

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Mr Guy]

-1 Hippie
-2 Uses the term "dubbya" as if it gives his point weight
-3 Refers to "you Americans"
-4 Uses statistics without citing source
-5 Thinks college is "The Real World"

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[CGP314]

So, which party is like the funny mod and doesn't affect your karma?

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, this isn't a bad idea!!

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

Also:

-1 European, you're nobodies and we don't care how much better you are, lalalalalalala!

-1 Canadian, whatever... you're just asking to get liberated you know!

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chest Notgerman Neo-Whig Party.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[pjt33]

The Official Monster Raving Loonie Party? No, I forgot, Lord Sutch is dead.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

The Green party obviously.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[CanadianCrackPot]

You Americans, thinking politics only applies to your electoral college. That ain't the real world! Dubbya already owns you and everything about you. and yes I'm a Hippie Socialist from Canada (hence the crack pot).

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[darth_MALL]

Canadians liberated? From what? Our superior health care system? Our superior education system? Our superior social support structure? Our innate compassion and politeness? Our Beer? You can have the beer when you pry it from my cold dead hands. And no...contrary to your sub-par schoolbooks, they are not cold because I live in an igloo. I wonder if there is an entry for The War of 1812 in that schoolbook? Hmmmmm...

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Stephen Williams]

-5 Godwin's Moderation: comparison of any current politician to Hitler.

There should also be an auto-mod for anyone who uses that Ben Franklin quote in order to make their point, but I can't decide whether it should be +5 Extremely Insightful, or -5 Thoroughly Overused.

-Stephen

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[rubberbando]

"So, which party is like the funny mod and doesn't affect your karma?"

I would say moderates like myself, most right and left wingers seem to think of us as a joke because we aren't 'extreme' enough in one direction or the other. :-P

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

History taught in American schools is wrong and made up as their government see fit, always has been. Not until it's studied at degree level does some sort of truth come out. This does somewhat explain why Mr Joe Average American thinks like he does.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[cryptochrome]

+2 Libertarian Asshole
-50 Lobbyist
-50 Politician
+50 Hot Chick
+1 Geeky
+0 You are so wrong!
-0 You are so right!

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[silverhalide]

Need the South Park labels:

-1 Aging Liberal Hippie Douche
-1 Pissed-off white-trash redneck conservative

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

> -1 Canadian, whatever... you're just asking to get liberated you know!

Of course. Haven't you heard of Manifest Destiny?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=man if est%20destiny

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[StalinsNotDead]

The Silly Party?

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[geomon]

"History taught in American schools is wrong..."

Have you studied here?

When I was in high school, we were encouraged to read newspapers from abroad to get an idea of how other countries viewed the history of any given policy of the time.

My children are now studying history in US high school and are equally encouraged to read other sources than their history texts.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Blakey Rat]

-1 Bitter Canadian

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those who would trade esential Anonanymity for the post bonus of high Karma deserve neither." -Ben Franklin

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. You Canadians wish you were Americans anyway. That's why 90% of you live crowded up against our border, when you have lots of perfectly-good empty land that's farther away.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[DJCF]

Yes, and the 5th Anniversery of his unfortunate demise was 2 days ago. Since then they have been lead fearlessly by joint leaders Alan "Howling Laud" Hope and Cat Mandu, photographed here.

Unfortunately, Cat Mandu was found dead last year - the victim of a traffic accident, having ended his days as another road death statistic, renewing calls from Loony Party activists to introduce Cat crossings on main roads so that cats have the same chance of crossing the road as pelicans and Zebras.

Slasdotters, welcome to British Politics and the British Monter Raving Loony Party

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Darby]

And no...contrary to your sub-par schoolbooks, they are not cold because I live in an igloo

Dude, you were making some sense up to this point.

Canadians not living in igloos?!? Sheesh what next.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[JaxWeb]

For the confused, Wikipedia can help

A very strange party indeed.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[soyuz_2]

I went to an american high school for a year. I was the only one in the entire US history class who knew who Slobodan fucking Milosevic was (this was the year after they had taken World History..), and when I answered the question "Which former Yugoslav president is currently being prosecuted for war crimes?", I heard "Who's that?", and the kid next to me asked "How do you know so much?". I read fucking newspapers, that's what. I'm not some brainiac searching the intarweb, reading dictionaries and encyclopedias so I can say random obscure stuff. Do call me a troll, but it seems that what is considered common/relevant/obvious knowledge in most of the rest of the world, even among highschoolers, kids in the US have no clue about. (I'm not saying everyone at my school were braindead/uninformed/clueless, just that the brain signal to noise ratio was sorta shifted towards "that's gay." and stuff.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[soyuz_2]

I guess you never heard about temperature, and farmland. Oh well.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

-1 Uses the term "USAians" as if the politics of Greenland and St. Kitts & Nevis can't be eliminated from context.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[jotaeleemeese]

-1 Uses American hijacking a continent's name.
+1 Clarifies that USians are not the only Americans.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

That joke is way to subtle for Americans to get. ;)

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[CanadianCrackPot]

Ha! I live in Nova Scotia not a single American border to be seen.

Re:New Moderation Proposals

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

You do know that "Britain" technically refers to a region of France, Brittany/Bretagne or "lesser Britain"? "Great Britain" is a different place, and by your logic the word "British" hijacks a region's name. "The United States of America" has the name "America" and the title "The United States", just like "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" has its latter part as its true name, and the "People's Republic of China" is both the PRC and China (they're hijacking the name of an area including Taiwan, aren't they?).

The meaning of the word "American" should be clear from context. I have rarely seen in usage (and that's the true way of finding a word's meaning) the word "American" for an inhabitant of the Americas, note the 's'. The word "Indian" hijacks a subcontinent's name, too.

Slashdot is not for politics

[bunburyist]

Why is it that slashdot is getting involved in politics? shouldn't slashdot be focusing on matters of tech, stuff thats important to nerds? STUFF THAT MATTERS? who cares about politics? lets discuss the latest thing that could be made into a beowulf cluster or debate on what would happen if we were in soviet russia or even ways of making PROFIT! politics are BOOORING and not really what (i thought) this site was aboot. If you wanna discuss politics i'm sure there are 100s of other sites for that type of stuff politics is derived from 2 words "poli" meaning "many" and "tics" meaning tiny bloodsucking insects

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[avalys]

So? If you want to remain an ignorant, uninformed loser, just go into your preferences and check the box that excludes all stories in the Politics section from your homepage.

Problem solved.

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[Maagma]

Ahh! But there are things in politics that relate to nerdy things and technology. For instance, all of the voting machines in California. Nerdy, yet political in some aspects.

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[over_exposed]

Because politics does MATTER, you twit. How do you think things like the PATRIOT act got through? I believe that had more "geeks" to use the term liberally, gotten out and voiced their opinions that things like the PATRIOT act or new wire-tapping laws were BAD (or at least had some negative and poorly thought out sections), things may have ended up for the better.

Just because politics can be boring doesn't mean they don't matter. Get off your swivel-chair and go register then excersize your right to VOTE. Maybe if all of the US slashdot readers did the same, we wouldn't have HALF the legal problems we do now and our country wouldn't be so bass-ackwards.

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[Beardo the Bearded]

What's more important than how our countries are governed?

Yes, this is a forum for geeks. Being a nerd means that we've got skills and talents that most people just don't have. The time of the quiet dork sitting in his or her office with his or her head in the sand are OVER. It's time to get out and make a difference and make that difference. Otherwise, it's High School all over again. You can't let dumb fucks with a loud voice tread on us. We can't just sit back and let the dummies in office get away with whatever they want. Get up, get mobilized, and get involved.

How can you be an IT professional if your field gets outsourced to India?

Does your dad know about his new DVD recording home theater not being able to record HDTV like his VCR?

Does your veteran grandfather know that the US is spending billions ressurecting the Star Wars program, even though it's been shown that nobody's going to attack anyone with ICBMs?

Does your drinking buddy know about the RIAA lawsuits, and how they spend fortunes bribing politicians to change copyright law to let them sue people into the ground?

Even if you agree that jobs should be offshored, you shouldn't be able to record TV, we should have a missile defence shield, and mp3s are illegal, do you know about the politics involved? Do your friends, family, and co-workers?

I read once that if someone you know doesn't want to vote, it's okay to hit them because then it's self defence.

It's a shame, but we're governed by politics, nerds or not.

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[JavaLord]

Why is it that slashdot is getting involved in politics? shouldn't slashdot be focusing on matters of tech, stuff thats important to nerds? STUFF THAT MATTERS? who cares about politics? lets discuss the latest thing that could be made into a beowulf cluster or debate on what would happen if we were in soviet russia or even ways of making PROFIT!

Slashdot has become much more political in since 9/11, especially in the last year. I'm glad that there will be a politics section for me to post in, and maybe it will keep some of the political flamewarriors out of the techie topics.

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Good job, Citizen!

Just keep pushing those buttons every few years and things will surely improve.

Remember, the system works!

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Voting isn't just a right, it's a duty.

Someone who is too (adjective here) to even exercise their right should not be encourage to do so, because without fail they will still be too lazy to live up to the duty and make an *informed* decision.

It is that type of voting which leads to things like Jesse Ventura becoming governor of Minnesota.

Instead they should be encouraged to become informed. People who are informed and have firm opinions don't hesitate to vote.

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

How do you think things like the PATRIOT act got through?

With broad bi-partisan support?

That said, you're right. Part of the problem is people focus too much on the national level. My advice would be to find out what your local zoning board or town council is up to; A couple of crooks in local government can really mess things up.

By all means vote, especially in local elections.

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[skajake]

Actually you missed the point. What does the patriot act have to do with being a geek? I support the patriot act and I am a geek. Big whooopety doooo. Just cause you disagree with me politically does not mean we need to argue abuot it on a geek forum.

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[Armchair Dissident]

Or, for that matter: the DMCA or the INDUCE act. These are acts passed through the process of politics but have the potential to affect all computer users - American or otherwise. Any overhaul of software patents in the US too will be reached by political, not technical, consensus. Achieving the consensus one wants requires a broader understanding of politics than just the technical problems it presents.

In the UK we have the RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers) act, the EUCD (European Copyright Directive - Europe's DMCA) and now software patents are being proposed by the EC. Australia had the trade agreement that may require a DMCA-esque regulation as part of the agreement. These have all been proposed and approved through the political process.

Fighting these changes is hard work, and requires effort; but most importantly it requires political nous. If you want to convince your representative, you have to know how to convince your representative. What will make your objections appealing to him? How can your representative convince his colleagues that you're right?

An understanding of politics is absolutely essential to getting these concepts through to an individual who must first be elected to stand for a position by his party before he's elected "by the people". If you're unable to convince your representative - through politics - that at the very least his standing with his party won't be harmed, you have a snowballs chance in hell of convincing him to listen to you.

I would, however, disagree that politics is boring. It's frustrating, it's annoying, it's usually hypocritical and amoral, but it's rarely boring :)

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[alanbs]

Clearly politics is a very important topic and in many ways it is very relevant to "Nerd" topics. In fact we constantly see Slashdot articles about patents and licensing as well as laws concerning technology. Maybe these topics have a place in a politics section, but I am cynical and can imagine it as a place for people to go on endlessly about partisan topics as is periodically done anyway. If I want this type of stuff, I can find it elsewhere. Slashdot is a tech sanctuary and should be wary of being adulterated with certain political topics.

Re:Slashdot is not for politics

[Anonymous Coward]

> What does the patriot act have to do with being a geek?

It has implications in the technology arena, dumbass.

> I support the patriot act and I am a geek.

No, you're a loser. There is a fine line between geek and loser, and you've obviously crossed it.

Politics in Slashdot?

[ackthpt]

"Now zen ween deed you suddenly become avare of zee obvious? Hmm?"

Slashdot went political

[SunCrushr]

Slashdot went political a long time ago...

Seriously though, congrats guys, this should make for some more really good discussions on slashdot.

im happy

[Coneasfast]

seems like the colors aren't half as bad as it.slashdot.org, i'm happy :)

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[TopShelf]

Serious damage and Slashdot karma just don't belong in the same sentence...

Great...

[xchino]

How do I mod an entire section as flamebait?

And I can see all the foriegners complaining that this is too U.S. centric :)

Re:Great...

[stienman]

Visit your homepage preferences and select Politics to avoid seeing these stories on your main page.

-Adam

Re:Great...

[CaptnMArk]

I was going to ask that.

Some of us non Americans have elections this year too.

Re:Great...

[Nept]

seeing as how the politics.slash logo is an American flag, then yes, I suppose this section may be described as U.S. centric :)

at least the color scheme isn't as bad as it.slashdot.org

Re:Great...

[moonbender]

Yep, me too. But I guess the logo (top right corner) settles that question. I really, really don't want to talk or even think about the US election. I mean, I read stuff about it all the time, but it pisses me off all the same. I don't mind having this section, though - I don't have to read it after all.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

Amazing! Do you have indoor plumbing, too?

Re:Great...

[geomon]

And I can see all the foriegners complaining that this is too U.S. centric :)

Yes, but in the spirit of the current Administration (and looks likely that it will be the future Administration), we don't take crap off of our Colonies(tm).

You see, when you are the undisputed last remaining SuperPower(tm), it is beneath you to take seriously any criticism from the USEuropean Colonies, nor from our Colonies in USChina, USIndia, or USRussia. Shit, we can't even be bothered to wake from our collective slumber to listen to such backwaters as USAfrica, or USLatin America. Japan, Taiwan, and Israel are our only allies and they don't get in our way when we care to flex our might where we care to.

Face it, who has the power to oppose us? The Arab countries? Really?

(sound of fading sarcasm)

Re:Great...

[Lisandro]

Heheheh, my exact thoughts! "Ohhh, like this *WON'T* be a flame magnet..."

As for US centric, well, the majority of Slashdot users are from the US. I just hope relevant political stories from the rest of the world are accepted aswell.

About time...

[Anonymous Coward]

The LeftDot propaganda from "michael" was about to take over. High time you guys moved that stuff off to a more appropriate area. Good job.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, just what we need. A politics section run by biased anti-American pinko commies. Ah well, at least it'll be more out in the open, unlike many of the biased anti-American posts made by various pinko commies rampant throughout Slashdot.

Now I'll have an alternative news source to go read what's in the diseased mind of the world's liberal socialists besides the BBC and Al-Jazeera.

such nice colors

[dnotj]

Lets have politics and IT exchanged in the grand scheme of color schemes.

Not having to see the IT color scheme again in my life won't bother me one iota.

Re:such nice colors

[balster neb]

Well, since you asked for it, here's a link to this article in the glorious cat vomit IT colour scheme :)

Re:such nice colors

[dnotj]

My nicotine patch prevents me from clicking that link. I can't read IT stories anymore either. :(

Thanks!

[peacefinder]

And about bloody time, too. :-)

Long term memory

[NZheretic]

SPECIAL REPORT/CLINTON'S CRISES MARCH 2, 1998 VOL. 151 NO. 8
Why We Didn't Remove Saddam
By GEORGE BUSH (Snr) AND BRENT SCOWCROFT.

Section Colors

[denis-The-menace]

Why didn't the "IT" section get the "Politics" nicer colors?

I'm surprised that the bar in this section aren't:
Red-FadingTo-White-FadingTo-Blue

Re:Section Colors

[metlin]

Jesus Christ, child! What's with you, don't give the man Taco anymore ideas.

As if we aren't blinded enough already by the brilliant dazzling display of colours in the IT section.

On the other hand, I like the caption, "Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters."

Groovy, baby ;)

Re:Section Colors

[BandwidthHog]

Replace the third level domain in the url with whichever section's colo[u]r scheme you wanna see.

For instance, the WETA cluster for hire article becomes instantly and magically readable.

Re:Section Colors

[Anonymous Coward]

As an added benifit, replacing the third level domain with nothing fixes the Firefox drawing bug.

Wow, jumping on the bandwagon a little late?

[Salden]

Just makes me wonder if Kerry wins the election, will the Air America network survive with nothing to complain about? Or was this their thought all along?

1. set up liberal radio network
2. dem candiditate wins election
3. ...
4. Profit?

Re:Wow, jumping on the bandwagon a little late?

[Bowling Moses]

Rush Limbaugh and the other conservative talk show hosts didn't go anywhere when Bush I was in office, got a little surge over Clinton, and have remained in place for Bush II. Whatever your opinion on politics though they do have one advantage over Air America: they're entertaining, even if it's only for the screaming back at the radio while on long drives (for us lefties, anyway).

Oh, and Limbaugh et al are also easy to find on the dial. I heard a rumor that Air America's on NPR...somewhere...at...uh...sometime, but I haven't been able to confirm this. So make that two advantages.

Okay, and Limbaugh was committed to being the host of a radio program. Al Franken doesn't seem so inclined and probably will quit as soon as possible after the 2004 presidential race is over. Make that three advantages...and no Monty Python jokes!

Re:Wow, jumping on the bandwagon a little late?

[HangingChad]

The Great Windbag right wing (I refuse to call them conservative) mighty whitey, prescription drug abusing, mouthpiece managed to find plenty to complain about the last four years.

Funny that fat boy doesn't apply the same standards to both sides of the political fence. But I guess accuracy isn't the object, now is it?

Re:Wow, jumping on the bandwagon a little late?

[antifoidulus]

Hell, even with a republican controlled house, senate, and White House Rush has still found stuff to complain about, so I'm assuming it works the other way too.

The only decent show on that network is Franken, who while left leaning, is(usually) very good with his points. Though he can get VERY petty sometimes. The rest is just radical left talk not really meant to convince anyone of anything, just re-assure people with certain beliefs.

My biggest complaint about talk radio left and right is that there are rarely any new ideas discussed. Mimics the political process I guess. Really IMO the only new idea discussed in this election is Kerry's health plan(not socializing medicine but having the government pick up the tab on catastrophic(>50k) health care costs), and really Kerry and his followers have done a very poor job on communicating the benefits of the plan to voters.

The election process in this country has gotten VERY petty, and I think both parties are really to blame.

Re:Wow, jumping on the bandwagon a little late?

[erick99]

I'm a Republican but even I can't listen to Rush. I really can't listen to any show that starts out as "left" or "right" because I already know what I am going to hear and how much fun is that? I have been listening to some stations on XM radio such as the Ask! network looking for something a bit more interesting. I like Rollye James - a libertarian. Well, at least it is, for me, a different flavor of bias and a hell of a lot more entertaining since it's not all shrill and reactionary. If this new section ends up being like Rush or Franken, then it will just be noise with nobody listening. I really hope that people take some time to not only put forth their point of view, but honestly consider the other point of view as a real possibility. The more I do that, the more interesting life becomes.

Cheers,

Erick

Re:Wow, jumping on the bandwagon a little late?

[kalidasa]

My biggest complaint about talk radio left and right is that there are rarely any new ideas discussed. Mimics the political process I guess.

Insightful +1

(Hey, no one with mod points was going to do it . . .)

Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

A new subsection that doesn't burn the eyes! Who would have thought?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

What's funny to me is that people think we DON'T have a diverse specturm of political ideologies. :-)

The world is more than just the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Again this just goes to show the US-centric nature of this site. Come on, if you want to discuss political issues, I'm sure there are plenty of dedicated sites to choose from.

Re:The world is more than just the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noooooo! I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find that a site created by Americans is US-centric!

Re:US-centric

[squidgyhead]

Slashdot is trying to make sure that they represent a variety of viewpoints... from the USA.

Good God, folks, would it hurt to at least try and make things a bit balanced? Important things happen in the world that don't have to do with the USA. There are a lot of people here who would be interested in hearing about it.

Re:great!

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that the French underground played a much bigger role than the US is willing to admit. Without them, D-Day and the defeat of the Nazis would have been impossible.

american flag

[laurent420]

why an american flag for the /. graphic? there *are* countries outside america that practice politics. typical shortsightedness.

Re:american flag

[Eudial]

there *are* countries outside america that practice politics. typical shortsightedness.

What!? I never knew.

Re:american flag

[ghettoboy22]

It's an American site... you haven't figured that out by now?

Re:american flag

[Anonymous Coward]

The SlashCode's free, you stupid fuck. Start your own site. I won't be pissing and moaning if I only saw Canadian politics on a Canadian site.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Re:american flag

[Teh Anonymous Coward]

hey, don't playerhate. Maybe the graphic will change every day, until all 260+ countries have had their flag displayed :-/

Re:american flag

[bert.cl]

You mean the US pradtice politics? Good Lord!! (This is meant as a joke, not flamebait)

Re:american flag

[Anonymous Coward]

there *are* countries outside america that practice politics.

Keep practicing. Once you master it, maybe we will let you become a state!

Re:american flag

[chamblah]

I think this line from the parent:

With the US Presidential Election coming up...

And this one:

...we'll be running special political coverage between now and the election...

Should help explain the flag graphic. But I'll explain it as well.

The American election is what prompted this section. And, from the looks of the second quoted line, this section will only be here till the end of the American election.

So since the topic section is centered around the American election, it's only fitting that the graphic for this section be an American Flag .

Re:american flag

[Anonymous Coward]

practice politics.

And if they keep practicing, maybe they'll get it right eventually. :)

Re:american flag

[Anonymous Coward]

and true to the american way, no american ever gave a fuck about anything outside of america, unless of course it was profitable or gave them a chance to bomb the shit out of another sovereign nation that was just minding it's own business.

Re:american flag

[teamhasnoi]

hy an american flag for the /. graphic? there *are* countries outside america that practice politics. typical shortsightedness.

As a service to the editors, I fired up gimp, took the graphic and mixed every flag from every country together - what better way to promote a non-centrist discussion?

Unfourtunately, I got this.

That's only going to cause wars.

Re:american flag

[zulux]

there *are* countries outside america that practice politics.

Sorry about that. We're working as fast as we can - after Iraq there's: Iran, France and Canada scheduled for assimilation. I think your country is next.

We'll get there soon!

Re:american flag

[dattaway]

maybe we will let you become a state!

No, we call them outside territories or terrorist regimes.

Re:american flag

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't canada a state?

Re:american flag

[athakur999]

If only there were some way for people outside the US to get a web server and set up a Slashdot like site dedicated to the politics of their country, rather than whining about how all other countries are somehow entitled to have coverage in a section dedicated to US politics.

Re:american flag

[Anonymous Coward]

shortsightedness

You don't know what that word means.

Can we please stop using "short-sighted" to describe anything we disagree with? If someone is short-sighted, it means they don't think about the long term. It can also be used to describe someone of limited intellect. Neither of these have anything to do with ignoring other countries.

Re:american flag

[Anonymous Coward]

To achieve the US democratic standards we would need to lower ours first. Here at least we can *choose* from a large range of political parties. And the chances of one party getting all the power is almost zero since the election method favours the forming of coalitions.

Re:american flag

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why not have the Flag of Chile, or Bolivia?

Re:american flag

[Gulthek]

You know what that reminds me of?

Zapp: "I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me."

Zapp: "What makes a man turn neutral ... Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?"

Neutral Official: "Your neutralness, it's a beige alert."
Neutral Leader: "If I don't survive, tell my wife: Hello."

Re:american flag

[willpall]

Because, ummm, Slashdot is an American site? I refer you to the FAQ...

Q: Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?

A: Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it. Answered by: CmdrTaco Last Modified: 10/28/00

Can you fix the filtering first?

[Bazman]

I suspect lots of people wont want to see the politics stuff. But the category selection stuff doesn't seem to work at the moment (there's bugreps in the slashdot bug tracker).

Pleasey weasey?

Re:Can you fix the filtering first?

[pudge]

Until that is fixed, we will be making a concerted effort to not put any but the most obviously worthy politics stories on the mainpage, because people cannot filter them out. I realize this also means, however, that you will get politics if you have sectioncollapse selected in your prefs. And I know that sucks. Sorry. We do want to fix it ASAP.

Disable Flamebait?

[Mr Guy]

How the heck are we going to mod this section? It sounds like EVERY comment is going to be flamebait. Then we'll have the usual problem with Non-US people griping about how unfair it is that it only covers US politics (I'm assuming here) as well as put in their two bits ON US politics. It's going to be messy!

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[Ford Prefect]

How the heck are we going to mod this section? It sounds like EVERY comment is going to be flamebait.

Hey, Mr 'Guy', you have dubious personal hygiene and your mother dresses you funny! :-)

I think if Slashdot is going for maximising pointless, impossible-to-resolve arguments and flamebait, there's always another section that can be added...

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gorgeous George: "This is going to get messy."

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[rd_syringe]

Yeah, but it'll sure generate page hits, won't it?

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[plj]

No, flamebait shouldn't be disabled. In my opinion you can write biased comments reflecting your opinion, as long as you explain why your opinion is what it is, and don't just directly insult those opposing you. (If you do, then that is flamebait.) But you're right in that sense that the difference between flamebait and trolling on this section will probably be thin.

And about that US-centricism... yeah, beautiful colours, except that stupid flag up there. But if the topic of a particular topic happens to be about US politics, I can't see why us foreigners shouldn't be able to threw in our own 2 cents. The head-of-state elections of the sole superpower of our planet, for example, enjoys certain international interest -- and for a good reason.

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it will work as follows:

If the article features American Democrat or Republican views (or equivalents in other countries), anything against the views in the article will be modded up. Everything else will be modded down. I predict this by the mob mentality of the /. community as a whole.

Anything on a libertarian/green subject will be considered insightful or interesting.

Any jokes about the summary will be either funny, troll, or flamebait, depending upon the target.

There will be dozens of complaints about governments selling out to large corporations. These will all be +5 insightful by default, regardless of the rationale behind the argument.

Someone will find a way to complain about Microsoft in some sense, and how Linux is more politically-friendly to the average citizen than Microsoft. Such posts will be +5 insightful or interesting. Anything arguing against them will either stay at their defaults or go straight to -1 troll/flamebait.

This post will be modded as -1 troll or just remain at 0 due to it being posted as AC.

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[Ralph Yarro]

In my opinion you can write biased comments reflecting your opinion, as long as you explain why your opinion is what it is, and don't just directly insult those opposing you.

So it'll be okay as long as we don't let any actual politicians post comments?

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[Idarubicin]

Then we'll have the usual problem with Non-US people...put[ting] in their two bits ON US politics.

Why is this a problem?

The rest of the world is affected by U.S. politics, whether through military action or trade and monetary policy. As a Canadian, I know that the United States is my country's largest trading partner. (For that matter, Canada is also the United States' largest trading partner.) Jobs, goods, and services flow back and forth across the world's longest undefended land border to the tune of more than a billion dollars per day.

Slashdot is a relatively open forum--even if the rest of the world can't vote in the next election (defects in electronic voting systems notwithstanding...) we still have every reason to take an interest. Besides, it's sometimes useful to have access to political ideas and viewpoints from other cultures and political systems. Call it a kind of reality check.

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[plj]

Yeah, hey you hit the nail!

if(account.isPartyMember == true && section.name == "politics") {
account.cid.score = "-1, Flamebait";
}
else {
applyRegularModRules();
}

Oh wait... I forgot that slash is written in perl, could someone please port that to non-human-readable form?

In the meantime mod parent funny. ;-)

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[Mr Guy]

Actually, that didn't come out quite the way it was intended. The problem I see isn't peer review, it's arrogant antagonistic peer review by people who don't understand the process, intents, or scale of our country. I think from this point I'm going to take it into my journal, where I can rant a little more freely. I'm sorry for giving the impression that I don't care about ALL foreign input; it's actually a very certain type of foreign input I care very little about.

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[sasha328]

Then we'll have the usual problem with Non-US people griping about how unfair it is that it only covers US politics (I'm assuming here) as well as put in their two bits ON US politics. It's going to be messy!

I'm surprised you see this as a problem. As an Australian, I take great pleasure in reading news stories about Australia from foreign media (and the odd comment on Slashdot). Outsiders usually have a lot of insight and can see more of my country than we do. So, as an outsider myself, I can tell you (Americans) relax, open up. Go see the world. There is more to the world than just your country. Besides, half the world's problem would be less severe if you took more interest in other countries apart from "what's in it for me".

Re:Disable Flamebait?

[drsquare]

Yeah, you can write fair, biased comments, but that doesn't mean they won't be modded down.

I've seen political discussions on slashdot before, and it's sickening how many posts are modded down because someone doesn't agree with them. It's abuse of moderation but no-one seems to mind.

Even then, I don't think discussing politics on a US-based site is much good. This may seem harsh coming from an outsider, but when I see Americans arguing politics I'm reminded of school-children. It ALWAYS comes down to name-calling, stereotypes, illogical arguments, personal attacks and outright venom. A politics section might be useful if the people using it would debate like mature adults rather than kids.

Yeah, moderation will work here

[devilsadvoc8]

Lets just skip the moderation function in this area. Mods here already let their political view influence their moderation of "tech" subjects, let alone an overtly political thread.

I don't care if /. puts up a political forum I just won't go there as the population here is already too narrow politically to be a fair discussion.

Re:Yeah, moderation will work here

[dnotj]

you mean you can't stand the liberal slant?

this is a media outlet. what were you expecting?

America?

[Jacek Poplawski]

Political means "about America"? And that means "about USA"?

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Ford Prefect]

You are somehow labeled as "right" or "left" depending on the whim of the moderators or random members of the community.

Really old, but I happened to be thinking of it earlier today - the Political Compass. Apparently I'm way off to the left, and down a bit.

Maybe all posters in this new section should take said test so that posters with conflicting views may safely ignore viewpoints that they disagree with. After all, there's a place for partisan publishing (scroll down a bit...) ;-)

Slashdot Jumps the Shark

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Slashdot Goes Political: Announcing politics.slashdot.org

I'd like to think...

[Mongoose Disciple]

... that as long as people are writing posts that inform and explain their viewpoint, they won't be modded down, even by people who disagree. A one sentence-post espousing an unpopular viewpoint, yes, is basically a troll or flamebait. A paragraph or so explaining why the author has that viewpoint and some of the facts/reasoning behind it shouldn't be. These are the kinds of posts that make for stimulating discussion that enriches us all, even if you don't agree.

It's possible I'm just a rosy-glassed optimist, but I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope.

Re:I'd like to think...

[stienman]

It's possible I'm just a rosy-glassed optimist, but I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope.

Obviously thinly veiled references to the rosary, cross, and christian 'hope', you sneaky troll.

Oh, wait, this isn't the religion section is it?

Politics?

Well that's essentially the same thing. Flame on!

-Adam

Re:I'd like to think...

[duncan]

You'd like to think that, but the reality of it is as an american I can say what I want in a sentence and you have to accept it for what it is.

Re:I'd like to think...

[drinkypoo]

You are not only a rosy-glassed optimist, but you are sadly deluded. Slashdot moderation is continually used to pursue personal goals and to punish people for having a different viewpoint. You can typically identify such moderation because nearly every "Redundant" mod and the majority of "Offtopic" mods fall into this category; A healthy but probably not majority share of "Troll" mods are also used for this same purpose.

Re:I'd like to think...

[nine-times]

It's possible I'm just a rosy-glassed optimist, but I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope.

I'd like to think that as well, but I've seen it happen, and it's happened to me, that an unpopular opinion, even when posted in a thoughtful and fair way, gets modded down.

Granted, I have good karma, so I can't complain too much about unfair moderation. Also, sometimes I suspect that the downward moderation occurs from lack of careful reading rather than disagreement. (someone skims a post, doesn't understand, sounds like a troll, mods down).

Anyway, it's not a perfect system, but sometimes you have to settle for "works well enough".

Re:I'd like to think...

[JavaLord]

A one sentence-post espousing an unpopular viewpoint, yes, is basically a troll or flamebait. A paragraph or so explaining why the author has that viewpoint and some of the facts/reasoning behind it shouldn't be.

Who considers what is popular or unpopular? While you may think a one sentence post espousing abortion rights is "popular" I may think of it as flamebait.

Hopefully mods can lay off modding by party/ideology. What may seem popular to you might not be popular at all.

A little bit more on popular opinion and politics...Even if something IS popular opinion that doesn't mean it's right. Popular opinion in the US on 9/12/04 was probably that we should "nuke the middle east" that doesn't make it the right thing to do. Popular opinion in the US south pre-civil war might have been that slavery was ok. Popular/Unpopular has nothing to do with right and wrong, and shouldn't be considered in moderation.

Re:I'd like to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

that as long as people are writing posts that inform and explain their viewpoint, they won't be modded down

Unfortunately the opposite is true. I always try to present my goatse.cx point of view, every time get modded down...

Re:I'd like to think...

[Dun Malg]

Popular opinion in the US on 9/12/04 was probably that we should "nuke the middle east"

How is it that you are posting from at least 6 days in the future.

PS: what are the powerball numbers for next week?

Re:I'd like to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that you are posting from at least 6 days in the future.

I knew someone would look at that typo (I of course ment 01) and feel the need to post something wise-assed. I was hoping it would be funny at least. You fail it.

Re:I'd like to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, wait, this isn't the religion section is it?

Wrong section. You're looking for any story that mentions Microsoft or Linux.

Re:I'd like to think...

[Zork the Almighty]

Now THAT was funny.

Re:I'd like to think...

[pete-classic]

How would he know the numbers from next week? I want to know the numbers from yesterday . . . from his time-frame.

-Peter

Re:I'd like to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, this is how we know some mods are on crack.. You mod up the guy that says the parent was funny? Why not mod up the parent?!

Re:I'd like to think...

[Mongoose Disciple]

Who considers what is popular or unpopular? While you may think a one sentence post espousing abortion rights is "popular" I may think of it as flamebait.

Obviously, I decide what is popular. :P

Seriously, maybe the point should be that a one sentence disagreement is pretty much always flamebait. Strong non-neutral language is often a troll or flamebait. Everything else that makes a real case for or against the issue at hand should be left to be judged on its own merits, perhaps not modded up (not every good post is), but certainly not modded down.

I'm hoping, anyway.

Re:I'd like to think...

[miltimj]

Hmmm...your comment kind of reminds me of a signature I've been using for a while...

Re:I'd like to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Great post! +3 Insightful I'd say! Looks like the mods agree with me.

(Read: Why the fuck did that get modded up?)

Re:I'd like to think...

[hey!]

It's possible I'm just a rosy-glassed optimist, but I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope.

Obviously thinly veiled references to the rosary, cross, and christian 'hope', you sneaky troll.

Rosy, cross -- dude you totally missed it. Obviously he his trolling for the Rosicrucians .

Re:I'd like to think...

[maxpublic]

You could get rid of much of this by only allowing
'free' positive moderation. Any negative moderation would also deduct a point from YOUR OWN karma.

My guess is that the people most interested in negative moderation also have the least (or no) karma. If that's the case, their ability to pursue a personal agenda in the form of modding down folks they don't happen to like would come to an abrupt end.

Max

Re:I'd like to think...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that you are posting from at least 6 days in the future.

I knew someone would look at that typo (I of course ment 01) and feel the need to post something wise-assed. I was hoping it would be funny at least. You fail it.

Hey, you want laughs go see a comedian. My commentary is only snide and obnoxious. You'll have to find your amusements elsewhere.

In addition to a political subsection

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

How about a political moderation. To be fair perhaps plus 1 politically insightful and minus 1 political flame. Many posts having to do with things like privacy issues may seem insightfulk but due to a political bend end up being modded offtopic or otherwise. This would allow us to browse those if we are so inclined. Politics is a big part of many IT / tech peoples lives.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[jamie]

I would hope that moderators are fair enough to send comments up or down depending on their quality, not whether their point of view is agreeable. Even if someone says something we completely disagree with, as long as they say it well and bring facts to the table, it is worth hearing.

My guess is that there will be many otherwise-unremarkable posts which will be moderated up simply because they express a popular point of view forcefully, and, as always, meta-moderators are encouraged to mark lame upmods as Unfair. If a post isn't any more Insightful than average, but gets moderated that way, then rigorous meta-moderation will help the system, next time around, give mod points to someone else who deserves them more.

Namechange

[iamdrscience]

I propose the name of this new section be changed to flames.slashdot.org

Yes, yes, this will conflict with the slashdot section devoted to the Calgary Flames hockey team, but I'm sure we'll be able to deal.

Well...

[Sardonis]

at least it has a decent colorscheme, i.e. high contrast and not low contrast.

And yes, moderators, this is on topic. A colorscheme is (for a novice user) inseperable from its section.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Lord Kano]

My Karma was trashed because of politics. A few years ago I said something to draw someone's ire and I was karma bombed. My karma was reduced to the point where I couldn't post anymore.

Since then, I've been unable to get mod points.

LK

What about those flags?

[ESqVIP]

I'm not from the US, you insensitive clod!

Color scheme

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow I'm a little disappointed with the blue... I was hoping for something more black to fully reflect the election's mood.

Re:Color scheme

[lucabrasi999]

I was hoping for something more black to fully reflect the election's mood.

Now THAT is funny!

Re:Color scheme

[whitlock]

I was expecting a red & blue scheme, but black & blue would be better.

Bah

[stratjakt]

the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies

Yeah, everything from liberal to socialist!

So now there can be as many "Bush sucks" articles as there are "Windows sucks" articles.

And they're so fair and unbiased, I can't wait to see the Bush-as-borg icon.

Anyone else miss the old slashdot which was a decent spot to discuss tech?

I really don't care about the politics of a bunch of college kids. Oh well, a new section to block. Problem is, I bet 90% of front page stories are "politics".

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else miss the old slashdot which was a decent spot to discuss tech?

judging by your user number, i would guess you don't miss it either.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, user numbers and karma are everything to slashbots.

Does it occur to anyone that I didn't bother to register until the 3 posts per day (or however many it is) for AC's rule started?

Never gave a rats ass about "karma", all it does is turn discussions into lame-assed pissing contests.

Re:Bah

[TheCaptain]

Very well then...I'll back him up on that. I am not the lowest number posting here...but I have been here awhile. And I was a non-posting reading quite some time before that.

I miss those days.

Re:US-centric

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's quite stupid for a US-based site to discuss US-based politics.

I'm not even American, yet I can understand that. Get a life.

EC-centric

[Forget4it]

European Communities citzen are a bit eccentric [MontyPython etc] ... for instance they don't find two rich US politicians bashing it out as riveting as they ought to.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Dot.Com.CEO]

I think the +5 funny was due to the fact that you think that having a "diverse spectrum of political ideologies" means you will "do a good job".

Abuse of moderation? Never!

[wowbagger]

But that cannot happen, because Our Fearless Leader Who Is Always Right has said that there is no significant abuse of moderation.

Anybody who says Our Fearless Leader Who Is Always Right is wrong is an enemy of the state, and must be denied moderation privileges.

Please turn yourself in for ReEducation immediately.

And about time

[rueger]

I do have to say that in the last few weeks while meta-moderating I've been annoyed at the number of posts that were obviously moderated "off-topic" or "flamebait" just because the moderator didn't agree with the political slant.

I'll also second the post that suggested that this forum should look at politics everywhere, not just the US. There is a lot to be learned by looking at the ways that other jurisdictions handle things like Digital rights, wiretapping, and freedom of speech.

That said, I expect that I'll choose not to subscribe to the politics forum, and I doubt very much that political baiting will disappear from other parts of our beloved slashdot.

Re:And about time

[ptbarnett]

I do have to say that in the last few weeks while meta-moderating I've been annoyed at the number of posts that were obviously moderated "off-topic" or "flamebait" just because the moderator didn't agree with the political slant.

I've noticed it, too. And I've been meta-moderating those "unfair".

Re:And about time

[lucabrasi999]

I've been annoyed at the number of posts that were obviously moderated "off-topic" or "flamebait" just because the moderator didn't agree with the political slant.

-1 Flamebait.

:)

Re:And about time

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup. And mostly using my mod points lately to try to rescue five instances of heresy on the first page I read.

Unfortunately, this is ultimately futile, since /.'s positive-feedback moderation system gives more mod points to the Party faithful, who use it to give more mod points to the Party faithful....

Re:And about time

[lousyd]

I'll also second the post that suggested that this forum should look at politics everywhere, not just the US.

Personally, I couldn't care less about some peon political game-playing in non-U.S. countries. Which, actually, is why I'd rather there not be a "politics" section at all.

Oh, no.

[Canthros]

Like I can't find enough badly informed, half-assed political commentary in my local newspaper or at kuro5hin.org or any of an infinite number of random webfora, Slashdot has decided to start discussing politics from the perspective of those who think that (intellectual) property should be free.

Off to add a section to the don't display list.

Title Bar

[liam193]

Shouldn't the Title of politics.slashdot.org be Politics for Nerds: Stuff That Matters

not

News for Nerds: Stuff That Matters

?

Re:Title Bar

[Dot.Com.CEO]

It's "Politics for nerds. Your vote matters", actually.

Re:Title Bar

[Teh Anonymous Coward]

Nerds for politics: They think it matters.

Re:Title Bar

[deltwalrus]

"Voting is for Nerds. None of this matters."

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the +5 funny was due to the fact that you think that having a "diverse spectrum of political ideologies" means you will "do a good job".

Yes. Exactly.

Re:US-centric

[wo1verin3]

Why is it US-centric?

Because the section is for political coverage between now and the upcoming US election.

Re:US-centric

[Anonymous Coward]

Lies! There is only one country!
The Earth will be renamed to "America" in a few years.

Re:US-centric

[Skye16]

Don't worry, eventually the'll make a "does-not-effect-us-in-a-very-direct-way-ninety-fi ve-percent-of-the-time.slashdot.org" subdomain soon enough.

As much as I love to pay attention to what happens in the rest of the world, the truth is, it rarely has any direct effect on our lives.

Then again, for the times it does, it is nice to hear about it.

Yay for contradicting myself in my own post!

Moderation bubble

[Lord Kano]

I suggest that the political section of Slashdot use a moderation system that is seperate from normal karma and moderation.

Rob, you KNOW as well as I do that in the political section, it will be common practice to moderate people based upon their politics. It happens right now in the YRO section.

I suggest that moderation should occur so that GNAA, Frist Post, 123 Profit and all of the other bullshit posts can be taken down but if someone presents a valid but unpopular opinion, they don't have to have their karma ruined.

LK

Riiiiiiight

[mcmonkey]

We all know what 'issues' the /. crowd is concerned with...

This is just an excuse to run more stories on Georgy Russell. (How long does any discussion of SciFi characters go before it turns to Scully or some tart running after Dr Who in go-go boots and a short skirt?)

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[SkyWalk423]

Mod Parent +one-zillion "There's still hope for humanity"

It boggles my mind that there are people that base so much of their self-worth on a hidden int on a faraway server.

diverse?

[LBArrettAnderson]

so let's see here, we have a few communist editors, socialists... democrats... no one crosses that moderate line that i can think of... or maybe they're censored by the other editors?

Re:diverse?

[scupper]

they must know I'm not a democrat. My submissions get rejected in record time, in fact, I think I'm on auto-reject. Ahh, let me karma bleed out...

Re:diverse?

[Phillup]

Change your sig... they'll jump all over you if you do it right.

Re:diverse?

[Anonymous Coward]

i don't understand how this is flamebait, it is entirely true!

Re:Blue - or Red?

[leerpm]

Is there a socialist flag?

Yes. It's red and white, with a maple leaf in the middle.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[perp]

I have SO not been looking forward to the upcoming massive quantity of American federal election discussion. This way I can unselect the Politics section (already done!) and hope that much of the politics will stay in its own section.

Re:Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[dcmeserve]

This way I can unselect the Politics section (already done!) and hope that much of the politics will stay in its own section.

Exactly.

But I'm happy for the opposite reason: now I can make my political posts somewhere without fear of getting modded off-topic! And moderators can make such off-topic judgements more easily, now that the excuse of of there being nowhere else to post such things is eliminated.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

>diverse spectrum of political ideologies

Diversity for its own sake is not necessarily a good thing or a bad thing.

This is missed on most of the people blindly promoting diversity.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Darthmalt]

mods parent -1 Nazi Fascist

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[orthogonal]

I would hope that moderators are fair enough to send comments up or down depending on their quality, not whether their point of view is agreeable. Even if someone says something we completely disagree with, as long as they say it well and bring facts to the table, it is worth hearing.

Mod deviationist down!

Use the Source...

[KrackHouse]

Hey, are there any governments, local or otherwise that are using the Slashdot moderation system to aid with the creation of legislation? Seems like a good way to focus ideas assuming you have a bunch of like minded people working on a bill.

I don't know about the editors, but the users...

[Foggiano]

Seem to lean pretty far to the left. I would guess that most of the readers at Slashdot are younger and more tech savvy than the population at large, and that seems to have a strong correlation with left-leaning politics. Perhaps the concepts behind Open Source software attract people with a certain political and social beliefs, although I must say I think OSS is great, but most people here would classify my politics as extremely far to the right. In any case, many topics posted here eventually digress to political discussions, so having a place specifically for it sounds great to me. Plus, the color scheme looks nice! My eyes need a break after that awful yellow theme that seems to have finally disappeared.

Finally!

[ianbnet]

I think this is great; in addition to rabid political debate, there are also bound to be some gemlike stories that combine politics and technology. I for one have had several stories I thought would be of interest rejected from Slashdot over the past year or so; perhaps they'll find a happier home in the Politics section.

No sanctuary? Anywhere?

[BenHill]

Slashdot had become a sanctuary, free of (government-oriented, American) politics. Since - as you say - we are approaching the election, the entire media is awash in news of the elections. Blogs, magazine, ezines, newsletters, toilet graffiti. This is understandable, but certainly exhausting. To know now that even slashdot will be splashing stories on American politics makes me just want to log out and live in some glorified hole on a Carribean island. BenHill

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Nice idea,

[KillerHamster]

but I hope you guys set it up so that moderation in this section does not affect users' karma. Otherwise, we'll all be posting at -1 before long.

All stories?

[ptaff]

As with all sections on Slashdot, there will be stories available within that section that don't get posted to the main page

For real /. geeks, would it be possible to turn on a flag to get everything on the home page? Every time I metamoderate I wonder "How come this story doesn't ring a bell?". Now I understand why.

Clicking on each and every section to watch for missing stories is a bit lame, no?

Feel ready to own one or many Tux Stickers?

Re:All stories?

[stienman]

Visit your homepage preferences and uncheck all the section boxes. This will 'unhide' these sections from your main page.

-Adam

Re:All stories?

[vanza]

I still find about stories that I haven't read in sections that are supposed to be shown according to my preferences, so that doesn't solve the issue, it seems.

Re:All stories?

[jamie]

Go to /my/homepage and check Collapse Sections. That'll put every story on your homepage.

But, we're working on a better interface for this, one that's both more flexible and comprehensible. Stay tuned.

Re:All stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because there's one more step. First make sure everything is unchecked on the Exclude section. But also, you need to check "Collapse Sections (show stories from all sections, unless specifically excluded)" on the Homepage tab of your preferences.

Re:All stories?

[slothman32]

Do you mean section or topic boxes? I only have author and topic, no section and as the other poster said I see a story every once in a while in the old area that I haven't seen before. P.S. In NS the topic list is a nice 3 column whole in FX (Firefox) it is only 1.

Re:All stories?

[stienman]

Sorry, you also have to check

Collapse Sections (show stories from all sections, unless specifically excluded)

As well. If you are still metamoderating stories that you don't recall seeing, perhaps they are journal entries, or you simply missed one/forgot/too busy to read more than the title, etc. (hey, if I don't know the reason for the problem, then the PEBKAC, right? :-)

-Adam

Re:All stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a way of doing this for the RSS feed?

Re:All stories?

[Phroggy]

I have nothing listed under the Sections column on that page; no checkboxes at all. The authors and topics columns are fine. Checking Collapse Sections didn't help (and I don't want to show EVERYTHING on the front page).

Re:All stories?

[Tezkah]

I already own three of your tux stickers, you insensitive clod!

Little observation

[Archimonde]

Why only politics based on the US elections? Isn't it better to have permanent world/global politics section?
I'm thinking here of many political themes which are quite represented on /. through this many years.

Re:Little observation

[Lord Omlette]

We already have that, right here.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

I think what's sad is politically active people who need robotic partisan uniformity. America's huge, diverse population has worked together for hundreds of years by finding compromise acceptable to the majority, even when that majority spanned many ideologies and parties.

how about

[Anonymous Coward]

left.politics.slashdot.com
right.politics.slashdo t.com
don't-know-what-I'm-talking-about.politics. slashdo t.com
pyschotic-rantings.politics.slashdot.com
n eed-to-get-a-life.politics.slashdot.com

Re:great!

[Lord Kano]

Say what you want about the French government, but the French people love freedom and will fight as hard as anyone else to retain it. The French resistance was a vital part of the war effort against the Nazis.

LK

Nice logo, guys!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank goodness we don't have to debate green-on-white vs. beige-on-white.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[FortKnox]

Between you and jaime, I expect one of you to be dead by the end of October. ;-)

Self-contradicting?

[pjt33]

Make up your mind: is /. for discussing the US or the Civilised World?

Great idea

[HangingChad]

This year's election is important enough to justify its own section. I think that was a really good move. It's good to see people passionate about politics again.

Like him or not you have to give dubya credit for one thing: He really inspires people on both ends of the political spectrum.

Re:US-centric

[metlin]

Good God, folks, would it hurt to at least try and make things a bit balanced?

Hahaha! You must be new here.

Just kidding. I'm sure that given enough time and effort, you might just see that, www.world.slashdot.org or something like that. However, do you really want to see a section like that? Given the diversity, you'll find people trolling and flaming each other to bits.

Really not worth it. Besides, this is more fun - you get to make fun of Dubya :-p

Bias Test

[Dachannien]

I guess we'll see if /. can manage to be "fair and balanced", considering the rather significant slant in its readership.

Re:Bias Test

[Graabein]

"I guess we'll see if /. can manage to be "fair and balanced", considering the rather significant slant in its readership.

Yeah, but slant in which direction? I've seen people stating, as if it were a self-evident fact, that the majority of the /. readership is heavily left leaning, while other people are equally convinced that it's right/libertarian leaning.

You obviously think the perceived slant is so pronounced that you don't even have to specify which way it leans (or falls over, as the case may be).

In my eyes, I have to say the slant appears to be to the right, with a heavy influence of libertarian thinking. Offhand, I can't remember having read a truly leftist view on /., ever.

YWVMV (Your World View May Vary), this one was brought to you from Norway.

Re:Bias Test

[ChaoticLimbs]

What slant? You mean like the slant in the conservative mainstream media?
Just kidding. If you actually think ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have a right wing agenda then your frame of reference must be so far leftward that you truly have to be an activist simply to pimp your extreme views to the masses. I was just pointing that out for flamebaiting purposes. I also predict that every independant, libertarian and republican sounding post will be modded to -5. This political stuff will be so obviously preaching to the Liberal Democrat choir that it would be stunning if any actual political debate takes place.
This will end up as an on-line "free speech zone" where all the protesters are allowed to speak to one another, but are cloistered away from the rest of society.
It was a bad idea by Ashcroft, and it's a bad idea by Slashdot. OOPS- sorry nerds, I meant 5145|-|d07

Re:Bias Test

[mebon]

Of course there is a slant. Otherwise it would be called |.

Re:Bias Test

[Bombcar]

Well, /. slants right, but it actually is more left, so we will rename it to:

backslashdot.org!

\. Left leaning news.

Re:Bias Test

[commodoresloat]

Looks like someone already had this idea.

Re:Bias Test

[RsG]

And this, again, brings us to why the left-right political spectrum is inadequate. Politics is so inherently diverse, and so hard to take in all at once, that simply labeling everything as being "liberal" or "conservative" is idiotic.

People will always see their own bias, or their opponents' bias, in others, because their political views try to shoehorn _everything_ into one of two categories. /. does not lean in any particular direction, at least as far as I can tell. Its readership does, but I'm not sure whether any one point of view trumps any other, at least numerically.

Best advice I can give to politically inclined /.ers is not to feed the trolls, and don't get drawn into flamewars, no matter how much you might want to. The only people you can't reason with are the ones who are trying to start a fight, or are too closed minded to accept any other point of view.

Re:Bias Test

[Angry Toad]

If you actually think ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have a right wing agenda then your frame of reference must be so far leftward...

You realize that can be turned around the other way as well, when right-wing crazies start muttering about "ultraleftwing CNN agendas" and similar nonsense? Whatever, but you won't find truly hard questioning of the Bush regime's agenda on any US cable network - this adminstration is treated with extreme delicacy by the media, particularly when compared with their credulous repeating of nonsensical conspiracy theories and slander regarding the previous administration.

Re:Bias Test

[HawkingMattress]

Realize that there is no left in the US, what they call left is called in most countries right, and not even moderate right. Really, democrats are more "rightists" than most right political parties in europe, and what we call left would probably be tagged as communism or something like that.

Re:Bias Test

[sheldon]

If you actually think ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN have a right wing agenda then your frame of reference must be so far leftward that you truly have to be an activist simply to pimp your extreme views to the masses.

I didn't realize that it was a left/right thing to be against a war based on falty reasoning.

Always thought of that as being an libertarian position.

Re:Bias Test

[sal]

at the very least, there is finally an on topic place to discuss Mac vs PC, Vi vs EMACS, Java vs C++, Perl vs Python.....

What's next?

[UncleBiggims]

We'll do our best to be fair with story selection. We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.

With this logic why stop at politics? Let's have religion.slashdot.org... I'm sure your editors represent a diverse spectrum of beliefs. Or how about diversity.slashdot.org or sexuality.slashdot.org. ;)

Re:What's next?

[angrykeyboarder]

Works for me. Hell if we can Squeeze Star Wars in With Linux, BSD, Windows, C++, Java and Hardware, why not? ;-)

Nerd Slant Required?

[tigersaw]

So I'm confused.

Do articles in the politics section still need to somehow involve the words "hacker", "Diebold", or "DMCA"? Or can we now submit stories about the next time Cheney goes berserk randomly?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[jmorris42]

Of course! You guys run the whole spectrum. From outright Socialists through the Deaniacs ending at slightly left of center Democrats with a couple of Greens/Nader fans for added diversity. Beyond that is howling madness, no need to represent any of that, right?

Been reading here for years and I have never seen a hint of Republican or Libertarian views expressed in /. editorializing and there certainly isn't a lack of editorializing.

Re:great!

[strictfoo]

defeat of the Nazis would have been impossible.

impossible? no

More difficult? Yes

One Correction

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Hippie

That's "Dirty GNU/Hippie".

Alternate Politics Logo Thread

[Anonymous Coward]

• A pot and a kettle
• A soap box
• Flames
• Joe Isuzu and Pinocchio
• A hand accepting a stack/wad/bag of cash
• Fingers crossed behind someone's back

Will Sengan be back so we can impeach him again?

Three Words

[Golias]

Mod
Everything
Funny

ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their (Slashdot editors) site, if you don't like it, start your own overgrown blog site and you can fly whatever flag you want. Slashdot or it's parent OSDN isn't responsible to you or any country to accomodate them.

Want smaller government?

[teamhasnoi]

Shoot a politician.

As long as the debate is which of the 'two' parties is better, we are all fucked.

Payed for by the Committee of Karma Burning for a Freer America.

Re:Want smaller government?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to shoot both then or else it's going to be a one party system.

Re:Want smaller government?

[pjt33]

Shoot a politician and they'll just hold elections. If you really want a smaller government, hack his legs off.

As an aside, why isn't there a -1 Distasteful moderation?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[stienman]

I have no doubt you have a diverse political spectrum - for an American. I doubt you have a very diverse spectrum in general, though.

There are more commonalities between a republican and a democrat than there are differences.

-Adam

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Fnkmaster]

The key point here is that politics has been here all along. The editors have always taken a mixed view of this - on the one hand, there is Michael, the most overtly political of the current editors, and there was Jon Katz, who was blatantly political (that's NOT why we hated him editors, it was because of his whininess and rage-filled, massive rants - if his writings were halfway intelligent, they would have at least been given a fair audience).

And as you point out Garcia, politics have been part of not only the editorializing but also the comments and moderation system since day 1 (which for you was even before me, with your 4-digit UID). Slashdot was never really just News for Nerds, it was also Stuff that Matters, and to an even moderately educated nerd, politics does matter, even outside of DRM and Your Rights Online.

I think the admission by the editors that there is a desire for a politics category is a positive thing. I generally think the idea you propose, however, which is eliminating Karma effects of moderation is not a positive step. With no consequences, the amount of trolling and flamebait posts you will see will increase substantially. Respectful rational argumentation does occur here, but it's easy for discussions to degenerate, and your proposal won't help.

While I agree that sometimes posts are moderated specifically for their political views, it's more often the case that they get moderated for the way they express their radical political views. We should stick to the same standards of civilized discussion you'd expect with a gathering of real people in the real world. I'd rather deal with blatantly political down-moderation in meta-mod and add a facility there to tackle this problem. As for the problem of people getting modded up for expressing popular political points of view (nerd populism?), I don't think there's any problem with it, and there's even less that can be done about it.

Good!

[repetty]

Anything that can be done to excise politcal diatribes from technical discussions is fine by me.

It had gotten to the point where I avoided even looking at some Slashdot topics I suspected might lend themselves to degrading into political rants. That sorely broke my heart.

I'm glad you guys are helping out. I know that there are no promises but I'm happy that, at least, my chances of reading about Bill Clinton's use of cigars while learning about a new ReiserFS enhancement or George Bush's "lies, lies, lies" while hearing feedback about a Linux roll-out somewhere are reduced.

You can make that political forum lean as far left or as far right as you like because there's no damn way I'm going to even take a peek.

--Richard

PS: Yeah, I know that technology is
intertwined with politics but you
know what I mean. Less is better and
you just do what you can.

Oh Godwin

[ackthpt]

So does this mean all comments will be automatically moderated to -1 Troll? =)

No... they'll be rated in Godwin Points.

+1 for Informative, Interesting, Insightful

-1 for inciteful (i.e. inciting a riot)

-2 for comparing poster to Hitler or Nazis

Creating "politics.slashdot.org" means?

[Anonymous Coward]

If we, the readers, scream long enough and loud enough you'll create:

porn.slashdot.org
natalie_portman.slashdot.org
hot_grits.slashdot.org
beowulf.slashdot.org
con spiracy.government.slashdot.org
oppressive.govern ment.slashdot.org
ufo.slashdot.org
religion.slas hdot.org
apple.religion.slashdot.org

it's opening a box of Pandora's Can of Worms.

Re:Creating "politics.slashdot.org" means?

[LPetrazickis]

In Soviet Russia, soviet.russia.slashdot.org creates you. The capitalists.slashdot.org will give us the webspace to hang them with. revolution.slashdot.org is inevitable!:D

Re:Blue - or Red?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to say: My eyes are burning!!! click here for a better color scheme...

Next up: religion.slashdot.org

[GojiraDeMonstah]

Well, at least I guess we wouldn't have to worry too hard about offending the Amish.

Re:Next up: religion.slashdot.org

[GigsVT]

I met an amish guy on IRC once actually. :)

He said he had a special permission to have a computer and Internet, I guess it was one of the more permissive groups of amish.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have never seen a hint of Republican or Libertarian views expressed in /. editorializing

Lemme guess, you are legally blind aren't you?

I haven't seen much EXCEPT for libertarian drivel, with maybe occasional bit of free market gospel from econo-neo-cons for "balance".

At least...

[Aggrazel]

... they picked colors this time that didn't make me want to claw my eyes out... (IT color goodness)

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Doc Ruby]

Who cares how other people label you? What difference do our guesses at people's motivations make, apart from the posts we see on the page? Next we'll be worrying about how CowboyNeal scored in the latest poll, and running "him" for Congress against a ficus! It's fun and (sometimes) educational to post opinions on Slashdot, but it's not really important. If we're that serious about politics, we should be writing more letters to the print and broadcast publications that still influence politics.

Next up...

[wazzzup]

religion.slashdot.org!

Then Slashdot's transformation to "concentrated usenet" will be complete. Where Godwin's Law reigns supreme and everybody is an asshat!

here ya go

[zogger]

you should like this unbiased news source, yep, absolute 100% facts, pure data, no bias, everything they say is pure truth, never any propoganda or hidden agendas. Ad free too!

%^)

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[DAldredge]

True. I have been called, both on /. and in email resulting from /., a Commie, a Lefty, A right wing facists, A Christian Waco, an athiest along with a host of ofther names and the mods are worse. Anything that doesn't agree with the /. group think of the momment will will modded down.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to feel the same way until Bush. If you recall he ran as a "uniter, not a divider" and talked up "bipartisanship" when he first came into office. So the Democrats went along with him and promptly got fucked in the ass until they were bloody and raw. So now I say bring on the partisanship until the GOP has been beat back and has learned a lesson. You can't fake out the other party with talk of working together and then fuck them, and then go on a rampage fucking America up and expect to get away with it.
Maybe 4 years from now I'll go back to opposing partisanship if the GOP gets smacked around enoughin the meantime.

Next up: Business and Sport at slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

It took them long enough. It's now only a matter of time before they start posting business and sports articles, and then slashdot as we know will be over... finally!

Slashdot is dead, long live Slashdot!

Re:great!

[Anonymous Coward]

The French army actually putting up a fight would have been a little bit more vital.

One rule to live by...

[BrotherPope]

We'll do our best to be fair with story selection. We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.

If you can't be fair, at least be honest. It doesn't sound like your hearts are truly behind fairness (too many ideologies), but instead behind something akin to the 'fairness doctrine'/'equal airtime'. In a collaboratively edited media, this could end up meaning only 'anyone can post something inflammatory, so we're fair'.

Try instead to pursue truth in reporting. Use the most basic of your geeky logic tools (Occam's Razor, bogosity meter, hype sensors, and holding your story to a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard) and try to elevate the discussion, not wallow in it. If your only source is the Drudge Report or a MoveOn.org press release, don't (re)print it. If the story is factually challenged, wait for the first factual refutation (and rebuttal, if you can) and (re)print that. Is the story more gossip than politics? Don't bother posting it. There are enough venues for that kind of tripe.

Many of us want to hold Slashdot to a higher standard, some of us just want it to hold itself to any standard at all. Here's a chance for Slashdot to regain some of the cred it has lost over the years. Slashdot has a chance to delight its (many) readers and be more than yet another blathering voice in the blogosphere... Don't let this opportunity slip by.

In other news

[MarsDefenseMinister]

In other news, Slashdot is now accepting donations from readers, for the purpose of buying additional hard drives for the database server. A sudden upsurge in the scale of flamewars on the popular website has taken all of the editors by surprise. They really had no idea that a 200 gig drive could be filled up so quickly.

How long until Slashdot PAC

[aengblom]

Slashdot has long been associated with a number of technology issues. If done right, I think an organization connected to Slashdot that lobbied on a select number of technology only issues might be able to really shape the debate in some ways.

Might be difficult not to piss off half of Slashdot readers each year, but if it was kept limited enough in scope and specific enough it could do very well. And clearly Slashdot has the mechanism for fundraising etc.

Well finally!

[cryptochrome]

That's an interesting point about Karma, but I'm not sure how a slashdot article would work without it. The whole system depends on good comments getting modded up and stupid ones down. Perhaps we need some sort of dummy moderation message that doesn't affect score, but does allow people to register their agreement/disagreement with the opinions of the statement. Of course that might necessitate reconsideration of the existing Troll, Overrated, Underrated, and Flamebait tags.

I've been asking for this section for a while. News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters doesn't just mean tech stuff. For sure people have been trying to talk politics on many an occasion. Here's hoping this section incorporates significant current events as well. For instance, even slashdot covered the trade center bombings, but at the time they happened politics was a minor concern - disseminating news of the event being the primary one.

While they're at it, they should make a general "Entertainment" section as well to let all you fanboys rant and rave about your favorite series (yay Farscape) without having to subject everyone to things few people care about (boo Firefly). Only the really big shows need to make the front page, but that doesn't mean there aren't other things people want to cover.

Can anyone think of any other sections that should be added? I feel like I'm forgetting one that I thought of before...

Re:Well finally!

[phorm]

Perhaps we need some sort of dummy moderation message that doesn't affect score, but does allow people to register their agreement/disagreement with the opinions of the statement

Why moderate though? If you agree or disagree, wouldn't it be better to reply and state your reasons. If you worried about personal karma burn, post AC.

Slashdot editors represent a

[drsmack1]

diverse spectrum of political ideologies. We run all the way from "A" to "B".

Heading for infinity...

[ites]

To use Fark terminology. The political scene is so polarised between the capitalism-is-the-greatest-gimmick-ever and the are-we-really-run-by-the-mob sides. Any discussion on political issues is guaranteed to descend into zealot vs. zealot faster than a speeding swift boat.
Still, perhaps this is a great troll trap and the rest of us can return to discussing the latest gadgets while the world turns into a global protection racket.

Oh, sorry, perhaps I should move this to politics.slashdot.org?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[WillWare]

people think we DON'T have a diverse specturm of political ideologies

Nonsense! Slashdot has both kinds of political ideologies, Green AND Libertarian.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[merdark]

Forgive my cluelessness, but how is one karma bombed?

Please select your party - New Slashdot options

[acherrington]

Please select your party for appropriate moderation. This way we know whether to mark commentary as troll or insightful.

For example: More tax cuts are nessesary you insensitive clod.

Under the new system chosing to be republican would rate this as insightful, but as a democrat slant a troll. The same would work vice versa.

This insightful new feature will be used to stop moderation and flame wars.

Note to 3rd party representatives (green party, beer drinkers party, communists etc): All commentary will be marked as redundant.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[JavaLord]

What's funny to me is that people think we DON'T have a diverse specturm of political ideologies. :-)

I'm sure you have a bunch of democrats varying in their leftist positions and a neoconservative or two...Do you have a varity of viewpoints from the right though? Do you have a Libertarian? How about a Paleoconservative? Just as the viewpoints of Clinton, Kerry, and Nader all contrast, so do the viewpoints of Rudy Guliani, Geroge Bush, and Pat Buchanan. I hope the right is represented as well as the left on slashdot.

Flag...

[ImaLamer]

American flag?

I'm Canadian You Insensitive Clod!

(just kidding... but seriously what about non-Americans?)

Re:Flag...

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if you know this but there are other sites on the Web. You may want to look into them. Slashdot doesn't exist to serve everyone, all the time.

Re:Flag...

[ack154]

What about them...? ;)

Not sure though. My guess be that this may be some sort of "temporary" category before the US elections... not sure though.

Re:Flag...

[NoMercy]

The logo really should be changed, *sigh* it's a problem americans forget about the rest of the world existing, or asume were instantly like them and won't mind.

Personally my coice would be a blank color, something which doesn't show any political or national orientation, though it is a good reminder of the flag, to which americans swear aligence and to what that flag stands for, freedom, justice, persuit of happyness.... so spit on your goverment, while still being a patriot :)

Re:Flag...

[Anonymous Coward]

I say it should be red.

Re:Flag...

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a problem americans forget about the rest of the world existing, or asume were instantly like them and won't mind

You assume most Americans care about you, which they most likely do not.

I'm from the USA and when I saw the flag I thought it probably should be changed, but don't fool yourself - it's not ignorance that causes us to ignore the rest of the world.

Re:Flag...

[NoMercy]

Well, I only went with blue because it's the same as the rest of the theme, though technically it should probably be all the colors of the olympic rings, as around the world diferent colors have diferent meanings, red is generally in europe the color of socalism, but I think blue is socalist in japan...

Re:Flag...

[Anonymous Coward]

Flag... (Score:3, Insightful)

Sorry, I was going for funny... oh well.

Re:Flag...

[maxpublic]

Slashdot has always been an American-oriented site. If you had read the fucking FAQ, you'd realize that. But since you haven't, here's an excerpt:

"Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S."

Don't like it? Start your own international version of Slashdot. It's certainly more productive than whining about it.

Max

The reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is just trying to capitalize on the flamewar surrounding Kerry vs. Bush.

More traffic == more advertisements == more profit.

Re:The reason

[strictfoo]

you did it wrong

1. More traffic
2. More ads
3. Profit!!!

Re:The reason

[TheCaptain]

Actually, I have often theorized that is why they keep an asshat like Michael around. His troll stories do generate the hits, if nothing else.

That is how it was with Katz until he got outted as a kook with the whole Junis thing. Michael is just as crazy, IMHO. Might be worse.

They generally annoy some of us into blocking the ads, however.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[nocomment]

uhhm dood, pudge is a conservative man. You should go read his journals. He's a very intelligent Bush supporter. It's funny that you make that comment to pudge of all people.


Slashdot just broke one of the 2 rules of peacekeeping conversation, don't talk about religion or politics. They might as well start up religion.slashdot.org and flame on.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[rf0]

Prehaps its more they represent the range of what like minded people want them to supply

Rus

You've obviously

[wiredog]

never spent much time at places like kuro5hin.

Slashdot interview of candidates?

[Jett]

How long until we see a Slashdot interview of candidates? Neither of them has been very clear on where they stand on the issues important to us here. Of course there are more important issues this election, but it'd still be nice to get an idea of what we can expect for the next for years when it comes to technology and IP policy.

Re:Slashdot interview of candidates?

[nomadic]

"Which distribution do you prefer?" probably wouldn't receive a very useful response.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[emc]

I thought it was due to calling someone who approves a submission an "editor".

For Non-USians

[Prien715]

For anyone not living in the US who doesn't like the decidely American graphical slant, RTFM.

This sub-section was created to cover the US presidential election and may be deleted after that. At which point it's not covering the US presidential election, then start griping about the logo. Until then, seeing as this section is about the US presidential election, the US flag is appropriate.

This is a good thing

[drsmack1]

I trust the slashdot editors here; everyone has some sort of balance - I appreciate that they are making it easier to discuss the issues of the day. Thanks guys.

Re:accuracy in reporting

[Arthur Yossarian]

That's not completely accurate; I've noticed that a good number of /. readers are very libertarian. They may be "socially liberal" (pro-gay marriage, abortion rights, etc), but that's just out of a desire to see less government intervention in people's lives. For the most part, people here dislike large governments.

YRO!

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't most of th political topics included under YRO. SHould YRO be a subcategory of the Politics portion?

Why would there be?

[wiredog]

It's a US based website, run by people in the US, and we all know that, from a USian pov, the rest of the world doesn't matter.

Re:Why would there be?

[nomadic]

No, you just think that. And you're wrong.

Re:Why would there be?

[thelexx]

I challenge you to find ONE other country name with the word 'America' in it. Then please explain again why you insist on using 'USian'.

Re:Why would there be?

[Anonymous Coward]

You won't. Of course that is because all other countries (more than 20, thats all I can get off the top of my head) realised that the Americas were continents, not countries. I suppose we could have called ourselves the "United Provinces of America", but we decided to select a meaningful name, as opposed to a veiled reference to a geographical location.

So I would guess that the reference to "USian" is a slight meaning "How dare you insinuate that you are the only inhabitants of the American continents. How dare you associate the inhabitants of two great continents with your outrageous behaviour, disgusting arogance, and short sighted foreign policy. Be a man, you fucking pussy, and say it, you are from the US, which happens to be in America". But hey, Im just guessing.

Re:Why would there be?

[wiredog]

USian: 5 chars

American: 8 chars

Re:Why would there be?

[JNighthawk]

And you would dare call Americans lazy when you can't type out 3 extra characters to avoid using a derogatory term?

Re:Why would there be?

[KS1178]

American Somoa

As for USia, or USistan, I see no problem with it.

What I wonder, is: Do Kiwi's want to be called Australlian?

Re:Why would there be?

[Chuq]

What I wonder, is: Do Kiwi's want to be called Australlian?

That's like asking if Canadians want to be called erm, American (as in American from the USA, not American from the Americas).

Australia the continent is the same as Australia the country. New Zealand isn't physically part of a continent but it is generally classed as part of Oceania or Australasia.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[glpierce]

...and how is it he never thought to ditch the "bombed" account and start fresh?

Re:US-centric

[duncan]

But there are just as many who feel that the US should just pull out from the rest of the world. Become isolationist and let the rest of the world see how good it was when we dominated them.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[raygundan]

I fully expect this section to be a non-stop flamefest that leaves nobody untouched. A knock-down drag-out troll fight, with everyone yelling, minimal dialogue, and 4 billion threads that run something like this:

"Bush Sucks."
"Democrats Suck."
"Non-libertarians Suck."
"America Sucks."
"Europe Sucks."
"My Country Isn't In Europe, You American Idiot."
"I'm Not an American, You Elitist Freak."
"I hate the it.slashdot.org color scheme."
"I predict all of the threads in this section will sound like this:"

*beep*

Infinite Loop.

This is great!

[rubberbando]

Now I have somewhere to vent my feelings about our (the US) broken down 2 party system. :-)

I just need an appropriate article to reply to it with so that I don't get modded 'offtopic'. :-P

How about a poll or something?

Slashdot Jumped the Shark

[Anonymous Coward]

jumped the shark several times ...

1) When they started moderation
2) When they started posting KDE story every 48 hrs.
3) When pro-apple fan boys started moderating en-masse.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[KilobyteKnight]

Really old, but I happened to be thinking of it earlier today - the Political Compass. Apparently I'm way off to the left, and down a bit.

I started taking that test and gave up on the 3rd page. Almost every question is phrased as a false dilemma and has an obvious left slant. It is apparerently intended to make you believe you are a liberal.

But don't take my word for it. Read this list of logical fallacies and then go look at the quiz.

Re:great!

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose the French army was filled with foreigners? Please. They laid down their weapons and ran away.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[soyuz_2]

Slashdot just broke one of the 2 rules of peacekeeping conversation, don't talk about religion or politics. They might as well start up religion.slashdot.org and flame on.

Here ya go: religion.slashdot.org

Just the editorials?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck that, how about we ban the editors all together?

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[DenDave]

Well really left and right are a bit old fashioned, there some studies to multivariate spectra in political analysis but unfortunately I don't have anything in english yet.. I will see what I can find and post accordingly. I trust that the /. fuhrers will refrain from some of their less than politically correct modding whic led to evil spin-offs.. anti thingys and the like.. it would get messy if you get that sort of polarisation...

Whew just in time...

[DA_MAN_DA_MYTH]

Right after a 11 point swing since the RNC.

Let's look at the news stories so far...

Hackers Take Aim at Republicans

Bikes Against Bush Creator Busted

I think it's a good idea to have this channel, but I would really like to see both parties represented. With the occasional third and fourth party representation, cause the hippies and the anarchists should have a voice too.

Re:Whew just in time...

[ender81b]

you do realize that pudge is a elected GOP official right? :)

I'd call that fairly balanced.

Re:Whew just in time...

[TheCaptain]

I disagree with you on that one. It doesn't make it balanced...it only makes it diverse. If it was balanced, pudge (and some likeminded folks) would be posting as often as Michael and pals. Journals don't count...lets talk front page exposure.

I honestly don't think anything short of a personnel shakeup will bring Slashdot into any real semblance of balance. It's just not in most of their personalities, judging by what they write and the things they do. (Granted, that's IMHO.)

My prediction: This politics section is going to be dominated by articles with a left slant, just like the rest of the site. Why? Because it's from the same editors who have been doing just that all along. I am interested to see how the readers react, though.

as long as you mention it...

[zogger]

... here's a little revisionist history for you. The nazis lost a lot of tactical battles and some space, but strategically they won. All they did was change their official name. Their top financiers remained mostly intact in various western nations, and a lot of their scientists and politicians just relocated to these same nations and like down in south and central america where they continued their policies to this day, including the current top leadership at the executive level in the USA. Their corporofacistic business practices are fully intact, a lot of their eugenics programs remain intact, their expansionist policies remain intact. They control the central banks, the big energy companies, the arms companies, the pharmecutical industries, the major media, and a variety of other manufacturing and global agriculture, etc.

Re:as long as you mention it...

[gcaseye6677]

I thought it was the Jews that ran the world. At least that's what most of the conspiracy theories say. So I'll give you points for creativity.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[sparkywonderchicken]

Sounds like flamebait to me.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[TheCaptain]

No...we think you have a diverse spectrum of left wing political ideologies.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[nomadic]

Been reading here for years and I have never seen a hint of Republican or Libertarian views expressed in /. editorializing and there certainly isn't a lack of editorializing.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Ohhh, good one. Wait, you were serious?! Are you functionally illiterate? I've lost track of how often the editors make some libertarian comment against laws or government regulations or taxes.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[ralphart]

Worried about Karma? I believe that is why one can post as Anonymous Coward.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[soyuz_2]

Why, when the left is right and the right is wrong?

Now... how do I enable IGNORE CATEGORY?

[MobileDude]

lemme check that profile thingy....

let's see... Anime-check Politics-check!

You're a racist fucktard.

[JNighthawk]

USian is a derogatory term. I'm an American. The fact of the matter is, the United States president is one of the most powerful people in the world. We have an important election coming up here in the states, and right now, I don't give a fuck what you think. From my point of view, you don't matter, you racist.

Yeah, I know it's probably not racist, but I'm pissed off at this blatant attack and don't feel like finding the right word.

Re:You're a racist fucktard.

[Your_Mom]

Yes, the parent of your post is a troll, but that being said, I like the term USian.

When you say American, you are encompassing the whole of two continents, but when you say USian, you are at least narrowing it down. I like it.

Re:You're a racist fucktard.

[Anonymous Coward]

USian is a derogatory term. I'm an American.

And so are Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians and Belizeans. Term USian is used to accurately pinpoint residents of the USA, you pinheaded contintent-hog.

And by the way, there's nothing derogatory about USian, unless too many USians manage to screw up their image.

Re:You're a racist fucktard.

[JNighthawk]

No, Canadians are Canadians, Mexicans Mexicans, Brazilians Brazilians, et cetera. According to Americans and the CIA factbook, I'm American.

If you don't realize that USian is derogatory, I don't suppose you'd understand why nigger, chink or spic are derogatory either.

Re:You're a racist fucktard.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am A Meat Popsicle

Re:You're a racist fucktard.

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA isn't even the only country with the "United States" in it. The official name of Mexico is "Los Estados Unidos de México," or, "The United States of Mexico."

Re:You're a racist fucktard.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, but that's in Spanish. They should be called EUians, and also they should join the EU to stop any possible ambiguity.

Re:You're a racist fucktard.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your being sarcastic (I hope so), but I'm not sure so I'll bite.

I don't understand why the term USian is derogatory but I do understand why those other terms are - they are descriptions for groups of people that have negativie cultural connitations.

I'm not trying to troll but I really don't understand. Are you saying that there are negative cultural feelings associated with being a citezen of the USA - even for the citizens themselves?

I myself and Bristolian, coming from Bristol. I'm also English, British and European and take no offense at any of these terms. I do however understand why the Irish object to being called British. I myself was watching some WW2 documentary where a 'Citezen of the USA' was consistantly refering to Churchill and the English. It actually started to annoy me - it wasn't just the English holding out aganst Hitler, it was the British.

The term American can be used to describe a geographical region as well as commonly (and incorrectly) a smaller region, the USA. As such it's ambiguos and so a more specific term such as USian seems fine. America is also a rather large region, covering 2 continents, of which the USA isn't even the biggest land mass.

So what is the negativity associated with the term USian? Please, why is it derogatory? It's not denying anyone any rights, it hasn't been used in the media in some kind of smear campaign AFIAK, it's not any kind of nasty metaphor.

Sorry I'm not trolling, you seem to think that it's obviously derogatory, I think it's a rather nice, innofensive way to get round the ambiguity of the term American

As for the CIA factbook being a great purvayor of truth and justice (rolls around on the floor laughing), well I don't trust the CIA at all and I doubt anyone else outside the USA and a great many indide don't either. Lets see in the last 30 or so years they have trained and funded terrorism, some might say practically invented it in modern terms (Osama and Saddam for instance), protected international drug smuggling and ousted democratically elected leaders (in Hati for example) to start the list of their crimes against truth and humanity.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Iffy Bonzoolie]

Let's say I have 5 mod points, and I don't like you. Not what you are saying in a specific post, but YOU. Whenever I get mod points, I look at your comment history and mod down the last 5 of your comments as Overrated. No consequences from Metamod because Overrated isn't ever metamodded.

Some people have claimed that an editor has essentially done this to them but, by virtue of being an editor, with effectively unlimited mod points.

-If

Re:great!

[Anonymous Coward]

We fart in your general direction !!

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[fiannaFailMan]

I have been scouring books, articles, and random conversation for some intelligent and fair discussion about the state of politics today.

The book shelves are full of grown-up, intelligent, consise, unemotional, and objective political commentaries. I mean, look at books like "Treason," "Slander," "Lies and the lying liars who tell them," "Stupid White Men," "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" etc. Get with the programme, dude!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey man...at least they picked a good colour scheme...

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[aardvarkjoe]

Nah, it just represents the diverse spectrum of political ideologies. Just like Slashdot.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[vasqzr]

Look at Slashdot's "Hall of Fame"

4183 Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
3265 Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion by CmdrTaco
3212 What's Keeping You On Windows? by Cliff
3042 An Unbiased Analysis of Gun Crime vs. Gun Control? by Cliff
2764 Windows 2000 & Windows NT 4 Source Code Leaks by CmdrTaco
2722 Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional by michael
2574 Major Strike on Iraq Underway by CmdrTaco
2549 US Starts Attacking Afghanistan by CmdrTaco
2465 U.S. Attack -- More Updates by Hemos

2 of those aren't 'political'

I'm not exactly big on politics, but it looks like a large amount of readers are.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[jmorris42]

> uhhm dood, pudge is a conservative man...

Journals don't count, the frontpage does. Find ONE incident of a editor on their soapbox on the frontpage who isn't taking a left of center position.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[gcaseye6677]

I think the normal moderation system should not apply for the politics section. We don't need to make it all too easy for someone with strong political views and mod points to go through marking Troll on every opinion they disagree with. We get enough of that on the stories that are only semi-political.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Malfourmed]

I believe that /. started out as very much a technology-oriented news aggregator. The addition of a politics section is just another sign of the maturation and diversification of the site as "nerds" move more and more into the mainstream of society.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, looking at your post history, you have an average of about 1 or 2 posts modded 0 or -1 per page. That's about 4-8% of your posts.. If you kept that up over the the life of your account (3000+ posts), that's a LOT of bad posts.

Re:Now... how do I enable IGNORE CATEGORY?

[Thrymm]

Agreed! I dont think there is a need for yet another political outlet bashing of he said she said shit, but hey knock yourselves out!

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Ford Prefect]

Almost every question is phrased as a false dilemma

I think that's the point.

It is apparerently intended to make you believe you are a liberal.

Well, maybe you are... ;-)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[xp]

I am curious what the candidates positions are on the Perl versus Python debate?

The Republicans strike me as more likely to be Perl hackers, while the Democrats Pythonistas.
----
How To Love Your Job

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[mirko]

I would hope that moderators are fair enough...

Mods, fair ?
Are you new here ? ;-)

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[chundo]

Nah, we're all so polarized that half the moderators will cancel out the other half. Problem solved! Get ready for lots of (Score: 4, Flamebait) ratings!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[WormholeFiend]

I think it would be more appropriate if we had a "sex" category...

the guy who runs sensibleerection.com started sensibleelection.com...

the guys who run gizmodo started fleshbot...

only seems natural for slashdot to start, uh, sexdot? slashsex?

Re:US-centric

[Anonymous Coward]

But um, we don't give a flying fuck what you think about our election-year politics sparky.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

I am a Goldwater Conservative, not a neoconservative. I definitely side more with paleoconservatives than neoconservatives on domestic policy, but neoconservatives on modern foreign policy (my isolationist views changed, as with many people, following 9/11). We have an editor I'd term a libertarian, and he seems to identify more with them than the other parties. He's a bona fide disciple of Adam Smith.

Thank You.

[Jedi Holocron]

For setting up this section.

Not a good idea

[Jozer99]

I don't think this is the best administration to be getting into politics in. I can see the headlines now:

After a visit from campaign officials from the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign, CmdrTaco was found by neighbors dead. Special investigators appointed by the president released a report saying that he has apparently accidentally slit both his wrists shaving, then fallen down an elevator shaft onto 6 bullets. The investigators concluded that he had commited suicide and ruled out foul play.

WORST IDEA EVER

[Anonymous Coward]

get a clue you fucking commie bastards.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

Since the elections are structured (primaries, ballot lines, matching funds, etc) as selection from parties, partisan elections are necessary. Ignoring partisan organization is a good way to lose elections badly. I'm talking about the "with us or against us" politics, best exemplified by Republicans, except when showing their spokesmodels on Convention TV. Politics is a way to organize people to work together, rather than against one another. So the original poster's sarcastic complaint that diversity of ideologies would prevent doing a good job is sad. It's politics as an end in itself, controlling access to power for only a small group of "winners" at the expense of everyone else who supports it.

Of course it would be best to get rid of the party gridlock by getting rid of these parties, and the party system it supports. Any private club can endorse anyone in public, but I shouldn't subsidize their hazing, funny hats and propaganda telethons. So long as we do, politics will belong to the clubs, and people will just be a prop in their show.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Oliver Defacszio]

I would hope that moderators are fair enough to send comments up or down depending on their quality, not whether their point of view is agreeable.

Based upon their utter failure to act so nobly when it comes to the politics of computer software, I probably wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Slashdot may as well change the "troll" mod designation to "I disagree" and "insightful" to "I agree" for all that they're actually worth around here. And, meta-moderation is no better, as any worthless groupthink posts that I've ever negatively moderated have resulted in my being clobbered in meta.

Unless you're one of the Slashdot herd, moderation is hilariously ineffective -- to an extent where I've labelled myself as unwilling to moderate simply because it's not worth the punishment I'll take in meta-mod for being honest.

The Slashdot editors don't really think that the moderation system works as it's supposed to, do they? If so, that's pretty sad.

Drudge Report

[rd_syringe]

Honestly, I'll go to places like the Drudge Report and Spinsanity for my political news. Slashdot's tech news is already laughably inaccurate and exagerrated at best, partly due to ridiculous editors and partly due to the fact that this site runs on user submissions--I can't imagine the kind of shenanigans that will go on in an actual Politics section of Slashdot. The very idea is funny.

Re:Drudge Report

[Anonymous Coward]

...laughably inaccurate and exagerrated at best...

and the drudge report is extremely accurate and completely unbiased.

Re:Drudge Report

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahha! thanks for the laugh. oh, you had me in tears. you were joking, right?

Re:Drudge Report

[rd_syringe]

According to a UCLA/Standford study, it's more centrist then CNN. What's on the front page of Drudge right now? "MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ TOP 1000." Let me know when I see that reported on the news channels. Right now, it's all about the aftermath of Hurricane Frances.

Re:Drudge Report

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, according to that unbiased and well researched UCLA/Stanford study that said that Fox News was centrist. Yeah, right.

You really are a moron, aren't you?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[kalidasa]

He's a very intelligent Bush supporter.

These two things (intelligent, and Bush supporter) being two different issues, of course: one can be intelligent and conservative or intelligent and liberal - it all depends upon one's priorities.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[DAldredge]

This is nice, but why don't you, the /. editors, answer emails? You lost my subscription because of a total lack of response to any email I sent. It isn't a normal company that can just walk away from 20+ USD in almost pure profit per month.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Performer Guy]

Actually they don't, they are diverse but some folks keep lumping issues, just as you assume people don't have diverse political opinions because they may associate with one party or another.

fair?

[Bri3D]

We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.

You must be new here?
Who is this UID 1 guy anyway?

I have a concern with the flag

[xutopia]

why is it that American politics always has to do with patriotism? In my observation patriotism shouldn't have anything to do with politics. It's demagogy at best and we see it way too much in American politics.

Shouldn't slashdot be better than that? If one party decides to use (overuse) the American flag then the slashdot logo will look like it talks only about that party.

PS: In my observation most parties who use the patriotism argument are the ones which care least about the people. In France for example the one party who claimed the French flag as a symbol for it's own party is the most racist and biggoted party.

Re:I have a concern with the flag

[mabu]

A more apropos symbol would be a hand coming out of a $1000 suit collecting a big wad of cash from a defense contractor, pharmaceutical or healthcare corporation.

Re:I have a concern with the flag

[WormholeFiend]

better yet, slashdot could use a seven-color rainbow to represent the, um, full spectrum of people, their political and other views...

Re:I have a concern with the flag

[Wubby]

I love seeing the American flag at almost any chance (being American, go figure)...

But I always considered Slashdot a little more geographically neutral than this. I think a politics section is the best thing to happen on /. in a long while, but I think it should be a tad more inclusive.

The US election IS the most important political thing (to me) right now, but not to everyone.

Re:I have a concern with the flag

[Anonymous Coward]

I love seeing the American flag at almost any chance (being American, go figure)...

Can't you buy one and carry it around with you or something?

Re:I have a concern with the flag

[HungWeiLo]

Well, off the top of your head, name all the countries in the world that chant and shout and name of their country and their leader repeatedly in public events.

99% of those will be dictatorships.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Dr. Evil]

There should be more ways to lose karma on the site in general. A few ideas:

• You lose as much karma as you have unused moderator's points (so you need to moderate to retain high karma)
• You lose karma if your moderation results in a meta-moderation (just like having a comment modded down, you can have your mod modded down... so you need to moderate reasonably)
• Karma is drained over time e.g. a point every two weeks (so you need to be active to reap the high-karma bennefits).

You could set a 25 point drain limit... draining effects kick in at above 25 points. So all non-posting members drain to 25 over time, those who log in and don't moderate, drain faster, and those who moderate poorly drain faster too.

colour scheme

[stud9920]

I'm Belgian you insensitive clod.

Shhhh!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the Americans "liberate" countries, because the other country has better stuff. So stop taunting them. Sheesh! And if they don't liberate us, they might just move up here and talk loudly and take up two seats per person, year-round and not just during tourist season.

To any Americans reading this: he's lying, Canada's just a cold barren place full of hicks who live in igloos and eat frozen fish. And you've already got our best people: Celine Dion and William Shatner (that's how bad we are). Yeah, that's the ticket...

BTW, beer is a very subjective thing. You can go to just about any country and their people will swear their beer is the best. So obviously Canadian beer is best to you. Although, German and Belgian beer tend to be more loved worldwide than others.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

We have an editor I'd term a libertarian, and he seems to identify more with them than the other parties. He's a bona fide disciple of Adam Smith.

But the rest of you veto his pro-outsourcing stories? Or does he not dare even consider them?

Ladies and Gentlemen...

[hunterx11]

Prepare for exclusion!

"Overrated" modifier

[rd_syringe]

What people do is target you in groups by modding you down with the Overrated modifier. It seems to be a little-known "feature" that Overrated mods don't appear in meta-moderation. People abuse this all the time to lower your karma without risk of having the moderations backfire on them.

Re:"Overrated" modifier

[True Grit]

Are you serious?

Essentially /. is just a freakin' web blog for heaven's sake! One of thousands. I don't get why anyone would waste time and mod points on personal vendettas against complete strangers. Heck, the only time I pay attention to who wrote the comment I'm responding to is when the author is Mr. A. C., otherwise, I simply don't care.

How many people are really doing this, and what is /.'s rationale for not allowing under/over rating to be meta-moderated? Anyone?

Re:"Overrated" modifier

[RedWizzard]

How many people are really doing this, and what is /.'s rationale for not allowing under/over rating to be meta-moderated? Anyone?

It's a fairly well known fact that over/under-rated moderations are not metamodded. Personally I use over-rated fairly often as the equivalent of "-1, factually incorrect", since the other negative moderations often don't really fit.

The rationale for not putting over/under-rated through M2 is simple: to evaluate whether a post is over/under-rated you need to know the score of the post at the time the mod was made. That context is not available so it is not possible to accurately metamoderate. Abuses should be reported to an editor.

Re:"Overrated" modifier

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you think Slashdotters don't have a political bias, see the moderations in the Politics articles."

I took a look at your posting history - the mods seem right on target. You whine a lot, troll a lot, and have a generally negative demeanor. Of course you are going to get mod-smacked. You can break out the tin-foil hat and pretend that it it some vast liberal Slashdot mod conspiracy, but the truth is that the results are a result of your tendency to troll. If you had the opposite political views but expressed them the same way the mods would be the same.

Other /. sections?

[kkovach]

I can see how this has come about, but I'm curious. How often do you guys think about adding new sections? Is there a measuring stick for such things?

Surely, we should have had a goatse.cx.slashdot.org section by now, no?

coming soon!

[ejaw5]

Slashdot Gallop Poll.

# Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
# Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
# This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

Yes, looks like there'll be non-US content

[theluckyleper]

If you look at politics.slashdot.org and scroll down, you'll see a link to this article which is about the Australian Prime Minister. Hopefully this is a sign that all political content will be included, not merely US-based content.

Re:Yes, looks like there'll be non-US content

[Anonymous Coward]

An article about the Australian Prime Minister is US-centric content, trust me.

Re:Yes, looks like there'll be non-US content

[georgiana2006]

While there may be some non-US content available, the original announcement states quite clearly that /. will be "running special political coverage between now and the election in our new Politics subsection...." That, combined with the ubiquitous presence of the US flag, leaves me with the distinct impression that US politics will be its primary focus. I can't say that makes me terribly inclined to spend more time here than I already do... although I might post a little more :P

For laying down and avoiding

[SlowMovingTarget]

This is just like that one particular vintage of Australian wine (see title). Now I can avoid flamefests by simple URL filtering.

I doubt that

[Trepidity]

People on the internet, and Slashdot in particular, tend to lean more towards the European mainstream than the American mainstream.

Except, of course, on civil liberties issues, where Europe's left-fascism makes the police-state folk in the US Justice Department envious: the UK's got CCTVs everywhere, issues "antisocial behavior orders" prohibiting people from (in one instance) making sarcastic comments to their neighbors; France bans movies that criticize its bloody colonial wars, and so on.

Re:I doubt that

[Anonymous Coward]

Next time, try to find something more current about France. The Battle of Algiers was distributed for a short time period in 1971 in France, before being quickly removed from the screens because of pressure groups (like that doesn't happen in the US too). It's been rereleased in 2004, and you can find it in video stores in France.

Re:I doubt that

[Fjandr]

Wait, wait, wait, history has been re-written, at least in the USA.

Fascism is on the RIGHT now. The Leftists decided they didn't want to be associated with that form of government any more, so they (quite successfully, I might add) foisted the term off on the right, quite some time ago.

Re:I doubt that

[jschrod]

No

Ever heard of Hitler, or Mussolini? Or do you claim they're leftist?

But who I'm to tell -- I'm from Germany. And according to your definition, we had never to do anything with fascism, did we?

Re:I doubt that

[Anonymous Coward]

the UK's got CCTVs everywhere, issues "antisocial behavior orders" prohibiting people from (in one instance) making sarcastic comments to their neighbors;

Eh? The anti-social orders are issued, by judges, to people who make their neighbours' lives a living HELL without doing anything flat-out illegal so the police can do nothing, despite the obvious obnoxious and anti-social nature of their actions -- something that is a real problem in certain parts of the country. You can't get one by leaning over the fence and saying "Hey! Nice lawn" in an sarcastic tone of voice, or not having painted your house recently... they aren't trivial things to sort out silly disputes either. They are taken very seriously.

Re:I doubt that

[Capt. Dick Jackman]

It was National Socialism if I recall. It has a lot more in common with the left than the right in America ever has. Remember, the Holocaust was a government program. Of course, America will probably try something similar soon called National Health Care. Imagine, soulless, incompetent, unaccountable bureaucrats making decisions about your healthcare, while the elite go to some offshore cash only second to none healthcare.

Re:I doubt that

[Fjandr]

Yes, I would put Hitler on the left. I actually don't know much about Mussolini's government programs (other than war), so I can't categorize him that way. Hitler, however, has much more in common with the left than the right.

Just because you're from Germany doesn't make me trust you opinion of German history any more than I trust an American's version of American history. What's your citizenship have to do with anything? There are people ignorant of their own history everywhere. Mostly, it's compounded by government-mandated "education," but I don't generaly trust someone's representation of their own country's history. It's usually very skewed.

Re:I doubt that

[jschrod]

If the Nazis would have been really left-wing, the West German "government-mandated education system" would have taken that up with love, as they could have associated the Evil Commies(tm) with the Nazis during the cold war. (That's when I grew up, FYI.)

But looking at your article history, your opinion seems to be very simple structured: "bad" => "left", "good" => "right". I.e., no much use in discussing such issues further with you. By god, what must it be to live in such a one-dimensional state of mind?! (You don't need to answer, that's a rhetorical question.)

Re:I doubt that

[Fjandr]

You appear to assume that I am on the right because I say the Nazis were leftist. Actually, I see both left and right as misguided.

Right v left is one-dimensional. I don't fit on that line.

Like all issues, they (Nazis) do have certain characteristics that don't fit a leftist profile, but all issues that aren't one-dimensional don't fit entirely into neat little boxes. They were more left than not. Really, they're more authoritarian than anything, but that's a designation that doesn't fit on the left v right scale either.

irc as well.

[tetrahedrassface]

For those of you that prefer irc, we set up #space_politcs on irc.freenode.net to keep the politics out of channels where it isn't appropriate, and to provide a place where interested parties can discuss. Hope to see you all here and there. Dusty

Re:irc as well.

[tetrahedrassface]

correction
space_politics on freenode.
just thought id by like 99% of /.'ers and froget how to spell. :)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[tjstork]

"with us or against us" evil politics, characterized as best by the guys who don't vote the way I do. :-)

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[rd_syringe]

I would hope that moderators are fair enough to send comments up or down depending on their quality, not whether their point of view is agreeable.

You must be new here.

Oh, wait...

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that mod points are based on a number of factors. The one factor you don't mention is metamoderation of your moderations. If you have too many metamods of "unfair" on your mods, I think it lowers your mod points frequency. One easy way to end up this way is to mod on politics - for instance, to mod up something utterly batty because the poster agrees with your politics, or to mod down something sensible because the poster disagrees with your politics. The way to avoid this is to avoid moderating something that expresses a purely political opinion.

Mixed Feelings On This News

[ellem]

On one hand I like the idea.... Karma be damned on another isn't Slashdot getting to be a bit Wal-Mart(y)?

I used to go to Mac Slash and MaCNN for my mac news, now I gnerally just come here. Yadda yadda. Now to have political fights I won't be forced to register every three days at SmirkingChimp or wade through thousands of dup stories at FreeRepublic or read 6 week old "news" at Plastic.

But maybe that's part of the charm of NOT using Slashdot for everything.

Besides I am VNCed over ssh into my home machine b.c this IP was banned two weeks ago for a comment that is currently +5 insightful....

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Trolling4Dollars]

Truer words have never been spoken. The right is a bunch of two faced windbags who want things their way. At least the left is willing to really be truly bipartisan and co-operate. However, after four years of lies and tricks, I'm not willing to co-operate with the liars and tricksters. I'm voting against Bush in November. I'm voting for Kerry. Then I'll spend the next four years railing on about how lousy he is in the hopes of getting someone I *really* can get behind elected in 2008.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hope that moderators are fair enough to send comments up or down depending on their quality, not whether their point of view is agreeable.

You might hope, but years of evidence would say that you're dead wrong.

then rigorous meta-moderation will help the system, next time around, give mod points to someone else who deserves them more.

Does anyone seriously believe that moderation has ever been improved? Metamoderation is even more prone to abuse than moderation, because it's not public.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

These two things (intelligent, and Bush supporter) being two different issues, of course: one can be intelligent and conservative or intelligent and liberal - it all depends upon one's priorities.

Yes, of course you can be an intelligent conservative or an intelligent liberal. It's being an intelligent Bush supporter that boggles the mind.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Brandybuck]

That's not entirely correct. While they may claim to be Green and Libertarian, they are in fact quasi-green pseudo libertarians. Nowhere else besides Slashdot will you find people claiming to be Libertarian while advocating increased tax funding for NASA, or claiming to be Green while strenously arguing against mandatory software warranties.

While I don't expect anyone to ever follow their party's planks one hundred percent, Slashdot editors seem to be the types that only pick a party because someone told them they could get laid.

segregation? good idea!

[ylikone]

Yes, split up the smart (left-wing) and stupid (right-wing) nerds.... so we can have more effective flame wars!

Re:segregation? good idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your pathetic attempt to be ignorant and start a lame flame war has failed. Well, only the second part failed; the "be ignorant" part was a rousing success.

Re:segregation? good idea!

[ylikone]

Got you, sucka!! Stuff that in your conservative ass.

Simpsons reference

[StalinsNotDead]

you meaple-syrup eating bastard

You Shatner-stealing Mexico toucher.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially funny since a MSFT exec was once quoted as saying a particular software package "ran on all operating systems - Win95, Win98, and WinNT"

Blue

[Anonymous Coward]

Tory blue. Don't trust 'em an inch.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[jmorris42]

> I think the normal moderation system should not apply for the politics
> section.

Nah, politics isn't the worst abuse. Try saying something that isn't worshipful of Steve Jobs in an Apple related article and watch how fast you make -1 Troll. Moderation is what it is, what the /. hivemind thinks at that moment in time.

You just have to do what I do, save the Karma gained from slagging DMCA and all that crap and burn it slagging the sacred cows into burgers. Lost some saying Howard Dean was insane months before he "had a scream" and everyone else suddenly noticed. Lost more saying Kerry was a traitor, now the swift boat vets he served with are pushing that truth hard enough people stuck reading the mass media will figure that one out also... hopefully before election day.

A lot of Bush policy needed some hard questioning and a vigorous campaign is a good thing for the country, too bad neither of the candidates the Democrats put forward this season were fit for duty. It is about time for them to just shatter and reform as two or more parties and clean out the deadwood in the process because it is growing clear that they no longer know to get elected in a national race.

See how easy it is to make that Karma BURN!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Slashdot editors represent a diverse editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.
From trotskyists to maoists?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm waiting for GNAA.slashdot.org

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe does NOT suck!

Invite the Candidates

[hubs99]

Why have the candidates not been asked for a slashdot style interview? Someone high up on the slashdot chain should invite both the candidates to do an email interview like what has been done in the past with interesting people. I am sure with the millions of hit that are here they might be interested.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm Not an American, You Elitist Freak."..."I hate the it.slashdot.org color scheme."

Put those two together, and we can start complaining about this imagry

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot just broke one of the 2 rules of peacekeeping conversation, don't talk about religion or politics. They might as well start up religion.slashdot.org and flame on.

I thought there was the third rule about sex. But I guess in this context that's a moot point.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Brandybuck]

The comment was with regards to the editors, and not the posters or story submitters. Also, if you find a hint of libertarianism with the editors, it's only with regards to Free Software. In any other issue they're firmly authoritarian. They don't want regulations on Free Software, but will frequently advocate sending the 82nd Airborne Infantry into Redmond.

Hey we should be happy for a great color

[Tibor the Hun]

This blue looks great, especially with the stars and stripes.
Now, can you guys PLEASE change the mustard-dog-crap yellow of the IT section.

Re:US-centric

[Monkeyman334]

Is there a non-US site somewhere that covers news events in other parts of the world? I'd like to visit it and bitch about improper spelling, units, and holidays that don't apply to my region. There has to be some level of abstraction on a news site.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!

[ChaoticLimbs]

I completely agree re: shark jump status.
Lets face facts: MIT does not prepare you for the task of critiqueing socioeconomic injustice or global defense policy. It is simply shark jumping.

Don't stop there!

[mod_parent_down]

Maybe we can get a slashdot section devoted to finding out which is the best text-editor for coding?

Or maybe which is the best country in the world?

Personally, I think it's America.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

And in the vi vs. emacs debate, I feel that Republicans are pico users.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a very intelligent Bush supporter.

This is an oxymoron.

/me ducks flames

Re:Message from Not So Swift Veteran of Propoganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Zell the Blithering Idiot

Zell's falsehoods.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[cb8100]

One day I'll get to be on the /. editorial staff...

Then you little pinkos will rue all the off-topic and flamebait liberal posts you said were "insightful."

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[TykeClone]

If anything Karma changes should be eliminated due to politically motivated moderation in this section. Some serious damage could occur to someone's account that is diametrically opposed to the rest of the Slashdot mentality.

So my excellent karma shouldn't be harmed when I start talking about how we need more cannabalism here in the states and that we should make jay walking and cigar smoking capital offenses while decriminalizing meth?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just bullshit. Any discussion about, say, city/town-sponsored networks has some comment questioning whether such socialist approach is a bad one for open market societies. Or comments about positive aspects about "security" improvements done by fascists leading USA right now; although not dominant, they are added to quite a few "your rights" thingies, if there's even slightest chance something could be used by "terrorists".

You obviously have your blinders on, and see pink everywhere. I can actually see a wide spectrum of viewpoints here, even in editorials -- but I haven't been brainwashed to just one brand of views like you seem to have been.

Bad Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this has been said, but I want to add my $0.02. This will only generate thread upon thread of flame fests with people on both sides throwing barbed verbage at each other. It is best to stick with individual issues that are tech related (I said TECH related) than to open up a whole forum on politics. The only thing that slashdot should care about Nader/Kerry/Bush is their stance on tech issues, not Iraq. Other issues should be tread on lightly. For instance, the economy should only be an issue as it relates to tech companies and tech jobs. Now, I'm going to duck.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

honestly though, that's exactly why this is such a dumb idea. The whole concept of /., the reason why any of us bother reading these threads instead of just clikcing the links in the summary and being done with it, is that this is a community-based news service, meaning that we're all some stripeo f geek talking about some technology-related issue. Thus, we actually have intellegent things to say, can answer eachother's questions, can critique articles in an informed manner, et c., and wind up adding to the information in the article substantially with our comments. So WTF is the point of us debating political ideology? There's barely such a thing as an expert on this topic (seriously, PHd in Political Science dude, when was the last time you heard something truely insightful from academia regarding this campaign?), and those low-grade experts who do have something to add are certainly not reading about the latest offering from AMD on /. between lectures. So what can any of us really contribute to a dialog on politics, other then correcting the occasional lamer who hasn't read a newspaper in two months? It's just an exercise in free speech and rhetroical skills (if /. mods gave a fuck about rhetoricalk skills). Is that supposed to make us feel enfranchised, "to make our voices heard?" What a hoot.

Not that it's necesarily bad that /. wants to host a forum that doesn't really make sense in the context of /. as a whole, it's just that typically when any organization strays from their core mission, that core mission is in some way eventually diminished.

I picked my pollitical party

[Orion Blastar]

The Pirate Party of the USA. We are like the Democratic or Republican party, only we don't lie about our motives. If we invade another country, it will be over the loot and plundering. We won't lie about WMDs, etc. Yeah it is all about the oil, after that pipeline is build, booty for all with cheaper oil! Make Saddam walk the plank into a shark infested water. :)

Re:I picked my pollitical party

[Democritus2]

Sign me up. I can see it now, the donkey, the elephant, and the skull and crossbones.

Re:I picked my pollitical party

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

There was a simple motto used once:

"to make the world safe for democracy"

Why can't we use it again? It's ten times easier than any WMD argument.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC082304.wmv

12 minutes of your time.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Sevn]

Yeah, but weren't the swift boat guys outted as complete liars, and didn't Bush himself say we should be proud of Kerry? I'm tending to side with Bush on this one.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

But the rest of you veto his pro-outsourcing stories? Or does he not dare even consider them?

I see more pro-outsourcing views on slashdot than protectionist views/stories. Maybe it's just me...

Must.... resist.... saying.... this....

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I would hope that moderators are fair enough to send comments up or down depending on their quality, not whether their point of view is agreeable.

You're new here, aren't you?

>>rigorous meta-moderation will help the system

BAWAHAHAAHA! [can't catch my breath from laughing... GASP!]

>>if someone says something we completely disagree with ... it is worth hearing.

Lemme tell you what, when they open up politics.slashdot.org, they need to use the other "slash" character in the address, the one that leans to the left.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

Yes, and I am saying it is funny to think that, since I am an official of the Republican party in Washington state, a precinct committee officer.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/RNC082304.wmv

I think you're a bit overly optimistic

[Sycraft-fu]

I've often made posts that detail an opinion that is unpopular and been modded down because of it. For example I made a post about why a company might want a homogenious computing environment, in that case, MS Windows. I wrote about 3 or 4 paragraphs detailing the advantages and reasons (as I saw them) and also pointed out that the same thing could apply to a homogenious Linux environment.

End result? -1 score with about 15 responses, mostly flames. I was real careful when wirting the post to not be a jerk, and even to pay lip service to Linux, though it wasn't strictly relivant to the argument. None the less, there were enough people who disagreed and wanted me silenced to get it modded down, despite some positive moderation.

Unfortunately, this happens quite often. People disagree with something being said and use their moderation points to attempt to suppress it. It's the same thing as protestors that try and shut down their opposition from speaking. They don't like the message so they try and prevent it from being expressed.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can confirm that. I never get any karma because of my politically non-correct goatse.cx posts.

Yours AC.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Fnkmaster]

The problem is that people just care less about Karma than they used to, when you weren't maxed out at 50, and you could actually see your Karma, not just "Excellent", "Good", etc. I guess the point of this was to reduce Karma whoring. I don't know if this was a good or bad change to /. though. Re-emphasizing Karma in the way you describe would be difficult without going back to a numeric system and other changes.

Personally I would prefer this, but I don't think it's going to happen since the editors have made it pretty clear they don't care much for the Karma system they created in the first place, I think mostly because they want to encourage participation by casual visitors to /. who bring in advertising dollars by virtue of their eyeball numbers over the regular, highly moderated posters and contributers who actually make the content here worth viewing. Oh well, I appreciate that it's a tough balance to walk, and you want to keep everybody happy and coming back for more.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[jmorris42]

No, the /. hivemind wants the government to leave the Internet alone. Except those who want laws against spammers. And most here are conflicted about copyrights. Well, not exactly, everyone SAYS they are for them, just not for enforcing them.

Everywhere else they LOVE the crushing hand of the State. Lets pass laws to stop outsourcing, build great protectionist walls to protect every industry, redistribute wealth, stop the 'evil' corporations. Hell, lets even keep WalMart out of the pristine workers paradise of California.

The problem is that most of /. is close enough to the Internet to see how every attempt at government regulation either fails to make any difference or just makes the problem worse. But being products of modern education, and having less than zero knowledge of economics or real philosophy, they can't see how the same thing applies out here in meatspace. The "War on Poverty" made more poverty and created a perverted incentive for 'social workers' to make sure we always have it so they have job security.

Colour scheme

[Devar]

This has got to be one of the better colour schemes. Why couldn't they do as good for games and IT !?

not wise

[ylikone]

Mentioning "shooting" a "politician" on a public forum is not a wise idea. You are being watched.

Re:not wise

[teamhasnoi]

Yup. Pretty swell, the chilling effect. I, of course, named no specific politicians, so my post goes in the "Kill all the lawyers" bumper sticker category.

Free speech really has taken a beating when you can't voice dissent or make a comment that 'might' be misinterpreted.

I guess we should, 'Watch what we say' like good little Patriots. Ari Fleischer would be proud. McCarthy is high-fiving Hitler in hell, and I'm giving the finger to every 'elected' official that pretends to have our best interests in mind.

Besides, anyone who actually does feel the need to shoot a politician because of my post on /. should come over to my house. If you're that easily motivated, I have a lawn that needs mowing.

About Time

[little_5_points_geek]

Let me enjoy my geeky stuff without having to deal with the politics.

Oh yeah I am a Libertarian and distrust all professional politicians equally.

Sold my karma and now ride the bus.

Wrong.

[JNighthawk]

Just as nigger is derogatory, whereas nigga or negro isn't (sometimes), USian is derogatory. You are NOT encompassing continents by saying American. I am a citizen of the United States of America. I am an American. Not a 'USian.'

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a citizen of the United States of America. I am an American. Not a 'USian.'

You also appear to be a cock, but you don't see us kicking up a fuss now do ya?

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You do realize they make decaf, right?

You don't get to choose what name you'd like your nationality to be referenced as. It's based on the country name. And by that standard, "USian" is at least as accurate as "Canadian", and more accurate than "American".

And way more accurate than "UKian", which is in common use both of and by people from the UK.

An Anonymous USian.

Re:Wrong.

[eyeye]

USian is more precise though you have to admit.

I am european but would not object if someone wanted to be more specific and refer to me as British.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not derogatory. Stop being a baby.

~From a UKian who is fed up of whiny, ultranationalist yanks.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

British people aren't from Europe, because UKia isn't part of Europe in any real sense. This is why very very few British people refer to themselves as "European", and when they do they are likely from those parts closest to Europe such as London and other more shall-we-say gay parts of the UK.

This is also why British people refer to Europe as another place. "I'm going on holiday to Europe", say, or "Let's not join Europe, it's too corrupt and imperialist."

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Silly man, I and British people are part of europe. They can (in theory) travel around europe without a passport and I can move to italy or france TOMORROW if I wanted.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can move to Europe? So what? It wasn't long ago Canadians could move to the UK without a passport. Does that make them part of Europe too?

Re:Wrong.

[notestein]

We're only ultranationalist because our country is better.

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Let's not join Europe, it's too corrupt and imperialist."

Instead lets cast our lot with the USians!HAHAHAHHAHAHA, Oh what a great fucking choice! Out of the frying pan and into the fire, eh lads!

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yanks" really only refers to people from the states which used to be part of New England, which is a very small section of our very large country. For people insisting on "USian" over "American" in the name of "precise" language, you certainly are very sloppy with it at other times.

Well hell

[sheldon]

Look how well the slogan "Fair and Balanced" has worked for Fox News!

The editors of Pravda would have been proud.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget Badnarik, the only decent candidate of the lot.

Mod Points

[jlgolson]

Is there a way to modify the way moderation points are assigned in the political forum? Can it not count towards our karma? I know I've been burned a couple of times because I said politically heated things and was modded inappropriately for it. It would just save a lot of hassle I think.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[E_elven]

In the case you didn't know, 'bipartisanship' in politics means that the other guys will do it your way, too.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[BandwidthHog]

I for one would like to thank our slash-managing overlords for this new section. I'm one of those overly idealistic people who actually try to contribute fairly to the overall s/n ratio. I metamod regularly and won't hesitate to mark something unfair, or to leave something alone if I just don't get it. Although sometimes it does seem I'm alone on that one.

But seriously, good move guys. Maybe I'll even try to subscribe again (and once more be told that my credit card has too low a security score or some such).

hmmm.... fark...

[ylikone]

what slashdot needs is more Boobies!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[tanguyr]

no joke, but threads like that have been propagating through every other story lately. If politics.slashdot.org can trap them and thus clean up some of the other topics then more power to it.

oh, and i hate the it.slashdot.org color scheme.

So in other words

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the new url.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the protectionist libertarians that I have trouble treating seriously.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[JavaLord]

I am a Goldwater Conservative, not a neoconservative. I definitely side more with paleoconservatives than neoconservatives on domestic policy, but neoconservatives on modern foreign policy (my isolationist views changed, as with many people, following 9/11).

Nice to hear that Slashdot does have some variety on the Right.

I think everyone (at least on the right) looks at foreign policy differently since 9/11

We have an editor I'd term a libertarian, and he seems to identify more with them than the other parties. He's a bona fide disciple of Adam Smith.

Sounds like a pretty good mix, I would have never though it since slashdot does seems slanted left.

Re:No sanctuary? Anywhere?

[kjones692]

Unfortunately, politics, by definition, is everywhere. Politics is essentially a word for how humans interact with each other, and since pretty much everyone has to interact with people eventually, you'll have to end up dealing with politics at one time or another. Politics reaches into every single topic on /., in one way or another... free speech issues, privacy concerns, regulation of business... so you might as well go into it informed.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Trolling4Dollars]

In the past they *COULD* work together because the system actually worked. In these times there is a great deal of doubt as to whether the system works anymore.

Hmm...

[sheldon]

Worked for Rush Limbaugh.

Will the profit go to feed an Oxycontine addiction... that is the real question!

Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

What a horrible idea.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco
Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
Major Strike on Iraq Underway by CmdrTaco

That guy's busy...

Oh Great!

[ChiChiCuervo]

Does this mean I have to block Sengan's stories all over again?

Truly, the whole world now cares

[FunWithHeadlines]

I don't think you have to worry about non-U.S. citizens complaining about this section. When you have a president who shows an inclination to attack and occupy any other country he feels like without feeling the need to provide reasons that stand up to scrutiny, you'd better believe the rest of the world sits up and notices!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see more pro-outsourcing views on slashdot than protectionist views/stories. Maybe it's just me...

Absolutely. I wouldn't disagree that the readers/posters have a variety of views with anti-protectionism (if not quite pro-outsourcing) dominating. The ARTICLES however are definitely slanted towards protectionism. Hence my question about the editorial policy behind this.

Do they tie up the libertarian editor and sit on him whenever they feel like embarking on one of their protectionist tirades.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[JPelorat]

So, one Goldwaterite, one Libertarian, and a hojillion brands of Left is 'a pretty good mix'?

Meh.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

O dear god (just to bring in more trouble). Forget the www.politicalcompass.org, or the whole idea of a political spectrum.

The political compass guys/gals are just trying to manipulate the much better representation of your political position by horribly mutilating what is called the Nolan Chart.

The fact is the "spectrum" idea is a mistake left over from the French revolution. It represents "a seating plan" for heavens sake.

Take a look at the much more straight forward one at

www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

well, thanks! but....

[zogger]

I really can't take credit or claim any creativity. It's just boring old data.

Here's just one you can start with if you are interested:

http://hnn.us/articles/1810.html

Definitions

[enforcer999]

Hmmm....you might want to read up on the term Libertarian.

Re:Definitions

[bobbozzo]

FWIW, libertarianism has been co-opted by the far right. See Ayn Rand/Rand Institute, etc.
(basically, cooperations are free to screw anyone over w/o gov't supervision; e.g. liberty for cooperations)

I don't think the current political def fits many slashdotters.

Finally

[jb.hl.com]

That colour scheme is nice, very pleasing to the eye.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[E_elven]

Amusingly enough Adam Smith was a liberal.

let desperation begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure this guys at /. are desperate to capture traffic, politics in a tech forum is like a whore in a girl scouts meeting, ok there is a lot of republican geeks out there happy with the current situation willing to kill somebody just for being disagree (last defcon conference) but is this "experiment" worth it, what are they gonna do if some party have more moderators than the other.

What bothers me the most is the lot of offtopic, flames and stuff moderators have given to politic driven comments in the past. Is ./ eating its words or what.

If you want to attract more traffic just stop alienating people through a moderation system that DOESNT WORK, baising is to blame.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[SensitiveMale]

Been reading here for years and I have never seen a hint of Republican or Libertarian views expressed in /. editorializing and there certainly isn't a lack of editorializing.

If you lowered your threshold to -1 you would have seen my conservative replies.

Slamming Bush will get your Score to 5:, Interesting but refuting it will get you a score of -1:, Troll.

This is a left-leaning board. It is what it is.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[b0r1s]

It's called 'bitchslapping', and the term came from 'bitchslap.pl' (which you can find in the slashcode CVS attic).

It:
1) Pushes you down to -10 karma
2) Removes your 'eligible for moderation' bit
3) Sets your default post score at -1.

Editors can execute the script on people they consider 'abusers', though it's been used in the past to keep the readers quiet about massive editor abuse (see: the post of death, where anyone who responded was moderated to -1, and anyone who moderated them back up was bitchslapped).

By the way: 12 minutes of your time should change your mind.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[makapuf]

Ahh so you don't know of the new (-1,leftist) and (-1,rightist) moderation options, then ? Oops, I've said too much.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[(trb001)]

That's one of the issues that I hope will get clarified from discussion here...an international voice on our political system may help some of us see how strange our arguments are.

This political season especially has succombed, basically, to partisanship. Not that it's ever truly different, but from the other elections I've followed, this one seems worse.

Not to mention that outsiders could actually help to settle differences. My democrat friend and I can sit down for hours at a time and agree on nothing because neither of us is willing to budge on basic assumptions (higher taxes=good/bad, bigger government=good/bad, etc). We've started comparing issues like taxes to other countries, and an authoritative voice on those countries would come in handy.

--trb

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[pjt33]

That helps? My karma was up to excellent within a week or two of registering, and has never dropped below it; I meta-mod whenever asked to; I still haven't seen a single mod point. Since your UID is only slightly lower than mine maybe that means I'll be in with a chance in the near future?

HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the US flag in the corner great? Once again, Slashdot fails being more international.

Greak work.

Re:but what you forgot to mention...

[leonmergen]

Ehrm, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, there were still a lot of democratic countries besides the US and Russia (which I suppose you're referring to) .

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Hooded One]

I thought that Overrated didn't touch karma, to balance out the immunity from Metamods. I can't confirm or deny this from the FAQ though.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[mrchaotica]

You don't think all our indignation about civil rights is Libertarian? I guess you must have missed my posts...

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[TheCaptain]

Actually, I am glad you responded, of all people.

I read a post above that told me to look at your journal, and I did.

I owe you an apology for the generalization. You called me out on that one. I am sorry.

I do wish we'd hear more from you (or at least your side of the spectrum), however. I am taking a shot from the hip here, but I'd wager that Michael posts 10 times more than you do...and his slant is legendary. I don't say that to be critical of you or your contributions (heck, I am glad for them)...I am saying that to be constructively critical of Slashdot in general. (Hey management...please at least think about it. I'm even asking nicely. :) )

Thanks for coming down into reader land to set the record straight.

the world = USA ?

[formal_entity]

Why is the section background the US flag? Maybe you meant uspolitcs.slashdot.org instead however last time I checked (okay I never checked, but is my guess wrong?) a huge amount of slashdot readers are from non-US countries? I'm well aware about the fact that some US citiziens think the "the world = USA" but I thought higher of slashdot editors than that. Certainly the US elections are very important but in general I would say the most interesting questions are those about society from a global perspective. Especially in the light of the communications revolution which started during the last decade.

Re:the world = USA ?

[alex_ware]

I think the flag should stay as politics.slashdot.org is only an experiment and when it becomes a real part of slashdot then make it keep the blue and drop the flag
(this needs to go under politics http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/07/17 18225&tid=123&tid=158&tid=103
)
File it as a bug

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

For a lame talk aimed at brain amputated 12 year olds?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[lpangelrob2]

You know, I was about to mod you up +1 Insightful before I took a second look at what you were saying and decided it was completely counterintuitive to do so...

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

See it this way: politics.slashdot.org is a way of keeping the politics out of tech threads. Now that they have their own section, political discussions are officially offtopic in the other sections.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[digitac]

Funny, I just took their test and ended up dead center:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.15

I guess I'm voting for myself this election.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[E_elven]

I started taking that test and gave up on the 3rd page. Almost every question is phrased as a false dilemma and has an obvious left slant. It is apparerently intended to make you believe you are a liberal.

Not entirely true. The questions are phrased a certain way, yes. It makes it easier to discern the 'true nature' of the respondent via some simple psychological arithmetic.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I also listen to a diverse mix of music on the radio. I listen to Country *AND* I listen to Western.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Amusingly enough Adam Smith was a liberal.

Why is that amuisng? What else would you expect a free-marketeer to be?

Re:but what you forgot to mention...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, that really happens on ALL countries outside of US of A. Fox News told me so.

So...

[Aliencow]

politics.slashdot.org points to 207.99.115.72 ?

didn't momma learn you none?

[Anonymous Coward]

you NEVER talk about politics or religion

although, crucifying someone in religion.slashdot.org does have some appeal to it....

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Captain Tenille]

Ah, a Washington Republican. That might not be so bad then, unless you're on The Other Side of the Mountains. Usually, the Republicans in Western WA (not all, of course) seem to be fairly reasonable people. Of course, the only ones who usually do at all well in statewide races are the really moderate Republicans (I'm thinking Ralph Munro here). That said, there's still a number of people like Ellen Craswell out there. You're not like her, are you?

RSS anyone?

[jedaustin]

I love that the regular slashdot site has a rss feed, will politics.slashdot.org have a rss feed also?

JD

Re:RSS anyone?

[nob]

All Slashdot sections have one, just put the section name before slasdot.org. So the politics feed is:
http://politics.slashdot.org/index.xml

However, Slasdot has a policy where it bans you for awhile if you grab the feed more than once an hour (I think?) and this applies to all sections... so if you get the main feed and the politics one, you're screwed. That system doesn't really work too well, huh?

Re:RSS anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope! doesn't work well at all!

Especially since some articles in some sections don't show up on the main feed, so you have to subscribe to the individual RSS feeds too.

I was just banned about 30 minutes to an hour ago for having the main feed, games, politics, and ask slashdot (possibly a couple others, but I already deleted them from Sage). That'll teach me to be interested in things! Thanks, slashdot!

Sorry, just a little frustrated. :/

Seriously though, is there a way to get *all* the news stories in an RSS feed, so I don't have to see 'Your headline reader has been banned...' again? Or is there a way a poor little AC like me can ask the slashdot gods politely to create one?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, one Goldwaterite, one Libertarian, and a hojillion brands of Left is 'a pretty good mix'?

Better than what I thought they had!

Alternative proposal

[doktorstop]

If such a thing as politics.slashdot.org should exist, we got to have an alternative one. There fore I propose to vote, push and beg for sex.slashdot.org That's the part EVERYONE here will read and be proud to comment upon. Except for girls on Slashdot, but this can be easily be dismissed as nonexistent. GO FOR SEX.SLASHDOT.ORG!

Re:Alternative proposal

[shrewtamer]

Ok nerds, just in case you didn't know....
***** Girls like sex too! Good job that! *****
Not so many girls like porn....but they do like talking about sex.
Now most people prefer to talk about sex with people they know. But I'd prefer to talk about sex with strangers than talk policits.....so I'm all for your suggestion. American politics inevitably ends up with bombing. Proove me wrong.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Fnkmaster]

Well, it's interesting. It seems like you'd have to be a nutcase to agree with some of those statements. I show up as -1.88 and -3.38. In other words, pretty moderate economically and fairly strongly libertarian socially. This is fairly accurate actually, based on my own self-assessment.

While I don't see any problem with the fact that lots of the statements are logical fallacies (this isn't a right/wrong test, it's to measure your responses to the statements, even when logical fallacies), I just don't see how some of them are really either right or left socially or economically. Is the concept of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" really a politically conservative concept, or a religious expression of the human desire for revenge? Is optional classroom attendance for minors really a libertarian point of view? Is eugenics politically conservative, or just a bit nutty? If you like to keep busy with cheerful things when you are troubled, does that make you a social liberal (or conservative? I can't even figure this one out)?

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[zenyu]

I started taking that test and gave up on the 3rd page. Almost every question is phrased as a false dilemma and has an obvious left slant. It is apparerently intended to make you believe you are a liberal.


I had the same reaction. Half those questions are logical fallacies, and the rest are left slafted. But our politicians all speak in logical fallacies so I kept going, and it scored me at 0.0 on the left-right thing and at -5.38 on the authoritarian-liberterian axis. Which is pretty much where I see myself. I believe strongly in freedom for people and business, but don't object to fairly applied taxes for schools, libraries, a safety net, and legal* system.

*I don't support the current legal system in the US, but I still think we'd need one in an ideal society. I think we should go back to the old Icelandic tradition of having the Speaker of the House read all the laws of the land to the other members of Congress over the course of every three years. It's sort of like the Jewish tradition of reading the torah over the course of each year, except congress is free to eliminte a law for every other law they add, and are free to go home after they hear the text.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Matje]

In case you haven't thought of it yet, check the editorials of the washington post and the new york times (you can read most of the nyt ones without registering at iht.com). Essays by William Safire come recommended, if only for the excellent analyses

Politics.slashdot.org: diversity vs. balance

[LinuxParanoid]

There's a difference between being "fair and balanced" and being "diverse".

I think politics.slashdot.org will be fine on the "diverse" score. I've read your journal for quite a while Pudge and it stands out as a reasoned conservative perspective. I've seen some diversity amongst other editors but not enough to know whether its my imagination or not.

I guess the navel-gazing question in my mind is whether the diversity that I take for granted will result in "fair and balanced".

To illustrate what I mean, Alan Colmes is a liberal on the Fox News Network, but I don't consider the overall channel to be exactly "fair and balanced" (despite their tagline). ("Somewhat fair and balanced" or "more fair and balanced" maybe... but anyway ignoring my views on Fox I presume you get my point.)

Your presence guarantees some diversity, I'd agree; but it does not guarantee "fair and balanced" coverage or editorial viewpoint presentation.

That outcome will rest in the integrity and decision-making process of the Slashdot leadership. I should add that I'm generally a big fan of Slashdot and those who started/run it (pioneers of distributed moderation), so I'm not casting FUD on the whole enterprise. I'm just remarking that you all haven't been tested in quite this way. And probably the user response will shape the results a fair bit. As someone who downloaded the first version of Slash in an attempt to create a political forum but didn't put forth the requisite effort to drive its success, I wish you all the best.

--LP

Re:Politics.slashdot.org: diversity vs. balance

[pudge]

That outcome will rest in the integrity and decision-making process of the Slashdot leadership.

Yep. The two -- diversity vs balance -- really don't have much to do with each other. I could be balanced if I chose to be, in my journal, but I don't wish to be.

Re:Politics.slashdot.org: diversity vs. balance

[Taladar]

Your presence guarantees some diversity, I'd agree; but it does not guarantee "fair and balanced" coverage or editorial viewpoint presentation.

Thinking you are able to get a "fair and balanced" coverage anywhere is simply wrong. If you want different opinions and political diversity you need to read more than one newssource.

I can't be the only one

[jb.hl.com]

Who thinks this is going to be the Internet equivalent of Fox News, just slanted in the opposite direction?

Re:US-centric

[hackstraw]

Slashdot is trying to make sure that they represent a variety of viewpoints... from the USA.

I'm not sure where you are from, but here in the US it is difficult to find anyone to intellectually talk about politics with. From what I understand, politics discussions in most other countries (especially those with parliamentary systems) are as commonplace as weather conversations here. In fact, other countries even talk about US politics, where most Americans are oblivious that there are other countries, let alone politics in other countries. OK, that was an exaggeration, but not too bad of one. Although I havn't dug too deeply myself, I would say that the front page stuff that has talked about Kerry, I still don't know what he is about or what he stands for. I know that he's against the War in Iraq, but I don't really know why.

I will say that I was shocked to see the US flag as the /. graphic, but /. has never known to be very international.

Re:Cheese with your whine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's because what you consider to be "conservative" is more appropriately categorized as "stupid".

Wow!! How open minded. You even got in some name calling!

Ya gonna hit him up with some Yo-mama jokes next??

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[funk_doc]

I just took the Political Compass and the test in itself is quite skewed. Questions like:

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.

Aren't political questions. There are many questions like this. If anyone would like to take a real political quiz, try The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz

Let's start with this.

[Anonymous Coward]

More than one axis needs to be considered when political issues are discussed. Thankfully, we have this.

Try it and report where you fall. (I'm a left-wing libertarian, as I suspect many Slashdot types are.)

Re:Let's start with this.

[Democritus2]

same for me- strong libertarian, mild lefty

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[stwrtpj]

don't talk about religion or politics.

Actually, I have had quite intelligent conversations about these two topics with people. The two topics that I have found I cannot accomplish this with are abortion and gun control. One of the reasons I have relative marital harmony at home is because my wife and I have the same stance on these issues.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[matima]

Slashdot just broke one of the 2 rules of peacekeeping conversation, don't talk about religion or politics.

Religious flamebait: "God hates homosexuals!"

Slashdot religious flamebait: "Linux sucks!"

To avoid contentious issues like religion and politics would be redundant. /.already has its own unique and well-established flavors of inflammatory pissing contests.

Re:Cheese with your whine?

[TheCaptain]

Ah...a very nice Ad Hominem attack. Now that's what I call an enlightened position.

Why I am knowingly responding to a troll, I have no idea.

Game on.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[asavage]

You are still in the latest 10% to sign up. wait until it passes around 820,000 and you will get mod points.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[donutello]

I stopped after the first question:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Economic globalization is inevitable. Humanity and "trans-national corporations" aren't an either/or choice as beneficiaries.

That question is just another version of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Lord Kano]

Dude, do you see how low my UID is?

LK

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

Really old, but I happened to be thinking of it earlier today - the Political Compass [politicalcompass.org]. Apparently I'm way off to the left, and down a bit.

The political compass is biased to throw you to the left by the way the questions are worded. I'm a paleoconservative and I came out as a leftist because I am also a populist (many paleoconservative viewpoints are populist). To really get someones viewpoints they would need to ask more questions, and weigh the questions against one another. For example, I may think that companies can't be trusted to not polute the environment so they should be regulated, but that doesn't mean I think they should be regulated to the point where it costs massive amounts of jobs.

True audience

[jdavidb]

Looking at the Hall of Fame articles, it would seem that politics is what brings us all here, anyway.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's a very intelligent Bush supporter.

I'd support an intelligent Bush too...

Lies in the URL!

[i_r_sensitive]

C'mon: politics.slashdot.org...

More like: unrestricted.flamewar.slashdot.org

Nothing like adding a contentious subject to a contentious site...

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

By the standard back then, yes. Also, in the mid-1800s, the "radical Christian right" -- favoring abolition of slavery, alcohol, favoring women's rights -- was liberal. It's all relative.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Lord Kano]

I don't think it was done by an editor. Because over a series of monthy, my posts would sit for about a week and then all of a sudden 5 of them would be modded down at the same time. This would go one week after week. I even had an AC posting replies to my messages to taunt me about it.

Robert Rozeboom took care of the karma bombing, but I still can't moderate. It's been over a year since he put a stop to it.

LK

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[mrchaotica]

What, can't you agree with the Libertarians about some issues, and the Greens with others?

Also, both Greens and Libertarians agree on states' rights and limiting the Federal government

Time for a Poll!

[slashdot_commentator]

Fascist
Right wing Nutjob
Centrist/Zell Miller Republicrat
Olympia Snowe Republicrat
Independent/Capitalist Pig
Libertarian/Reform/Green
Joe Lieberman Democan
Centrist Democrat
Liberal Weenie
Anarchist/Communist
Religious Zealot
Damn Foreigner
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos

Missing any? Does one need to be removed?

Good Comedy From the /. Team

[Anonymous Coward]

"We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies."

Nonsense. /. has become nearly unreadable at times due to anti-Bush/U.S./etc. sentiment and rhetoric, not to mention the 'black helicopter brigade' of /. /. as a community embarassed itself from 9/11/01 onward.

I'd suggest the community sticks to technology - something it is very well informed on - as opposed to national security, international relations and affairs, etc.

I come here to read up on tech issues because that's not my trade and I know the information from /. will be worth reading/learning.

I work in national security and topics and comments related to this on /. are what I show my co-workers for a good laugh before we go out drinking on Friady nights.

So maybe /. shouldn't just stick to technology - it's good entertainment after all. :)

yeah right

[reiggin]

Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies

Yeah, real diverse spectrum. Like all the way from socialist to anarchist, with a healthy dose of communism right in the Slashdot middle.

Non-Funniest.Government.Summary. Ever.

[zogger]

I actually *worked* the Barry Goldwater campaign, and I'd say my views on foreign policy with regards to the government have changed since 9-11. Now I am 100% convinced the government has been taken over in a stealth coup and is run by international blood profits fascists, globalist technofuedalists comes the closest to their aims and goals and actions, whereas before I thought there were still a few honest patriots left at the top levels. Now, nope, mass murderers is the politest term I have for them. 9-11 was a clear inside job, it wasn't all some dudes wearing turbans over in ashcanistan.

Re:Non-Funniest.Government.Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I am 100% convinced the government has been taken over in a stealth coup and is run by international blood profits fascists, globalist technofuedalists comes the closest to their aims and goals and actions, whereas before I thought there were still a few honest patriots left at the top levels. Now, nope, mass murderers is the politest term I have for them. 9-11 was a clear inside job, it wasn't all some dudes wearing turbans over in ashcanistan.

Try reading "Where the Right went Wrong". It's the Neocons who have taken over, and convinced/influenced President Bush. Look at Bush's statements in the 2000 debates vs After he got in office.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

I won't comment on other individual editors; if they wish to, they can do so. I will say that my primary job is as programmer, while timothy and michael are the two full-time editors. The rest of us are part-time editors. As a longtime Mac user and big fan of Macs, I mostly do the Apple section, where I am infamously both anti-Apple and pro-Apple, depending on who you ask. That should tell you something about how many of our editors work, and about perceptions.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Lord Kano]

You rank n00b, I was here back when a clever goatse.cx link would get you modded up as funny.

LK

Dan Quayle

[Anonymous Coward]

Naked and petrified!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

I'm a transplant (last June, previously lived in MA and CA), so much of this doesn't make as much sense to me as it does to you. Regardless, I live in Snohomish County, I am a Goldwater conservative, and I think Dino Rossi (another moderate Republican) is going to win the election (and he is on TV tonight, debating Ron Sims! Don't miss it!).

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[JavaLord]

My Karma was trashed because of politics. A few years ago I said something to draw someone's ire and I was karma bombed. My karma was reduced to the point where I couldn't post anymore.

There are a group of leftists who karma bomb people who post any views from the right, I'm going through it right now with the "overrated" bs to anything I post. It's sad that these people can't engage in debate and have to resort to childlike tactics when someone doesn't agree with them.

US Blah Blah

[kenp2002]

Well for all you complainers about American Politics being the focus you need to remind yourself that in many countries (apprently not yours) that those countries in fact do have political parties and plently of drama that the rest of the world might be interested in. Yeah the US is huge and the rest of the world does tend to watch our politics with more interest than their own but you never know maybe some of us would like to know what's going on politically with the EU and copyright law, the UN's insaine attempts to tax international flights and space accesss, and will Tony Blair sleep with Shania Twain after a change encounter on the deck of the ISS station! Politics is sooo good to follow but like a soap opera you have to hang around for a while till things make sense. Case in point, what's gonna happen in Cuba when Castro dies? What are the political ramafications with the botched Russia indicdent? How close are we to the return of the USSR?

Can't wait for the new category to start rolling out news!

Re:US Blah Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Case in point, what's gonna happen in Cuba when Castro dies?

Hopefully, the US will continue its childish sanctions against Cuba. It would be a shame to see that beautiful nation crawling with Americans. It really is the land of cheap Rum, fine cigars, great weather, and no Americans, paradise in the Carribean.

As a caveat, I would not want to BE a Cuban, and would not wish it on my worst enemy. However, the whole sun/sea/booze/vacation/cheap/pas de American deal is great.

Re:US Blah Blah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah the US is huge and the rest of the world does tend to watch our politics with more interest than their own

Huh? This is not something that I have ever come across anywhere. Are you thinking of any countries in particular?

Re:US Blah Blah

[mikestro]

You never did answer the previous question. What's going to happen in Cuba when Castro dies?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[nocomment]

I'm for less gun control. If you have to keep a gun locked in a underground vault, why not your cigarette lighter? Way more kids die from that. It's not an issue because it looks less threatening. What we really need is more water bucket control because more little kids die drowning in those things that guns


as for abortion I consider it murder. I used to be pro choice until the 'silent scream'. As a grown man that made me want to cry. Now I find myself even debating the "in the instance of rape" option.


My first time starting a flame war, how'd I do?

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

The aforementioned post:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=26315&cid=28 50 660

Shouldn't we switch to Condorcet moderation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rank all the posts you want in order of preference, then the higher your Condorcet score the higher on the list you appear. It would be a nice change from the current moderating system.

I'd even accept Approval moderation -- you can approve as many articles as you want (once per IP/userid) -- highest scores on top.

/ has 5 approval points burning a hole in his pocket.

Re: Parent isn't interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

From the summary (and grandparent):

... since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies ...

Parent wrote:

What's funny to me is that people think we DON'T have a diverse specturm of political ideologies. :-)

Hint to parent (and mods): the grandparent was not commenting on the slashdot readership. He's laughing his *** off about the claim that the editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.

Fellow countrymen, lend me your eye...

[east coast]

While I have already elected not to see the political section I would like to state my case that this is a poor poor idea. Politics and mod points do not mix. I can see a great number of otherwise excellent karma users falling into bad times if their opinions are not popular. Politics is not an area where logic and understanding are well met. I ask other Slashdot users to boycott this waste of time and space and let's get back to honest technology and science discussions.

This simply is not a healthy move for Slashdot.

Re:Fellow countrymen, lend me your eye...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd bet a hundred bucks you're of the conservative pursuasion. I've never met any liberal who wasn't afraid of healthy debate... only conservatives.

Of course you're afraid of this. Yes, the moderation scheme probably is not suitable to the site, but the need for an intellectual, substantive debate on political issues is desperately needed.

Yes, we can look forward to a new breed of conservative astroturfers to invade the site and play mod games to shut down opposing viewpoints, but that's been happening for awhile now - at least with the politics section it will be somewhat contained.

YES!

[querencia]

Visit your homepage preferences and select Politics to avoid seeing these stories on your main page.

THANK YOU Slashdot for doing this. If there is one place that I DO NOT want political opinion (except if it SPECIFICALLY relates to technology), it is /. I am changing my homepage preferences now.

Re:Cheese with your whine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate America?

New view option

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a filter to specify the maxiumum score we want to see. The Collective sends all the worthwhile posts to -1 within seconds, so there's not much point to reading anything scored higher.

What about the moderators?

[huchida]

I would humbly suggest that if it can't be prevented in the software, we should at least have a gentlemen's (and women's) agreement not to abuse the "flamebait" and "troll" tags in the politics section.

Already there's too much abuse-- people modding you "troll" if you present an informed, but unpopular opinion about Apple or the RIAA. I can't imagine how bad it's going to be if you dare approve of something the Bush administration does.

Re:What about the moderators?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should say this because you are a KNOWN TROLL. Mods please delete and ban this user!

Slashdot vs the shark

[Anonymous Coward]

I went on vacation a few weeks ago. When I returned, I noticed that there wasn't anything worth reading during the week I was gone. I thought to myself, "I think Slashdot may have jumped the shark while I was on vacation."

Then I noticed all of the recent astroturfing articles and I repeated my thought to myself (see above for quote).

Well now today slashdot added a political topic, and I'm here to say it out loud:

"Slashdot has officially jumped the shark."

Re:Slashdot vs the shark

[arose]

"Shark is slashdoted."

there's plenty of others

[Trepidity]

Iran, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, etc.

If you count all countries that ban candidates for their political views, Germany, Israel, and France get added to the list too (Germany and France have anti-Neo-Nazi-candidate laws, and Israel has anti-Zionist-extremist-candidate laws).

Oh, sod off

[wiredog]

you sheepshagger! Your type really makes me puke! You snotty, malodourous, perverts!

The Experiment

[BlueThunderArmy]

I'm actually very curious to see how this goes. Looking at comments so far (and in previous, less overtly-political threads), I would have to say that the /. community leans significantly to the right... ... yet loves complaining about the site's liberal bias. So, by show of hands, who here has read the best-selling "Unfit for Command," and who hasn't been able to find a copy because of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy?

Please, won't someone think of the Nazis?

[cttforsale]

Please, won't someone think of the Nazis?

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Canthros]

Adding to the Political Compass is skewed noise: I think President Bush's administration is, policy-wise, not as conservative as I'd like.

The Compass sets me to the left of Jacque Chirac.

I love the new template!

[adolfojp]

Guys, great work on the template and the colors. And, how about we do a makeover to the IT section. ;-)


Cheers

Adolfo

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you kept that up over the the life of your account (3000+ posts), that's a LOT of bad posts.

Not necessarily "bad posts", they're just not conforming to the Slashdot-think, which is more left leaning. If you haven't noticed, it's the more leftist posts that get modded up, and a right wing post is much more likely to be modded down, or flamebait.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Captain Tenille]

I'm not sure I'd say Dino Rossi is a moderate Republican, but he's not as out there as some. That said, I'm pulling for Ron Sims in the gubernatorial election. I suppose I'd vote for Gregoire in the general if need be, but I wouldn't be thrilled.

For what it's worth, I live in Olympia, and since the state is Olympia's only "industry" of note, having a Democratic administration is essential to Olympia's economic well-being. That, and I'm hunting around for a job, and the state is my only real option for being able to work in Olympia in the computing field.

Re: Parent isn't interesting

[pudge]

Yes, and I, the parent you're speaking to, am an editor. oops. :-)

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost every question is phrased as a false dilemma (False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options)...

Actually, I think it's our left/right system of politics that's phrasing everything as a false dilemma. The test merely reflects this.

...and has an obvious left slant.

That's not entirely true. There are plenty of obvious right-slanted questions in there as well. In case you don't feel like clicking on Ford's link (above), here's a quote from the site:

Some of the questions are slanted

Most of them are slanted ! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions - an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.

I've got definite leftward leanings myself, and quite a few of the questions seemed to be anti-left to me. It's not always comfortable to have some of the more extreme views of your chosen political affiliation presented so baldly. You just didn't object to the anti-left questions (as I didn't object to the anti-right questions), because answering them with "Strongly Disagree" gave you (and me) such a nice, smug feeling.

I started taking that test and gave up on the 3rd page.

Go ahead and finish it before you accuse it of trying to make you believe you're on the "wrong" side of the political fence. I think you'll find it's a very good test, simply because the results won't surprise you in the least.

Politics for Nerds. Your vote matters.

[DarkHelmet]

After all the stories on voting tampering that are going to be posted in this section, you expect us to believe that? ;)

Politics for Nerds... Your Vote matters... More like...

Your vote is supreme. Hack the machine.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother with a sex category? Just point everybody here. "Know your audience", as they say.

Why the American flag?

[fritz il gatto]

I am sure a good 30-40% of your users are not from the US.

Re:Why the American flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, 60-70% of their users are from the US.

Or maybe we should randomly pick one, just to be inclusive? How about Paraguay?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Txiasaeia]

I'm pro-life, but there are still a few inconsistencies with the silent scream video that don't seem to add up - like the fact that babies pre-term don't seem to be *able* to feel pain due to the lack of a cortex - no cognitive functions, no intelligent response to pain. Be careful about this one - I have a feeling that it's going to be debunked, eventually.

As a proud father of a 6 month old baby boy, however, I would gladly strangle anybody who proudly told me that they had an abortion, or support the "rights" of people who do. There, now how's that for being political? ;) Best part about this section is that you can't get modded down for your political opinions either... hopefully...

Tech post in political.slashdot.org

[Anonymous Coward]

If the other forums are any indication, we will see people post technical discussions in political.slashdot.org.

No time like the present...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let us detain you.

Cause and correlation

[gad_zuki!]

>Been reading here for years and I have never seen a hint of Republican

The GOP mainstays are piss-poor areas of the US where the chances of being a nerd with various gaming machines and enough free time to post on a webboard is pretty low.

Modern day Republicans are closely related to theocrats and the exteme right, thus having a very maginalized platform. Most of the genx/y types who frequent this site really don't see the logic in the GOP's current platform of driving the US back to the 30's both economically and socially.

What is "Republican" today? It gets redefined everytime Bush opens his mouth. The party of small government and fiscal responsbility is no more, thus "Republican" is a blind partisan defense of today's talking points.

Libertarianism gets a lot of play here, but its whatever you want to define it as. Very few bother with the US Libertarian party.

A lot of people would welcome well written conservative views, but like I wrote earlier they don't exist in the Republican world.

Lastly, the genx/y generation is skeptial, doessnt share dad's bigotry, doesn't share dad's religious views, etc thus you're going to get a lot of "crazy leftists" with "crazy" views like those held by the founders of the US, which the Republican seem to despise. Just read their 2004 convention platform: fuck gays, fuck the economy, fuck your complaints about the war, more PATRIOT ACT legislation, and blame Democrats for everything.

Perhaps, these views aren't popular for a reason? No conspiracy needed.

Re:Cause and correlation

[Anonymous Coward]

last time I checked... those views ARE popular... hence Bush leading in the polls.

Re:Cause and correlation

[The One and Only]

I thought the Republicans were all about not fucking gays--I mean, since fucking gay people is gay sex and all...

Re:Cause and correlation

[zardinuk]

"4, Insightful" ?????? How the....

In response to your claims, I don't know what you mean by "driving the US back to the 30's" because the republicans have been moving forward with economic and social issues. Nobody thinks that higher taxes and less censorship is "moving forward". Some people would lower the age of sexual consent if they had the power to do so, but we think it's just fine. That is not moving backward is it?

It's ironic that you mention moving forward economically. Pure libertarians would be thrilled if we could go back to the pre WW2 era when there was no income tax to pay for a massive army, although thats where I draw the line, I would rather not see the world implode on itself when the US is rendered useless by the pinkos.

What is "Republican" today? It gets redefined everytime Bush opens his mouth.

What?! Bush doesn't define the party like the Clinton's define the Democratic party. What is this? Are you taking all of our talking points and turning them agains us? Bush is not conservative enough! None of us really thought Bush would get re-elected, but apparently miracles do happen.

Lastly, the genx/y generation is skeptial, doessnt share dad's bigotry, doesn't share dad's religious views, etc thus you're going to get a lot of "crazy leftists" with "crazy" views like those held by the founders of the US, which the Republican seem to despise. Just read their 2004 convention platform: fuck gays, fuck the economy, fuck your complaints about the war, more PATRIOT ACT legislation, and blame Democrats for everything.

The funny thing is you relate the democratic party to the forefathers, because of the gap the democratic party filled in history, but the truth is the forefathers would probably abandon this country if a new land mass were discovered say, tomorrow. They'd be tired of paying half of their income to pay for the flaming homosexual on HBO who inured his butthole on the late night orgy espectacular.

Re:Cause and correlation

[damiam]

Not necessarily. A guy can fuck a lesbian, or a girl a gay man.

Re:Cause and correlation

[maxpublic]

It doesn't seem like the Democrats pay much heed to our founding fathers or our Constitution, either. The difference is that the Republicans are less subtle about their attempts to piss all over the most sacred document in the land than their counterparts are.

I despise both parties, and everyone who unthinkingly supports their candidates. The loyalty of any citizen should be to the Constitution first and foremost, and to the shyster fucks who represent their parties a distant second. So far as I'm concerned, reversing these two things makes you a traitor, utterly unworthy to call yourself 'American'.

Max

Re:Cause and correlation

[Christianfreak]

Ugh, if there is one thing I can't stand its generalizations. I'm not really even a Republican but how about some clarrifications.

The GOP mainstays are piss-poor areas of the US where the chances of being a nerd with various gaming machines and enough free time to post on a webboard is pretty low.

Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Birmingham, and a few other major cities with decent economies and young technical people all disagree with you. In fact most of the poor people in this area vote democratic. Also doesn't your assertion refute the claim that the Republicans are all rich white guys?

Modern day Republicans are closely related to theocrats and the exteme right,

No, just the vocal ones. Take a peak at John Mccain especially. At the federal level he's the only one ballsey enough to speak out against the neo-cons but I'm sure there are others that agree with him.

Most of the genx/y types who frequent this site really don't see the logic in the GOP's current platform of driving the US back to the 30's both economically and socially.

Yes yes yes, and the Dems are going to force on us socialized medicine and let Paris run our country, later we'll go bankrupt from helping everyone. Please, this isn't even original.

What is "Republican" today? Good question. What's a Democrat?
It gets redefined everytime Bush opens his mouth. I doubt people redefine themselves based on one speech. Most people seem to like Bush or hate him no matter what party they're in. (I know plenty of Republicans that don't like Bush).

The party of small government and fiscal responsbility is no more
That's true, happened a long time ago, however by the same token its been a long time since the Democrats really cared about the working man either other than a few nice words around election time.

Libertarianism gets a lot of play here, but its whatever you want to define it as. Very few bother with the US Libertarian party.

So vote Libertarian and encourage others to do the same. Complaining on /. isn't going to help.

A lot of people would welcome well written conservative views, but like I wrote earlier they don't exist in the Republican world

By your next statements it sounds more like you think they're not well written because you disagree with them. I read several good conservative arguments on social issues like abortion just in this thread alone.

Lastly, the genx/y generation is skeptial, doessnt share dad's bigotry, doesn't share dad's religious views, etc

So now people who disagree with you are bigots? As a gen-x person, the older I get the more I realize that my dad usually knew what he was talking about after-all. I think everyone comes to that realization eventually.

thus you're going to get a lot of "crazy leftists" with "crazy" views like those held by the founders of the US, which the Republican seem to despise. Just read their 2004 convention platform: fuck gays, fuck the economy, fuck your complaints about the war, more PATRIOT ACT legislation, and blame Democrats for everything.

Well believe it or not I have my doubts that the founding fathers would have been for gay marriage, abortion, affermative action or generally higher taxes either. By the same token they also would have been against government sponsership of corporations, the war and the PATRIOT ACT. They weren't dems or republicans. They were Libertarians (well other than gay marriage).

Perhaps, these views aren't popular for a reason? No conspiracy needed.

Last poll I saw says that 56% of the country agrees with them.

Re:Cause and correlation

[smallpaul]

It makes no sense to have "loyalty" to a document. The document is a means to an end. The end is the nation. And the nation is a means to an end. The end is the freedom of the citizens. Therefore your loyalty should be first and foremost to the citizenry. It is confusion at best and idolatry at worst to worship either the symbols of or mechanisms behind citizenship. And if you are really enlightened you might take a moment to think even about citizens of other countries and what sort of respect and consideration might also be due them.

Re:Cause and correlation

[maxpublic]

The document is the embodiment of the freedoms you speak of. Loyalty to the Constitution is loyalty to the preservation of those freedoms; it's really that simple.

Other countries have nothing to do with the conversation, and certainly nothing to do with enlightenment.

Max

How about

[wiredog]

USistanian?

Also, to Clarify:

[Captain Tenille]

Ellen Craswell was a woman who ran for governor on the Republican ticket in 1996 against Gary Locke. She was so far to the right (wanted to reduce state government by 2/3rds, sell the state universities, very religiously conservative) that not only did she lose in a landslide to Gary "The Human Weenie" Locke, but later left the Republican Party because it wasn't conservative enough. Perhaps she disapproved of the Republican Party's support of the alphabet and use of fire. I actually met her while she was running for Governor. She reminded me of Nancy Reagan somewhat, but not as pleasant.

Re:Also, to Clarify:

[pudge]

Ouch. :-) And this is what I mean by moderate. Rossi is fiscally conservative, wants health care for everyone, and he wants to focus more resources on the schools. This is something almost everyone in the state can get behind. As best I can tell he is socially moderate, but he seems to be saying with the fact that he doesn't talk about things much that those things really don't matter for a governor, and given that he doesn't appoint judges (right?) and very few of those kinds of issues come to his desk as bills, I tend to think they don't.

Re:Also, to Clarify:

[Captain Tenille]

No, the governor doesn't appoint judges, they get elected in this state. They do, of course, sign bills, appoint directors of state agencies, and are involved in the state budget negotiations. As I said elsewhere, Olympia is uniquely dependent on state goverment, so that is a major consideration for me.

Dino Rossi is, at least, the most electable candidate for Governor that the Republican Party has put forward in many years. I have to give them credit for figuring that out finally.

We'll just have to wait and see how things go after the primary -- then the MADNESS BEGINS.

Re:Also, to Clarify:

[pudge]

No, the governor doesn't appoint judges, they get elected in this state.

I knew most did, but wasn't sure if all did.

We'll just have to wait and see how things go after the primary -- then the MADNESS BEGINS.

Indeed. :-)

If you don't read...

[zogger]

...all the posts, how will you get an idea of what's out there? It's a catch 22,If you only look at the high numbered karma posts, you'll miss a lot. And if you have to look at all the posts in order to even assign a mod point up and down, then what's the use of having that system,when you read all the posts anyway? And if you don't read all the posts, you are assuming that others are always going to be fair or accurate, which is a silly and illogical assumption. You are letting others decide for *you* what is important/relevant/interesting or not.

Personally, I don't really like having a numbered system, to me, posts should be binary, acceptable for inclusion, or obvious spam or total crap like goatse or gnaa type trolls. Delete those, leave the rest. Anything else, leave it where it is in the thread with no numbering.

Re:If you don't read...

[cryptochrome]

All posts are not equal, and I'm not going to waste my time reading all of them. I think the current system works reasonably well. Here's how it seems to work:

Early top-level topics are quickly modded up if they're any good. Most of these were pretty obvious to begin with and thus it's mainly a matter of who got to them first. These become the base of all discussions on that particular topic - you skim all of these top level posts to determine which aspects you want to pursue, and click through them to get to the child topics. The process then repeats itself with the next level by people actively interested in the discussion, and so forth. Also, there are enough people with enough time searching for less accessible posts and modding them into noticability.

In other words, there is a semi-heirarchic approach to which posts I read and which I don't. Anything really good will be caught and modded up to 4 or 5, provided it was posted early enough. Which is fine by me. I don't really care about everything that's out there, I just want to read a few decent posts.

AMEN

[Perl-Pusher]

This can be an honest discussion or it can breakdown into trolls, flame wars and moderators knocking anything against their personal views. It's difficult enough to maintain civilty when discussing poltical views. I personally think it's best to leave politics to political weblogs. There are already thousands of them out there.

Re:AMEN

[maxpublic]

moderators knocking anything against their personal views

The moderators ALWAYS do this. Try saying anything at all negative about liberalism or socialism and see what happens. Even if the Americans are willing to give it a pass once the time zones roll around and the Europeans get wind of what you've said you'll be modded into oblivion almost immediately.

Max

This should be a permanant section

[LordZardoz]

I think that this new section is worth keeping around long term. Many threads seem to get de-railed by political arguments / debates. And Politics is something worth discussing, even if the subject matter occasionally gets inflamitory.

It also provids a good counterpoint to the "Your Rights Online" section. As any Startrek fan could tell you, discussing what you can do with technology leads to discussing what you should / should not do with technology.

END COMMUNICATION

ta-DAH! Slashdot grows up

[RealProgrammer]

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Oh well, youth is fleeting.

I just hope this doesn't signal a general change in direction for Slashdot, but simply a recognition that politics really is for nerds.

Re:Slashdot has JUMPED THE SHARK!

[Cro Magnon]

In the few cases where Tech and Politics meet, that's fine, but I don't want to go to /. to see people argue Bush vs. Kerry vs Nader

Especially since everyone knows that Badnarik is the best candidate!

Honeypot ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So is this going to be a honeypot for all the politicans and their "inaccuracies". I would appreciate this, since they could then move out of the interesting discussions and leave international (they have politicians too but no elections right now) or politically disinterested readers alone.

The color scheme is nice and on topic. I suggest you move all categories other than technology or science into this new one. Oops, stemcell research should go into this too, and nuclear technology, and ...

Oh well, it's all politics.

Myths about nerds

[Hao Wu]

Some people think nerds are alienated from political speech. This is very untrue.

Nerds are not only interested in math and science, they also debate with their peers in open forum. Rarely are students elected to Student Council based on popularity. Their good friends do not know bias when it comes to judging leadership ideas. This is where nerds excel.

Finally, one must consider current political urgency: if you do not vote, then you are not part of a group, and therefore you can not be a nerd and you don't belong here at Slashdot. Go do your math and computer interest somewhere else that is not yet stolen by mainsteam jerks (== /. editors) who want to look cool by calling themselves nerds. They will invade your new forum someday, as soon as it becomes cool to them and they feel like hijacking your work.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[metlin]

ROTFL!!! Or stuck to one another like glue. One of the two :-p

No. Right

[Your_Mom]

You show your ignorance with the following quote:

You are NOT encompassing continents by saying American

Yes, you are. There are, not one, but two whole continents called 'America', had you paid attention in Geography, you would know this. When you are saying 'I am American' you are saying, 'I am from somewhere in the American continents.' as opposed to 'I am from the United States' which correctly identifies your origin as somwhere between Canada, Mexico, and the two oceans.

It's like your ashamed to say your country's name.

Re:No. Right

[Golias]

Here we go again.

There are zero continents called "America."

There is one called "North America", and another called "South America."

The word "American" can only be somebody who comes from the United States of America.

A "USian" would be somebody from someplace called "USia." It is never the correct term.

Re:No. Right

[thrash242]

Obviously if you're being very technical, then "American" would mean someone from the "new world". But the meaning in common use is "American" means from the United States of America. It's the only country in the world with "America" in its name. What did you call people from the USSR? USSRians? What about Germans? Bundesrepublik Deutschlandians? What about when we refer to a country as an English version of the country's real name? Most names of countries that English-speakers use are not the real names of the country.

You're being technically correct, but practically you're being silly. If you mean someone from North America, say "North American".

Your decision that it's not technically correct doesn't change the common usage *all over the world*, not just here (the US). I could argue that because n***er is derived from "negro", which is simply Spanish for black, it logically shouldn't be offensive. Try that and see how many black individuals get just a tad bit offended. What is offensive to a group is decided by that group. "Jap" and "Nip" are just short versions of the English and Japanese names for Japanese people, and logically shouldn't be offensive, but they are.

Your "USian" thing is cute (I find it only mildly offensive), but it's not what people say in the real world, and you're not going to change that.

Re:No. Right

[Anonymous Coward]

British people are not as arrogant as Americans when it comes to this. "The British Isles" include several countries - the UK, Ireland, the Isle of man, Jersey, the Faeroes etc. But UKians never ever refer to themselves as "British" for fear of offending the neighbours (which would result in being bombed, they are a bit savage especially the Irish) so we call ourselves UKians.

Maybe if America changed its name they will be perceived as less arrogant in the world, like us UKians.

Re:No. Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless your name is Webster, you're not in a position to dictate what words mean. The grandparent is correct, there are two continents, "North America" and "South America." Anyone from either of these continents could reasonably refer to themselves as "American."

Even if they didn't, imagine a schoolchild in Malaysia, who just learned about the major continents, overhearing someone saying they were from "America." Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude that the person was saying they were from one of the two American continents?

Columbus landed (or rather, thought he did) in "America." It was too big to just give one name, so they split it up into "North America" and "South America." Some states formed. A bunch of them got together and formed a country. They called themselves the "United States of America." Other countries picked better names.

Anyway, bottom line is, you have your opinion, and I have mine, but most of the world, as well as common sense, would conclude that an "American" could mean any person from either of the two continents bearing that name. You can disagree, but please stop representing your opinion as if it were fact.

Re:No. Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense.

First, I often see people from the nation we USians call "Germany" wince at being called "Germans". They rarely do so when you refer to them as Deutschlanders or even BKers / BKians.

Second, if you actually speak to people from outside the US, you will see and hear many references to USians. ("USistanians" when they're in the mood to be offensive.)

Third, the decision about what terms are offensive is rarely made by the referenced group. To a person from Japan, "Japanese" is as likely to be as offensive as "Jap", but we consider one offensive and one perfectly acceptable.

Fourth, and finally, get off your high horse. The term USian is a convenient, readily understood label that is both specific and non-derogatory. American, on the other hand, is non-specific, potentially confusing, and has been used in various countries as an insult - something else you would know if you had ever been outside the US.

Your naivete is cute (I find it only mildly offensive), but it's not going to work in the real world, and you're not going to change that.

Re:No. Right

[Golias]

Even if they didn't, imagine a schoolchild in Malaysia, who just learned about the major continents, overhearing someone saying they were from "America." Wouldn't any reasonable person conclude that the person was saying they were from one of the two American continents?

No. A reasonable person would not expect anybody to identify themselves as a citizen of a continent. No Canadian or Mexian would introduce themselves to your hypothetical kid as a "North American" any more than an American would.

Columbus landed (or rather, thought he did) in "America."

Columbus thought he landed in the East Indies. He also never landed on the continent itself. The continents were called "The Americas" long after his mistake was discovered.

Anyway, bottom line is, you have your opinion, and I have mine, but most of the world, as well as common sense, would conclude that an "American" could mean any person from either of the two continents bearing that name.

I think you will find that most of the world calls us "Americans" (or some derivation thereof which suits the diction of their local language.) I have never once heard Tony Blair or any other European leader refer to us as "USians." Do do so would be completely absurd. Our country is called America, therefore we are called Americans, and there is no room for debate on the point.

If you insist on arguing the point, walk into a bar in Quebec sometime, and with your best French, ask the meanest-looking patron there how it feels to be an "American." I'm sure he will make his opinion of your choice of words very clear, without even saying a thing.

Re:No. Right

[notestein]

We are not arrogant. We are simply better and are proud of that fact.

I'm sorry you are unable to have pride in your countries accomplishments.

Move to the United States of America. Become an American. Have some pride.

Re:No. Right

[Anonymous Coward]

please die you nigger

Re:No. Right

[Your_Mom]

Our country is called America, therefore we are called Americans, and there is no room for debate on the point.

No, our Country is called the United States of America. Why do you think people study in School US history?

f you insist on arguing the point, walk into a bar in Quebec sometime, and with your best French, ask the meanest-looking patron there how it feels to be an "American."

Thank you for proving my point. Using the term Canadian makes as much sense as using the term USian, as we are both from America, yet some people don't wish to associate with us due to their distorted worldview.

Re:No. Right

[Golias]

No. A Canadian using the term Canadian makes sense because he's a Canadian, not an American.

There is no such thing as a USian, because there is not such place as USia.

It's "the United States of America," like "the People's Republic of China." "America" is the name of the country, the words "United States" are there to describe our nation as a federation of separate states, bound together as Americans, just as "People's Republic" establishes China as a socialist nation which is (at least in principle, if not in practice) wholly owned by the people. You would not call the Chinese "PRians," nor should you call Americans "USians."

Re:No. Right

[Your_Mom]

Heh, you picked the worst example, as there are two Chinas, PRC and RoC, and I refer to them accordingly as ChiComms and RoCians. Very Simple.

The whole name of the country distinguishes it, as to keep you from being confused, Republic of China, People's Republic of China, United States of America, American Somoa. The only country that can safely label itself under a continent is Australia, and even that is pushing it, as New Zealand, et. al. is sometimes classified under them.

You are probably an Engineer of some sort since you hang out here, why do you insist on using ambigous terms?

Re:No. Right

[Golias]

Once again, showing you are out of step with the world. People from the PRC are called "Chinese", not "ChiComms." People from the Republic of China (Taiwan) are "Taiwanese" not "RoCians."

"American" is not in the least bit ambiguous. In the context of people, "American" means somebody from the nation of America, not "somebody either the North American or South American continents."

Notice that we do not have a word for "somebody who is from either Europe or Africa" either. There is no need for such a word. Likewise, you can be absolutely certain that when anybody in the world speaks of "Americans", they are speaking of people from the United States of America. It's what people from that country are called. Period.

You also disproved your own point. People from the nation of Australia are still called Australians, even though the Island of New Zealand is considered to be part of the Continent (as England is considered part of Eurorpe.) I'm pretty sure that the Australians don't have to put up with a bunch of assholes calling them "CoAns." Most people have the rudimentary education to understand that the people from the Commonwealth of Australia are rightly called "Australians," which is understood as a term which does not include New Zealanders.

Oh, and people from Territory of American Samoa are called American Samoans. The "American" part of their name refers to the fact that they are a territory occupied and controlled by the United Stats of America. Please note that the country is not called "USian Samoa," and the people there are not called "USian Samoans."

Really, it's not hard if you paid any attention in Elementary geography class.

Re:No. Right

[Your_Mom]

Once again, showing you are out of step with the world. People from the PRC are called "Chinese", not "ChiComms." People from the Republic of China (Taiwan) are "Taiwanese" not "RoCians."

Talk to the military. You're wrong. Although I may be wrong about the RoCian thing, its "roc-somthing".

Makes a lot more sense this way.

We can continue to go round and round as we have been going. But, this is pointless. USian makes far more sense, and hence I am invoking the right of UID, my UID is lower then yours, therefore I am right. ;p

*shrug* USian still makes far more sense to me, I'm sad you don't see it that way.

Re:No. Right

[Golias]

The military uses a lot of non-standard terms which not used outside of the military. Most American troops call Greenwich Mean Time "Zulu." That doesn't mean it makes more sense for you to do so in a non-military forum.

"ChiComm" is an amusing, if derogatory, shorthand for "Chinese Communist," not the correct national identity for people from China.

I don't care what made-up non-word "makes sense" to you. The correct word is "American," and using something else makes you sound like a complete tool.

*shrug* If you want to sound like a complete tool, that's your call, but you can expect some people to not know what the hell you are talking about, and others to drag you into a pedantic argument about it.

Even if you had a two-digit UID, I would still point out that you are wrong. Why? Lots of down-time spent compiling and installing this week in which to argue over nerdy minutiae, that's why. Thanks for the diversion.

Re:No. Right

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless your name is Webster, you're not in a position to dictate what words mean.

Okay, here's what Webster's Dictionary says:

There is no such word as USian.

Re:No. Right

[Anonymous Coward]

American, on the other hand, is non-specific, potentially confusing, and has been used in various countries as an insult - something else you would know if you had ever been outside the US.

I have. In Japan, "American" is sometimes used to refer to women with large, attractive breasts.

Also, I had no idea what people meant by "USian" until I saw this argument taking place.

Re:No. Right

[Your_Mom]

The military uses a lot of non-standard terms which not used outside of the military. Most American troops call Greenwich Mean Time "Zulu."

You mean I'm the only guy who uses these terms too? >_Lots of down-time spent compiling and installing this week in which to argue over nerdy minutiae, that's why. Thanks for the diversion.
I have a dartboard. Great way to pass the time. I highly recommend it to anyone who does compiling a lot for their job (if you can get away with it).

Thanks for the diversion as well. :)

At long last...a troll haven

[Raccroc]

I'm not sure one can talk about politics w/o either trolling or at the very least baiting the trolls.

For politics new modding rules may be in order...Might I suggest:

Troll +1
Troll +2
Funny Troll +1
Troll Supporting Other Side -1
Troll Lying to Make My Side Look Good +1
Idiot Troll -1
Informative (*cough*bullshit*cough*)-1
Off Topic Troll -1
Exposing "The Truth" Trool +1 ...etc.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

How the heck can so many modded up left-wing posts get away with this, then? Modding so many of them up isn't unfair? /. allows this to happen, but if you don't subscribe to the /. mindset then you can be pretty sure not to be modded up(but sure to be modded down).

Suspicious

[DamascusRoad]

I wonder if the chosen color scheme of the topic belies a particular political slant.

Re:Suspicious

[BCW2]

Slashdot is a blue state, not a red one.

Hooooo, boy ...

[WCityMike]

The "troll" modifier is going to be used WAY too much in this section.

Re:Now... how do I enable IGNORE CATEGORY?

[MobileDude]

OFFTOPIC? up yours, MOD...

How is my desire to ignore the coming FLAME WARS considered offtopic?

I bet you'll find quite a few following my lead. I have yet to learn a damn thing from any of the flameouts on /., Fark, blogblog, etc. except that the large majority of Americans are ignorant jackasses that know little of whatever candidate they support.

I play a game when I fly for business each week. Depending on what book the person next to me is reading, I morph into a supportive character.

"Dude, Where's My Country"? 'Bush Sucks!' will get you in good graces.

"Deliver Us from Evil"? 'Liberal media scum!' does the trick.

The only thing that remains true through it all, is that Michael Moore is still a very fat bastard. /please hurry and mod this one offtopic, too! Beat the rush! (heheh - get it? Rush? Rush Limbaugh? too funny...!

Better political quiz

[eberry]

The questions on the political compass are left biased. Take this question for example, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." Who would choose other than serving humanity? It could be argued that serving the interest of corporations in turn, serves humanity.

A better political (and smaller) quiz is located here.

Re:Better political quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly enough, I come out almost center on both surveys. The political compass puts me a little further to the libertarian (vs authoritarian) side where the short quiz puts me right between these two extremes. But both tests see me exactly in the middle between left and right.

The qestion about economic globalization may be biased, but that's how these tests work. If someone is going to show as a die hard free market proponent, then that's because he weighs the objection you gave high enough to disagree with the statement. Less fervent free marketers may get all the other questions "right" but agree with this statement, which would put them a little to the left.

Re:Better political quiz

[Phillup]

It could be argued that serving the interest of corporations in turn, serves humanity.


OK... I tried... and failed.

What were you thinking... how would this argument sound?

Are you differentiating between "business" and "corporation"?

I can see the argument for business, but not for corporations.

<RANT>
What I don't get about the "far right" is their belief that the individual morals must be enforced by government... yet... at the same time they seem to heavily favor forms of business that have little (none!?) moral consequence for breaking the law.

When was the last time you heard of a corporation being put in jail for 20 years?
</RANT>

Re:Better political quiz

[UserGoogol]

Depends on how they score it. Maybe if you say "yes," it barely moves your score, but if you say "no" it changes your score by a lot.

They really should open up their scoring system. That would settle this once and for all.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[notestein]

Hummm.... I was one tick from the right and two ticks down.

That's what I get for trying to unwind their crappy questions.

That or I want a benevolent dictator or something.

Maybe a bit less american-centrism?

[Bahumat]

I'm ~really~ not trying to be a troll here: Can we see Slashdot move the hell away from it's american-centrism? There are other english speaking/literate countries in the world folks.

Particularly bad in the 'Your Rights Online' section; I'd love to see+hear perspectives of people's rights online internationally, not just what the next 'just a bill up on capitol hill' song and dance is.

Re:Maybe a bit less american-centrism?

[Etcetera]

American politics, for better or for worse, impact the entire world. We are the only remaining SuperPower, and Slashdot was founded in America.

If you want to discuss your politics, go start your own discussion board (you can even use Slash). Just remember that without the U.S., you wouldn't be passing your TCP packets.

Re:Maybe a bit less american-centrism?

[Bake]

Just remember that without the U.S., you wouldn't be passing your TCP packets.

And without that little European institute called CERN and a British chap by the name of Sir Tim Berners-Lee, you wouldn't be reading this.

Re:Maybe a bit less american-centrism?

[Anonymous Coward]

American politics, for better or for worse, impact the entire world.

Perhaps, but American PARTY politics don't seem terribly relevant to anything anywhere. People rabidly arguing about which of two nearly indistinguishable teams wins and the more seriously the take it the less rational they and more BUT IT'SM MY TEAM SO IT MUST BE RIGHT they become.

Re:Maybe a bit less american-centrism?

[entrigant]

Well slashdot was created by a US citizen inside the US. It is a US based website. Now if slashdot feels like going internation then good for them. But by no means should slashdot belt felt required or pushed to go international just because people from other countries decide to read it of their own free will. So how about next time ask them politely and recognize it is a decision they do not have to make if they don't want to instead of demanding they do so like it's required.

Re:Maybe a bit less american-centrism?

[Bahumat]

The only remaining superpower? Don't kid yourself. The US is dominant, sure, but:

Even with all of it's military and socio-economic might combined, China's going to overtake the States in under twenty years.

Russia, if it can handle it's internal affairs, will continue to be the bear that roars over all of eurasia.

India has nuclear capability, a powerful standing army that's probably only rivalled by North Korea and China.

North Korea, a pissant little state but with enough firepower that the US hasn't been able to do much but shake a finger and talk sternly to ol' Jong.

Brazil, which continues to dictate the politics of South America to it's benefit.

Thailand, whose military moderness and economic clout, while very seldom flexed, is strong enough to keep the Chinese at bay.

American politics, for better or worse, impact the entire world.

So do the politics of each of the countries I've mentioned above. Maybe you just weren't paying attention?

Vote for the first geek President

[Anonymous Coward]

Wanted Geek President!

Who would be your presidential candidate?

Does not have to be terrible former film star, does not have to come from a presidential pedigre...

S/he just would have to save the world from ecological catastrophies, re-balance the out-of-control wealth distribution, which makes middle-class disappear around the world (data over the last 25 to 30 years is unequivocal, the top 5% is capturing an increasingly greater portion of the pie while the bottom 95% is clearly losing ground), should understand why is it bad to use depleted uranium in conventional weapons, etc.

Is there anybody out there, the Slashdot crowd can think of?

Or are we just a simple minded geek bunck, with only as much understanding of the "big picture" as the regular folks, eating up all the propaganda we can, left and right?

Re:Vote for the first geek President

[Anonymous Coward]

First, one would, perhaps, have to change the requirements for President to,

(a) Require prospective candidates to take an extremely hard civil service exam.

(b) The top 100 scores of the exam move on to participate in the "Prezolympics".

(c) The top 10 winners from the olympics become canidates and are entitled to campaign.

(d) The winner of the election becomes President.
(1) Gets a device implanted in their brain that explodes if they tell a lie.

Nobody told me

Re: Parent isn't interesting

[jamie]

Shut up, pudge, you jerk!

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[taiwanjohn]

> For those who need purpose in their lives...

Don't forget your "special purpose"...

--jrd

The Libertarian Green Party

[tepples]

While they may claim to be Green and Libertarian, they are in fact quasi-green pseudo libertarians.

In fact, if you go on Google and search for libertarian green party, you fulfill Godwin's Law.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[PatHMV]

Actually, we've been mostly screaming and hollering at each other the whole time. I mean, 2 of the founding fathers dueled with each other for goodness sake! (Hamilton and Burr, for the untutored) Historically, the individuals in the mass public pick a side and stick with it. The swing voters, as always, really make the difference in outcome. The public focuses very little on the details of particular issues.

The slogan against one candidate years back was "Ma, Ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House, ha, ha, ha!" This was a reference to the alleged illegitimate child of the candidate.

The "good old days" just weren't that good. We only think they were because thankfully it's mostly the pleasant events which survive in our cultural memories.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone who posts in the Politics section should have sigs like yours so that his or her political agenda is out in the open.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[mikehoskins]

Slashdot Political Diversity Poll -
What is your political party?
Democrat
Green
Communist
Somewhere Left of Communist, whatever that is
Invoke Godwin's Law -- make it stop
CmdrTaco

# Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
# Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
# This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[RWerp]

as for abortion I consider it murder. I used to be pro choice until the 'silent scream'. As a grown man that made me want to cry. Now I find myself even debating the "in the instance of rape" option.

Funny that people watching executions don't seem to change their minds on death penalty. Funnier still, most of those "pro-life" support it. Hipocrisy?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[autopr0n]

What's funny to me is that people think we DON'T have a diverse specturm of political ideologies. :-)

Well, I have no idea about that, since you guys don't really talk much about politics on the rest of the site.

You do everything else around here poorly, though so if history is any guide you will probably screw this up too.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

Chirac is a conservative, so I would not be surprised if you are to the left of him.

Ethno-centric?

[TekZen]

not sure if that is the right word, but this is the U.S. presidential election. Does the rest of the world really care?

Then again, I hear the rest of the world hates Bush, so maybe they do care.
-Jackson

Re:Ethno-centric?

[DAldredge]

They do? Funny but they aren't returning any of the billions we send the rest of the world in Aid are they? Just look at Germany, they kept bitching about our military bases their so we are moving most of the troups out and closing most of the bases and they are now about to shit themselves due to the hit their economy will take.

Re:Ethno-centric?

[Photon Ghoul]

When did Germany bitch about our military bases "their"? Just curious, because I don't recall that but I may have missed it due to the so-called Liberal Media.

Re:Ethno-centric?

[DAldredge]

Perhaps you should look at all the protests during the last german election, and pointing out spelling/grammer errors as your first point doesn't help your case.

Re:Ethno-centric?

[mikestro]

Try this:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8& q= %22germans+protest%22+%2B%22american+military+base s%22

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[EriDay]

I would gladly strangle anybody who proudly told me that they had an abortion, or support the "rights" of people who do.

gladly strangle? Last I checked killing someone because they legally did something you disagree with is murder. If abortion is murder, I expect that in your belief system god has the job of judging, not you. At the very least, you might want to say that you would remorsefully strangle a majority of the population.

Might as well have called flaimbait.slashdot.org.

Infidels!

[commodoresloat]

You foreigners probably even count all the votes too.

You should really let us Americans show you how to do it right.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[demachina]

If Slashdot wants to develop some political enlightenment and sophistication they need to realize politics isn't like a turn signal, left and right. Its more like a wheel with spokes in every direction.

If someone trashes the Republicans believe it or not it doesn't necessarily mean they are a Democrat/liberal and vice versa. There are plenty of true conservatives that despise what the Republican party has turned in to and Liberals who despise the Democrats. I imagine you can chalk this up, in the U.S. at least, to a two party system which has tried to con everyone in to thinking there are only two parties and two ways to look at things and if you don't agree with one of those two, in all their current corruption, you are basically adrift in an empty ocean.

Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager was on Charlie Rose on PBS recently. One thing he said I like. In 2008 there is at least a chance people are going to unite on the Internet and back an independent candidate with $300-400 million dollars coming in hundred dollar checks from millions of people and bitch slap the two major parties, a slapping they've come to gloriously deserve, especially after the pathetic candidates they've fielded in the last two presidential elections. The hope is there will be an independent candidate who will actually talk about issues, from a fresh perspective, not regurgatating the entrenched party platforms, and put an end to the campaign of the "six second sound bites of mutual assured destruction".

The first challenge is to find a candidate with the right mix of charisma, judgement and brains. One who can form a common sense platform, on issues that matter, that will appeal to enough people to get elected and not pander to the inflammatory issues that dominate the debate between the two parties.

The second challenge is to get this candidate on the ballot in the face of the two parties unconstitutional onslaught on third party candidates like Nader.

The third challenge is to get this candidate enough credibility in the polls that he/she can't be dismissed as an also run and pushed in to obscurity as the media and the two parties are want to do.

I would vote for John McCain were it not for his recent grovelling at the feet of the Bush administration, people who savaged him in 2000, and his irrational level of support for the invasion of Iraq. I would vote for Dean were it not for his grovelling at the feet of Gore and Kerry along with his penchant for saying dumb things. I'd vote for Nader if he has a chance of getting elected just to see him shake up Washington and big business and see how long it would be before someone in the establishment assassinated him. Wouldn't vote for Perot.

Re:No sanctuary? Anywhere?

[multimed]

I think you're missing the point. Politics has already reached Slashdot--and really always has. But by creating a subpage for politics, in particular for things related to the upcoming election, there's a home for that stuff so it doesn't necessarily need to be on the main page. I'm sure some politically related articles will still come up, but having a separate place for politics will make it easier to avoid if you're not interested.

By the Way: Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

[bogie]

Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

And no I'm not interested in 12 minutes. Just 7.

Maybe I'll put up a site showing Bush's speech from last Thursday where he talks about how its our moral duty to take care of Seniors. Then we will have a nice Mirrored image of his face where when you click it, it shows his massive 17% increase in Medicare. That or flash clip playing audio of Bush saying both "I'm a war President" and "I'm a peace President" over and over.

Man this new /. Political Forum is awesome!!!

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[swb]

I ended up, literally, close to Nelson Mandela and the Dali Lama. Yet personally I support (with some qualifications on all of these) the death penalty, nearly unlimited gun ownership, English as the official US language, and hard-core enforcement of immigration laws.

Yet at the same time, I'm also deeply suspicious of the motivations of large corporations and the very rich and believe strongly that economic balance needs to be enforced and that some government spending on the public welfare is not only just/fair, but a damn good investment, too. I'm also 100% against any censorship, totally pro-choice, pro-sex ed (it should teach technique as well as mechanics), strict church/state seperation, and legalizing drugs.

I'm a touch libertarian, a touch socialist, a touch neofascist, and a touch liberal.

Let them complain

[commodoresloat]

There's plenty of room at Gitmo.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[autopr0n]

Lost more saying Kerry was a traitor, now the swift boat vets he served with are pushing that truth hard enough people stuck reading the mass media will figure that one out also... hopefully before election day.

So the swifties are telling the truth, and President bush, Dick Cheney, etc, are lying?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[parrillada]

Man, you were caught read handed. Give it up. You are delusional if you think a right-wing slashdot editor would bias story coverage to the left. Just the same, you are delusional if you think a right-wing media conglomerate is going to bias media converage to the left.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[linzeal]

Better than what Bush spent the war doing. Drinking it up and bragging about it to people.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[EriDay]

Slashdot editors seem to be the types that only pick a party because someone told them they could get laid.

Dude, tell me what party to join!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[frank_adrian314159]

I am a Goldwater conservative...

That's good, because Goldwater was about the last real conservative the GOP had. The rest has been flirtation with Liberalism in the late 60's to late 70's and a wierd sort of religious and cultural radicalism since then that I find hard to characterize as conservatism (and I know what that is, having grown up in a conservative household in a conservative area of the country).

In any case, as a fellow PCP (though on a different side) I salute you for your contribution to our democracy, even though I hope your side loses :-).

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Dr. Network]

They do have a diverse sectrum of political ideologies - liberal, and ultra liberal. How much more diverse do you want?

Re:Now... how do I enable IGNORE CATEGORY?

[Anonymous Coward]

predictable sheep!

Now mod down this AC post, lame ass...

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Canthros]

Perhaps you're a good match for the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party?

I'm joking about that. I hope those guys are, too.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[the gnat]

Amusingly enough Adam Smith was a liberal.

Classical liberals like Adam Smith are about as far away from either modern "liberals" or conservatives as you can get. The closest anyone comes is the libertarians, but they tend to be reflexively anti-government in a way that the classical liberals never were. There are some Republicans with integrity that lean this way, but the party has long since sold out to big business and the theocrats. (Note: pro-free-market does not mean that you favor giveaways to corporations, like the Bush administration does.)

It took me a long time to understand this distinction; Freidrich Hayek does a very good job explaining it. Oddly, he's much beloved by quite a few modern conservatives, even though he explicitly bashes conservatism, and is sympathetic to many of the ideals of leftism. (Just not the methods.)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[True Grit]

burn it slagging the sacred cows into burgers

Translation: Get your rich friends to fund an ad compaign to spread vicious lies about your opponent. What really worries me about this is the fact that George Junior has done this before, even against fellow Republicans (John McCain), yet not only are thousands buying into the bullshit, no one questions Georgie's character for repeatedly using indirect personal slander as a political weapon.

too bad neither of the candidates the Democrats put forward this season were fit for duty.

They aren't ideal choices, but then again, we've already got an incompetent ego-maniac in the White House, so at this point anybody would be an improvement, IMO.

PS: You've been modded "Interesting", so I don't really buy the idea that /. is liberal, since anyone who would mod lies to be "Interesting" has to have a political agenda, thus we know the right wing nuts are here too.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[nocomment]

not quite, you see the difference is the baby is a baby. Death penalty is killing killers.

Re: Parent isn't interesting

[pudge]

+5, flamebait!

3 or 4 topics to avoid

[4of12]

Slashdot just broke one of the 2 rules of peacekeeping conversation, don't talk about religion or politics.

There are 3 rules for polite conversation: avoid sex, politics or religion. You never find much talk of sex here on Slashdot, though.

Remember this list when meeting future in-laws, for example. Nothing to start things off on a good foot like:

"Can you believe how fucked $CANDIDATE is!?

"Uh, we *like* $CANDIDATE."

Of course, when you meet up with family members, it's also best to avoid topics dealing with intended inheritance.

Whole branches of extended families don't talk to one another because they thought great-uncle Joe conned Grandma to change her will at the last minute in his favor when she was out of it on the medications.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Idarubicin]

No...we think you have a diverse spectrum of left wing political ideologies.

Meanwhile, Slashdot readers from north of the 49th parallel (those crazy Canadians!) bemusedly note the profusion of right wing ideologies in the States and then go back to our socialized medicine and minority government with four major parties and political slants (left, middle, right, and separatist). To us, the Republicans and Democrats (loosely speaking) represent roughly the far right end and somewhat right-of-center on the political spectrum.

Simple

[autopr0n]

A person's comment history is perused, and the comments are clicked on and modded down, regardless of merit.

Diverse spectrum?

[unassimilatible]

the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies

The diverse spectrum: Left, lefter, leftist.

When the swiftboat vets get equal time on /. with Michael Moore, then I'll believe it!

Re:Diverse spectrum?

[maxpublic]

When the swiftboat vets get equal time on /. with Michael Moore, then I'll believe it!

When both are ridiculed for their perversion of the truth and their outright lies, then I'LL believe it.

Max

Down the Hatch

[GravityCocktail]

How about we kick off this channel by interviewing the beloved senator from Utah? He has so many fresh ideas that could make all of our internet experiences safer, cleaner and closer to the author of the magik plates.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[autopr0n]

By the way: 12 minutes of your time should change your mind.

Wow, I might care if I lived in Iraq. But I don't.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

If overrated doesn't affect karma, a cunning technique is to moderate selectively. Just pick 5 worst postings and be overly critical towards them.

Yeah, that'd be cool

[autopr0n]

A little gif next to someone's comments indicating where they fall on the political spectrum. That way people will be able to safely avoid conflicting viewpoints without actually being exposed to them at all!

You say that like it was past tense

[bareman]

"Popular opinion in the US on 9/12/04 was probably that we should "nuke the middle east"

Do you know something about the future that you need to share with the rest of us? *wink*

Just Remember

[ArchAngel21x]

AL Gore invented the Internet, and Kerry voted for funding the Internet before voting against it.

Yeah, we know

[autopr0n]

It's not measuring what political party you're supposed to belong to (who can tell what each party stands for these days?) It's a measure of philosophical outlook.

Let's the all out flame war begin!

[ArcticCelt]

I'll go get my asbestos suit... :)

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Devar]

3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco

Just how CmdrTaco managed to arrest Saddam Hussein I shall never know. :)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[RWerp]

But the point made by the pro-lifers is that you can't make one life less worthy than the other. Otherwise you could justify abortion some cases by saying "we're saving mother's life, which is more worthy than the unborn child's". So, the similar argument has to be made about killer's life. If life is sacred in itself, than also killer's life. If we make one exception (punishment), than we can't forbid other.

Don't get me wrong. I'm personally against abortion and consider it a sin. If my wife were to have a baby we weren't expecting, abortion would not be an option, except if the doctors said the pregnancy would kill her or seriously damage her health. But you can't force people to be saints. Allowing abortion for everyobyd is not good, either. There must be some compromise. There already are exceptions from the rule "every life is sacred". People who kill in self defense are not punished. Soldiers and policemen kill and yet are not considered murderers, if their actions are justified.

To clarify the thing, I'm also against death penalty.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[aelbric]

Hipocrisy? No.

Personal accountability. People on death row knew the consequences before they did whatever they did (I am assuming guilt through conviction). The unborn don't really have a choice in the matter.

I don't really have a position on abortion as, being a male, I won't ever need to make that choice. It seems to me though that the "life begins at birth" argument is spurious. If you wait nine months, that mass of tissue WILL be a human being.

Strange issue.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[swb]

I'll have to admit to periodic fascination with national socialism, and there are points made by the neo-nazi movements that can't honestly be dismissed by a wave of the hand.

From reading I've done, the very early roots of fascism were a legitimate, honest attempt to find a "third way" which somehow fused (or tossed) elements of both the "right" and the "left" to find solutions to problems raised by rigid adherence to the philosophies of the right or the left.

I'm forced to discount any movement that tries to import the symbolism of Germany's Nazi party. There was too much wrong with that movement, and it only provokes fear/anger/hate. That being said, I think the people behind that web site are probably actually trying for something different.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

That's good, because Goldwater was about the last real conservative the GOP had.

Apart from Reagan, you mean? :-)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Taladar]

Wrong Section.

Perl vs. Python isn't Politics, its Religion.

not entirely accurate

[Trepidity]

It wasn't simply removed because the distributors feared pressure groups for commercial or other reasons; it was removed because it was banned by the government.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Lord_Dweomer]

And who says nerds have to be limited by technology. I'm a cooking geek as well, and would LOVE to have a section on Slashdot about that.

Re:How about Ameri-stanis?

[Maow]

How about Ameri-stanis, kinda like their brothers in arms, the Iraquistanis.

Anyway, how does one pronounce USian? Like Use-ian (think Asian), or You-Ess-Ian?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Taladar]

We talk about Religion all the time on Slashdot:

vi vs. Emacs
Linux vs. Windows
Perl vs. Python
...

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[jdiggans]

Twelve minutes of quotes and clips taken out of context is supposed to change my mind? Do you really think my mind so facile?

Kerry has never backed away from standing behind his vote for Presidential authority to wage war against Iraq. Kerry disagreed with the timing and with the way in which it was executed (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest he may have been right).

Kerry voted to let the Executive branch make the decision; he didn't vote on the how and the when. The 'Twelve Minutes' does nothing to clarify this distinction which is so important to the future of America (regardless of who leads us).

You do yourself and Slashdot a disservice by believing that this series of quotes adequately describes Kerry's position when, in fact, it intentionally uses context against Kerry to portray him as waffling when in fact, on this issue, he has not.

The Kerry campaign and Democrats in general are also guilty of this tactic; in both cases it tarnishes American politics. If Bush wins, I hope you enjoy the America you find in 2008.

Fastest way to get up and running

[stonecypher]

perl -pe 's/BillG/GeorgeB/;' < http://yri.slashdot.org > http://politics.slashdot.org/

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Ba3r]

god forbid there be a time when people describe their beliefs through rationale on specific issues and personal actions.

I have enough trouble figuring out what 'conservative' or 'liberal' is (is Bush 'conservative'? then why is he increasing fed gov't power..), let alone paleo, neo, or Goldwater conservatives.

And how can one be a proper disciple of Adam Smith in modern times. I have read chunks of WoN, and although it is all very insightful as to the foundations of the market, anybody who follows that in todays topology of global society is about as effective as a rocket scientist calculating rocket trajectories from F=ma.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[EriDay]

...and TWSPQ is rightest. Interestingly enough I scored about the same on both.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[sploxx]

If anything Karma changes should be eliminated due to politically motivated moderation in this section. Some serious damage could occur to someone's account that is diametrically opposed to the rest of the Slashdot mentality.
I think that is the most important point of your post. Editors should be aware that it may drive readers away if the spectrum of political opinions on /. narrows. The same goes for unfair editor moderation as the other posts suggest.

I wonder how stable the whole moderation thing is. I don't think it is 100% stable, i.e. for every unfair post/mod from the one side there is retaliation from the other side.
Maybe, if a certain group feels that their view is underrepresented on slashdot => leaves => view is underrepresented even more so => vicious circle. Is probably very interesting to look at the moderation system from a nonlinear dynamics point of view(*).

Nerds may agree on technology (aww, ok, not always, Java vs. C++, KDE vs. Gnome, but the arguments are not *that* harsh), but politics is another matter.

(*) - Slashdot should spit out summary data on the moderation, i.e. how many mod points were given etc. Maybe one can find interesting things in these time series :)

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[1000101]

i have 10 bucks that says you just loved what Moore had to say though.

You-Ess-Ian

[wiredog]

Or Americastanian

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[upsidedown_duck]

I used to feel the same way until Bush. If you recall he ran as a "uniter, not a divider" and talked up "bipartisanship" when he first came into office.

He also runs as a Republican, when he is not. Ironic that Kerry speaks about free trade for pharmaceuticals and Bush does not and that Bush wants to increase government intervention with a marriage amendment and Kerry does not. It baffles the mind.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Per Abrahamsen]

That "quiz" is just a list of Libertarian issues, formulated by Libertarians. The political compass is also slanted towards Libertarianism, but less grossly. The whole 2d model with social and economic axes is Libertarian in spirit.

A conservative or socialist would pick other axes to plot viewpoints.

Moveon.Org buying into /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta be. /. should be .\

Everybody can comment on politics

[Per Abrahamsen]

Because we live in a democracy where everybody (well, a lot) has one vote each, the mistaken belief that everybodys opinion is worth the same is widespread. For technical issues, many people (but not enough, judging by the /. comments) realize that they they have insufficient insight to contribute anything worthwhile. But for politics, such a lack of insight is not stopping them.

Re:Everybody can comment on politics

[jdray]

... the mistaken belief that everybodys opinion is worth the same is widespread.

Right. Ever try to submit a story to Slashdot? I'll wager that most people's opinions on what should be put on the front page are as worthless as they are varied to the people doing the "editing."

But then, you're not supposed to grumble about rejections. Somebody mod this post a troll, would you?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, whatever. Society thinks that abortions are okay, well, I think that killing abortionists is okay. Probably wouldn't be "gladly" though, as it would require a lot of effort - more like "strenuously" strangle.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic that Kerry speaks about free trade for pharmaceuticals and Bush does not and that Bush wants to increase government intervention with a marriage amendment and Kerry does not. It baffles the mind.

Bear in mind that big government is not a left-wing idea - it's a control freak idea, and the far-right wackos love it just as much as the socialists.

The Republicans have never been about small government. The small-government party is the Libertarian party. The GOP wants big government, employing as many of their friends and family as possible...

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

Until you realize the simple truth that Bush is a Republican, and will say whatever looks good to voters on TV running up to an election, then do whatever perpetuates profits for the corporations to whom he must answer every day. That's spokesmodeling. Kerry answers to a lot of backers, some with conflicting interests, so he must find a sensible middle ground. That's management.

When you find that your party does not represent you, and goes beyond ignoring you to using you by talking your talk, but walking someone else's walk, quit the party. If you find another, you're in luck. Otherwise, why bother? Who wants to vote in a primary for a club of scammers? Save your attention for the actual election, which actually affects your life. And put your "party time" towards a focused organization representing your interests, or towards your favorite beverage :).

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you like dead soldiers. Thank a republican. - Master Baiter

Actually, thank Ronald Reagan , Bill Clinton, and the CIA and FBI who for 12 years, did not recongnize that we were at war with an enemy who would stop at nothing to destroy us. Thank Oliver North and Ronald Reagan who helped create the monster Bin Laden in their zeal to distrupt the Russians in Afganistan.
While you at it, thank George W. Bush, and the many soliders who have given their lives to protect yours.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[thedillybar]

>I think what's sad is politically active people who need robotic partisan uniformity.

See the South Park episode on this.

Cartman: I learned somethin' today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truely great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. [a shot of the crowd] You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft pussy protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the founding fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too."

Randy: He's right. The strength of this country is the ability to do one thing and say another.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

Actually, as you tell our story, the politicians used to fight, and the people struggled to get along. Now the politicians collude to keep the people deprioritized in favor of corporations, and instigate the people to harass one another in street demonstrations.

As usual, the past and present are different mixed bags. The future lies in the communications media. Hopefully trends towards cheapness and decentralization mean wider participation, and manageability of more diverse, cross-referencable sources of info. That view would tend to actually justify spending time with Slashdot, as long as it's balanced by meatspace socializing, to keep our heritage of embodied human wisdom.

Swift boats weren't liers

[jasonhamilton]

They weren't liers. The liberal left leaning media has painted them as such, but Kerry has not addressed the claims of the swiftvets.

In fact, there is now an official investigation in the Navy to investigate Kerry's medals. Including a silver star with Combat "V", which cannot exist as a Combat V isn't available with a silver star.

Re:Swift boats weren't liers

[damiam]

Really? They say there was no gunfire when Kerry recieved his Bronze Star for rescuing Jim Rassman, a Green Beret who'd fallen out of his boat. Kerry says there was gunfire. Rassman says there was gunfire. The only people at that scene who say there wasn't gunfire were the three Swift Boat Veterans for Bush, one of whom (Larry Thurlow) also recieved a Bronze Star that day, the citation for which says "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks".

If you're willing to accept the (flimsy) evidence against Kerry, you should also be willing to accept the (slightly less flimsy) evidence against Bush. Not that it matters what happened 35 years ago. I'd prefer to judge the presidential candidates on their records and positions than try fruitlessly to figure out exactly what they were doing 35 years ago.

Re:Swift boats weren't liers

[jasonhamilton]

Thurlow DID get a medal that day, but Thurlow did not know the exact reason - he assumed it was due to helping aid the boat that hit a mine.

This is going to be a long quote, reading it isn't needed, but it will show you that Thurlow had no reason to question WHY he got a medal when his actions that day clearly deserved it.

Kerry's third Purple Heart was his ticket home. It also was much of the basis of his Bronze Star, repeating "his bleeding arm" and shrapnel wound from the mine story. The problem is that his operating report was a total lie since Kerry's shrapnel wound "in the buttocks" came not from a mine at all as he falsely reported, but at his own hand. Larry Thurlow, an officer on shore with Kerry that day, recounts that Kerry's shrapnel wound came not from any mine, but from a self-inflicted wound when Kerry (with no enemy to be seen) threw a concussion grenade into a rice pile and stayed too close. See Exhibit 10, ? 3. This "brown rice" incident with rice/shrapnel lodged in Kerry from his own grenade is also recounted by James Rassman, a Kerry supporter and "the no man left behind" on page 105 of John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography By The Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best, by Michael Kranish, Brian C. Mooney, and Nina J. Easton (New York: Public Affairs, 2004) (the "Kranish book"). See Exhibit 21.

Most surprisingly, John Kerry himself (while falsely reporting to the Navy and public that he suffered a shrapnel wound from a mine explosion so as to get a third Purple Heart and go home) reflected in his own journal that his buttocks' wound came, not from any mine but, rather, from a grenade tossed into a rice cache by himself or friendly troops (in the absence of any enemy fire). "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice bin explosions." Exhibit 15, Tour, at 313; see also Exhibit 15, Tour, at 317. "Kerry . . . also had the bits of shrapnel and rice extracted from his backside." See also the sworn statement of participants that there was no hostile fire (Exhibits 6, 7, and 10). It also should be noted that the rice extracted from Kerry's backside could hardly be the result of an underwater mine, as Kerry claimed in his operating report.

The conclusion is that Kerry lied by reporting to the Navy that he had been wounded by shrapnel in his backside from an enemy mine when in reality he negligently wounded himself and then lied about the wound in order to secure a third Purple Heart and a quick trip home.

As recounted in the attached affidavits of three on-scene participants (and verified by many others present) Kerry's operating report, Bronze Star story, and subsequent "no man left behind" story are a total hoax on the Navy and the nation. As recounted in the affidavits of Van Odell (Exhibit 6), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), and Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10) (and verified by every other officer present and many others), a mine went off under PCF 3 -- some yards from Kerry's boat. The force of the explosion disabled PCF 3 and knocked several sailors, dazed, into the water. All boats, except one, closed to rescue the sailors and defend the disabled boat. That boat -- Kerry's boat -- fled the scene. After a short period, it was evident to all on the scene that there was no additional hostile fire.

Thurlow began the daring rescue of disabled PCF 3, while Chenoweth began to pluck dazed survivors of PCF 3 from the water. Midway through the process, after it was apparent that there was no hostile fire, Kerry finally returned, picking up Rassman who was only a few yards from Chenoweth's boat which was also going to pick Rassman up. Each of the affiants (and many other Swiftees on the scene that day) are certain that Kerry has wholly lied about the incident.

Kerry's account of this action, which was used to secure the Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart, is an extraordinary example of fraud. Kerry describes "boats rcd heavy A/W and S/A from both banks. Fire continued for about 5000 meters." Exhibit 17. In other words, the boats

Re:Swift boats weren't liers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd prefer to judge the presidential candidates on their records and positions...

Kerry has very little of the former, and too much by half of the latter.

I presume that you'll be voting for President Bush this November. ;)

Smile, please.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[stonecypher]

He's a very intelligent Bush supporter. ... married to the Easter Bunny, playing poker with Santa on the weekends.

hmmm

[zogger]

I guess it matters when you think it happened, but I know think it happened in theearly 50's. We have had extensions of it, and the rogue criminal gangs at the top change alliances and occasionally war on each other, but all in all it's a cross partisan coup, goes beyond traditional R and D politics, although I admit that some of it is still valid. For instance, the election I worked, goldwater's campaign got more sabotaged by fellow republicans in the rockefeller wing than by any democratic effort. Some dems produced the famous daisy nuke commercial, but it was some high level R's who made dang sure it got airtime.

As to Bush, I think he's no more than an easily controlled puppet, and a very bad script reader.

US high level politics are decided and controlled internationally, this domestic stuff is political melodrama to keep the populace amused. It goes beyond even factions like "neocons" and whatever. Proof? Easy, extremely easy. 9-11 to anyone who has spent even one full hour in true independent and neutral research is an obvious inside job. The evidence is simply overwhelming. Both high level public Ds and Rs, and all sub factions therein, are perpetuating the offical government *big lie* about it. One who didn't was Paul Wellstone, who had some juice and drive, therefore dangerously effective,so he got offed. Another who didn't was Cynthia Mckinney, who lost in a diebold rigged election and was more easily demonised as too extreme, and face it, racism still exists with national politics. There's a few more now tippy toeing around the issue, but frankly, the fix is in, these guys got away with mass murder and are now engaged in the latest version of the "final solution". Bush is just a temporary goofball patsy of theirs who can appeal to the inherent red neckerson jingoism of a lot of people. See, they got it covered no matter who "wins" the election, some semi effete semi intellectual semi sophisticated urbanite and alleged "liberal" or some bombastic "nuke the ay-rabs" "greed is good" redneck psycho "conservative". That about covers 90% of the US political spectrum, so they can keep the herds fat and happy and content with "their" team and their "team leader" no matter which of their boys gets "elected" in. The other ten percent they can literally ignore. Which they do. Means nothing to them.

And the reason why this is an effective technique now is because it's been working admirably for them for decades now, and even more importantly,they know that as much as folks grumble, demonstrate, or complain, they know one very important thing-they have enough people scared off and brainwashed now that they don't have to sweat any outright physical rebellion against the mil/industrial complex junta. People in this nation have overhwelmingly proven that they will consume manure sandwhichs served by the media and government and comment on the equisite flavor, and do it over and over again, on any number of issues.

I'd like to dislike Bush more, but I honestly don't think he's very important in the grand scheme of things, same as I didn't think clinton was, even though I dsisliked him as well. I think of bush as just a tool for the juntaists. He's just a high level "useful idiot", and has an obvious thirst for violence, it's an almost open fetish you can see he has, and that's a useful trait that tyrants need in immediate underlings.

His father is much closer to the real power structure than he is, or ever will be for that matter.

Re:hmmm

[OldSchool]

The idea that 9-11 was an inside job intrigues me, but most of the allegations and claims thatI've found on the web seem pretty wacky. Can you give some pointers to some sites that present true independent and neutral information?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[stonecypher]

How you can make a second-order self aware post bitching about the same thing slashdot users have been bitching about slashdot users bitching about, use the phrase infinite loop, and not take a stab at a Macintosh is beyond me.

Your willpower is indomnitable.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Pros_n_Cons]

You want a good reason? While trying to post on this topic as AC i got this:
Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "f7sf97f9f79ejese9eje9jse" and "f7s7e9se7ef97fes97ee9e" and (optionally, but preferably) your IP number "66.65.31.**" and your username "Pros_n_Cons".
This is due to the fact I posted 3 concervitive views yesterday and someone went through all my posts and modded them down. only one of the post could be concidered slightly insulting by suggesting this person should move.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[funk_doc]

Questions like:

Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet

from the WSPQ are not libertarian issues, there issues relevant to all political parties. What other axes could you plot political parties on? The axes measure government intervention in personal and economic aspects of life. I would like to see a political model that charts the parties differntly, but I never have. Do you have an example?

dual moderation

[firewood]

In the technical community, political views are too biased for uniform fair moderation. People without deep introspection are usually completely unaware of the degree of their own biases. The only fair scoring I've seen is from debate coaches, who have direct experience of both losing and winning arguments on both sides of any hot issue. Whereas the it would be an easy bet that the typical slashdot poster/moderator would lose a debate round against any competant high school debate team if they drew the side opposite their own natural bias in a scored tournament, given a complete lack of skill at recognizing good arguments on the other side of an issue.

So, I propose a dual moderation system (maybe quad moderation for libertarians?) where moderators first state how much they typically agree with a left/right point-of-view before scoring postings. Meta-moderation should keep the system from being gamed too often. Readers should then be able to filter out moderators with a given degree of opposite bias to their own (or not if they want to see the strongest balancing arguments). This will prevent infinite back-and-forth scoring from making moderation as useless as a chaotic oscillator (useless except for generating pseudo-random numbers that is).

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[stonecypher]

No, they weren't. Just like a lot of what was said last election around wasn't ever actually said, just spun, paraprased and reworded until it looked damning as hell.

Find Gore actually claiming to have invented the internet. Anywhere. What he really said was that he was one of two people which wrote and pushed the bill which made it public, and that's true.

Welcome to why everyone's furious that two of Bush's three largest campaign contributors are giant media moguls. Hint: stop believing what FOX and CNN tell you. (Or, for that matter, any of them. Just because the other guys are slanted the other direction doesn't make them any more honest. Not all liars lie for Bush.)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[antiMStroll]

Welcome Total Farker!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[legirons]

"Slashdot just broke one of the 2 rules of peacekeeping conversation, don't talk about religion or politics. They might as well start up religion.slashdot.org and flame on."

Since politics.slashdot.org has U.S. flags in all of its backgrounds, does that mean religion.slashdot.org would be full of wiccan symbols?

Look and feel...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gawd...one thing I've noticed w/ the Slashcode look is...it can look like crap pretty quickly!!

This is a perfect example....this whole site is kinda harsh on the eyes.

There wasn't already a politics.slashdot.org?

[prozac79]

Wow, jugding from everyone's posts, I would have thought that slashdot already is a political forum. I find it so funny that on any given topic, people find ways to slide in a little political commentary for or against particular politicians. We could be talking about the latest PDA hardware and somehow someone thinks it's insightful to talk about the failed state of U.N. regulation of fuzzy, white bunny expectors in Tazmania. Well, I guess now that we have a forum for politcal discussion on /. I will now see twice as many posts as to why G.W. is evil for signing the DMCA into law (BTW, I know Bush didn't sign the DMCA into law... I'm making a point).

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a left-leaning board."

p.s. that seems to have been written by an american, so you can translate it to "this board isn't quite conservative enough"

Politics makes more than strange bedfellows.

[hey!]

It makes otherwise intelligent people complete closed minded idiots.

It's a well established fact that people seek out information which confirms their current opinion and actively screen out information which challenges it. Look at a programmer struggling with a bug or a user with a user interface and you can see it. Politics takes this natural human cognitive strategy and infuses it with emotion, value judgements and ego identification. This means that while in most situations people will eventually begin to take new information into account, in politics this practically never happens. The more we are confronted with truths that challenge our political positions, the more strongly we warp our sense of reality to suit our predjudices.

Any reasonable person from another planet would immediately come to some obvious conclusions:

On the economy, Bush got smacked down by an overdue correction in the business cycle and 9/11. His tax cuts probably gave the economy a short term stimulus. However, the long term effects of his policies are debatable.

Kerry has a realtively normal legislative career. He sometimes votes for one version of a bill and against another one, or for a particular thing by itself but against it when it's lumped with a bunch of other things he doesn't like. However, his career as a legislator is rather undistinguished.

Mr. Impartial Observer would also label Michael Moore a propagandist, and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth a bunch of vile political hatchetmen.

External validation feels good, but it is not intellectually honest. If the moderation system could be tweaked to encourage people to reevaluate their positions and look at the truth, it would be a great acccomplishment.

Re:Politics makes more than strange bedfellows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for breaking everything down. From now on I'll look to your posts for The Truth.

politics.slashdot.org's

[d34thm0nk3y]

new ad:

Politics.Slashdot.org for when OS flamewars just won't cut it!

Re:US-centric

[Samrobb]

Besides, this is more fun - you get to make fun of Dubya :-p

Absolutely correct! Except that you misspelled "Kerry".

Whee! We're already in the Maximum Fun Chamber!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[frank_adrian314159]

I still withhold judgement because (a) it's not clear to me that he was isolationist enough to the rest of the world (other than WRT Commies, of course :-), and (b) it might not have been "him", because I'm not sure that he was all there when he was there, if ya know what I mean...

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way: 12 minutes of your time should change your mind.

You're right, Bush and Kerry are both idiots. I'm gonna vote for Dave Barry. The only candidate who absolutely agrees with me on every point, and always has.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

accounts which read alot and post rarely seem to get alot of mod points

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[nomadic]

Which is why I specified the EDITOR'S comments, not the story submitter's. You know, the non-italicized statement at the end of the story? That's the editor's.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[tepples]

One of my friends figured out that if five of your comments are modded down at once, it could mean that one of your comments offended one person with mod points so much that this person went through your history and found four other not-quite-perfect comments to mark as Overrated.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

not exactly the most unbiased site about the movie, but still informative: The Facts Speak Louder Than "The Silent Scream"

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[wolfemi1]

This has to be the largest number of posts EVER in response to a post that has exactly FOUR ORIGINAL LETTERS.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Billly Gates]

..... or vi vs emacs.

Hey its slashdot after all.

Better yet did you know Bush uses Vim while Kerry uses Emacs and Kerry! .... smirks

Not a problem.

[zonix]

It sounds like EVERY comment is going to be flamebait.

Well, one man's Flamebait/Overrated is another's Insightful/Overrated.

My guess is that you'll see +5 Insightful posts of various kinds of political perspectives. The best threads I've read on /. are the ones where directly opposing views are expressed in an alternating fashion through the replies of the thread.

A politics section is an interesting experiment though.

z

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[electroniceric]

I hate to get into a flame war during the grand opening of this politics section of /., but take a look at this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1195870/p osts

Do you really, truly, in your heart of hearts believe that a group some longtime financial supporters of Bush and longtime friends of Karl Rove just coincidentally came up with several hundred thousand for a group of veterans to contradict their own previous statements and just about every record in the Navy at the most opportune time in the Bush reelection campaign - without so much as a phone call to Karl? All of the players in that slander are in the business of politics, and one of the lawyers on in the group was also an advisor to the Bush campaign, until he resigned after being outed. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?

As for Bush calling Kerry's service admirable, yes, he did the right thing there, both morally and politically (he's the good cop, the "unaffiliated" agents are bad cop). I guess it's naive to expect campaigns not to engage in outright lying (as opposed to the standard practice beating on a marginally relevant flaw in the opposition), but it's still fair to call scurrilous when it's practiced.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

we'll be running special political coverage between now and the election

It looks like I made a grave mistake when I assumed slashdot was a website for an INTERNATIONAL audience.
This reminds me of the old joke about a survey and US not knowing about "the rest of the world".

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[ThumbSuck]

[I]3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco[/I] I thought it was U.S soldiers who arrested him.

YES!!!

[XxtraLarGe]

What a great day to get Mod Points, MUHAHAHAHAH!!!!

It is really a disguised test

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey Rob, I just got the new super server and more disk space, how do you want to test it?"

"Hmm, I know, lets start a political section, and if the server is still standing after all the posting we'll know it rocks."

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Billly Gates]

I doubt Bush's sincerity on this.

Keep in mind I am a liberal pro Kerry supporter who hates Bush so I am of course politically biased.

SWVFT was started by oil executives who never served in Vietnam and who had close ties to Karl Rove (Bush's chief political advisor). Infact they were close friends. Karl Rove is a ruthless competitor in the political spectrum and in my opinion one of the best strategists today. Kerry may just lose because of him and he helped beat Ann Richards when Bush ran for governor (a very hard thing to do)

Rove was very carefull to make sure none of the negative attacks came from Bush because he was aware Americans do not like politics. (He has even stated this) Kerry is a flip flopper .... did that come from Bush?

Kerry supported the war before opposing it, before supporting it again, to not funding it. DId Bush say that as well?

Rove orchestrates his whole re-election and of course had his hands tied on all of this. If something related to Bush's campaign ever comes up it means Rove planned it.

Kerry was angry because of the fact that Bush lets other people do his dirty work while he looks innocent and contrary of being a negative campaigner. Its very clever actually.

This is why I think Bush's speech of admiring his heroic service in Vietnam is no coincidence. Bush's true opinions lie with swift boat lobbying group. He only made that speech to make him look like the good guy.

If something is orchestrated agaisnt Kerry you can beat Rove and Bush had a hand in it.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[WNight]

You fundies are getting dumber than a box of rocks.

First, the fact that Bush is subnormal doesn't mean anything about Kerry. Many Republicans think Bush is a dough-head and they wish for someone else.

Second, your retarded little video completely leaves out the fact that with government (Republican) complicity, the CIA lied about Saddam Hussein and WMDs. If someone (Kerry for example) trusted this, they'd appear to change their mind as the information they'd based their statements on was shown to be false.

Third, because of the USA's political system, riders are often attached to bills - even riders that have *nothing* to do with the original bill. Even a pro-military person is going to vote against a "Military Spending and Softwood Lumber Tarrif" bill if they think the lumber tarrif rider is a bad idea.

Four, just show a little fucking human decency and lay off the propoganda. Your ditto-head arguments are off-topic and show only how stupid you are, that you think they're indicative of something. A similar piece could be put together for *any* long-serving politician in the USA.

If anything, you're driving more people to vote for Kerry with your drivel. Slander campaigning only works with the already convinced.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[maxpublic]

And I would gladly get my .38 and blow your fucking head off if you made the attempt.

It's comments like yours that argue best AGAINST gun control, and for that I thank god that loons like you are willing to post their proclivities for doing violence to those who disagree with them. So long as people like you exist, I'll get to keep my guns, if only to protect myself and others from the crazies.

Max

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly it is, yes. But it is an American site and their have a special political section leading up to the American election. What's the problem?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[sckeener]

I think what's sad is politically active people who need robotic partisan uniformity. America's huge, diverse population has worked together for hundreds of years by finding compromise acceptable to the majority, even when that majority spanned many ideologies and parties.

oh the idealist, yall still exist? The United States' huge, diverse population has worked together for hundreds of years not by finding a compromise, but by a minority dominating the majority: White over the black, men over women, rich over poor, etc....

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how that rates almost all the US Presidential primary candidates as authoritarian conservative.. speaks to is accuracy, if you as me :)

see here

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[notestein]

I must have slept through that class. Where's the proof?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[General Wesc]

That's a very good illustration of Kerry's flip-flop on the war, but it annoyed me in attacking his voting against the 87 000 000 000USD. He did vote for it before he voted against it. There were two votes: one wanted to provide funding from one source (he voted yea), the other from another source (he voted no). That's not a flip-flop. Voting different ways on different bills? How dare he?

Kerry did a major switch on the war. There's no need for the video to hurt its credibility by presenting what is clearly a distortion of his actions regarding his 87B vote. Focus on Kerry's actual flaws and mistakes. It's not like there aren't any to pick on.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[MAXOMENOS]

I'm pro-gun-rights for pretty much the same reason that I'm pro-abortion rights: both are about really ugly options that one takes as a last resort.

And it's true -- these are two topics that are sure to get people's blood boiling.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Brandybuck]

both Greens and Libertarians agree on states' rights and limiting the Federal government

Which sort of proves my point, because that's not what the average Slashdot editor stands for. They're pseudo-liberatarians because they want government out of their life, but are all for putting more of it in other people's lives. And they're quasi-green because while they deplore corporatism and promote sustainability, they're awfully busy supporting IBM and running megawatt sucking computer hardware.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[mrchaotica]

Ok, I guess we could call it "pragmatism with Libertarian and Green ideals" then?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Drath]

..So you're saying you'd Kill someone who supported what you ammount to killing? hmm.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[maxpublic]

The closest anyone comes is the libertarians, but they tend to be reflexively anti-government in a way that the classical liberals never were.

Given that both of the major parties seem to only be interested in increasing the power of government at the cost of individual rights at every opportunity, it's no wonder that the libertarians are reflexively anti-government. So long as the government remains in the hands of the DemoRepublicans it's difficult NOT to be anti-government while supporting the rights of the individual.

Max

Speaking of liars...

[iceperson]

Kerry admitted that his first purple heart was the result of a self inflicted wound (more than a week after the supposed incident he wrote in his own log that they had yet to be fired upon) and the third one came from rice that was lodged into his butt after he threw a grenade into a rice pile that was too close. Add to that the lie he told several times of being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and what do you have? Then again I could care less what he was doing before I was even born. I'd like to hear what he's been doing for the past 20 years in the Senate including the bill that he sponsored last year that would have banned the gun that he's holding here.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice he said strangle, not shoot. Might as well outlaw pianos, bricks & rocks - if he's gonna get you, there are easier and more clandestine ways than using a .38 to do the job.

We can only hope...

[raygundan]

If only that were true! I suspect that the actual effect will fall somewhere in this range:

Low end: Everyone still posts just as much crap everywhere else, but they also manage to generate reams and reams of new crap yelling at eachother in the new section.

High end: Everyone generates reams and reams of new crap in the new section, and are so worked up and angry over the "discussions" they are having by screaming at eachother that they end up posting *even more* crap on the rest of the site.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[maxpublic]

This has happened a couple of times to me as well, most recently a couple of weeks back when I criticized the EU and socialism in general. Whenever I say anything even remotely negative about any of these topics a band of Euro-trolls blasts all of my comments into oblivion.

I think I lost about 20 karma points on a single round of commentary. It wasn't enough to remove my automatic '2' posting level, which surprised me, but I've certainly got to be close to that point by now. No matter how abrasive or insulting I've been, I've never been karma-bombed on anything else the entire time I've been on Slashdot, on both accounts (this one and my older, lost one which was five-digit, not six). This leads me to believe that the folks primarily responsible for this behavior are not American liberals, but European liberals with an especial dislike for free speech - at least the sort of free speech they disagree with.

I'm willing to bet that if European accounts were temporarily suspended from modding the karma-bombing would stop. At the very least it would be an interesting experiment to try.

Max

A time and place for everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, I am glad to see that there is hope to get the left wing propaganda that appears frequently on this site in it's right place and stick to what I really want...the facts about tech.

Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

If all points of view were welcome, then I'd say it's a good idea. But because the slashdot editors and most of the readers lean pretty far to the left, I think it's a waste of time.

For an example I will give you one bit of truth about a story that's very popular amongst liberals. Truth about Halliburton that you won't hear around here or on the major networks.

Quoting Neal Boortz -

Part of the perceived evil that is Halliburton is the fact that Dick Cheney once ran the company. As everyone knows, we should strive mightily to avoid ever placing anyone with the know-how and ability to run a multi-million dollar corporation in a position of responsibility in the political realm. Actually making a success of yourself in the private sector disqualifies you for public service, while not having any actual discernable private sector job skills is the supreme qualification for public service.

So ... let's get to the bottom of this. Did Bush or Cheney do something underhanded or illegal in handing some rather lucrative contracts to Halliburton for infrastructure and other work in Iraq?

We'll start with another question you can ask your bedwetting leftist friends. Ask them if they've ever heard of LOGCAP. They will tell you that they don't know what that is. You won't be at all surprised. LOGCAP is the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program created by the United States Army. It is a program that uses a competitive bidding process to award a contract to a corporation to be on call to provide whatever services the Army might need ... right then. Some brilliant thinkers in the Army came to the conclusion that it might not be such a swell idea to screw around with competitive bidding processes for logistics and other services during wartime. Imagine that.

Halliburton won the competitive bidding process for LOGCAP in 1992. They then lost that bidding process five years later in 1997. In spite of the fact that Halliburton no longer held the LOGCAP contract, Bill Clinton went ahead and awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton to do some work in the Balkans supporting U.S. peacekeeping actions. Odd, isn't it. The same people who are screaming about Halliburton right now had absolutely nothing .. nada .. nunca .. not one thing to say about Halliburton when it was the Clinton Administration that was handing out contracts .. with no bidding, by the way. You might also be interested in knowing that Al Gore was quite a fan of Halliburton. Gore's reinventing government panel had some very complimentary things to say about Halliburton and the services it provides to the U.S. government. Ahhh ... but what does Al Gore know, right?

That brings us to 2001. It's time for bidding on the LOGCAP contract again. Halliburton is right in there, and wins the bid. This means that at the time of the Iraq War Halliburton had the bid for providing logistical and other services to the U.S. government. They were the go-to company. So, along comes the U.S. Army with a fat contract for Halliburton to put out oil-well fires in Iraq and all hell breaks loose. To the left this is all the proof you needed to show that this whole war was about oil and enriching Bush pals.

Recap: Clinton awards no-bid contract to Halliburton at a time when Halliburton did not hold the LOGCAP contract. Bush awards contract to Halliburton at a time when Halliburton DID hold the LOGCAP contract.

So ... one last question for your mindless leftist friends. Well .. make that two questions. Ask them if Clinton went into the Balkans to enrich Halliburton. They'll say no. Then ask them if Bush went to Iraq to enrich Halliburton. They'll say yes. At this point do all that you can to have your friend institutionalized .. for they are beyond all help.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[maxpublic]

I think we should go back to the old Icelandic tradition of having the Speaker of the House read all the laws of the land to the other members of Congress over the course of every three years.

You're the only other person I've ever heard say this. I've often told people that if Congress were required to read every federal law prior to opening a session we might actually end up with a sane number of sensible laws.

Max

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[maxpublic]

This test can't properly judge libertarianism. For example, the following question:

"Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."

cannot be answered by a libertarian. A true libertarian doesn't attempt to use government power to control EITHER.

Max

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Dirtside]

4183 Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco
3314 Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco
2722 Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional by michael
2574 Major Strike on Iraq Underway by CmdrTaco

Man, these freaked me out for a second before I realized that the last bit of each was the byline. Taco striking Iraq? (Twice, no less!) And arresting Saddam all by himself! Michael's ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance was small potatoes by comparison.

Slashdot does = USA

[willpall]

Read the FAQ...

Q: Slashdot seems to be very U.S.-centric. Do you have any plans to be more international in your scope?

A: Slashdot is U.S.-centric. We readily admit this, and really don't see it as a problem. Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S. We're certainly not opposed to doing more international stories, but we don't have any formal plans for making that happen. All we can really tell you is that if you're outside the U.S. and you have news, submit it, and if it looks interesting, we'll post it.
Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 10/28/00

That should be easy!

[Dr. Shim]

Just keep it simple, fellas! Forward everything to /dev/null!

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

You guys do have pretty big servers, right?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Master Rux]

I suppose that'll be the next area they add to slashdot.

Where do the candidates stand on tech issues?

Loss of vision

[jamej]

Slashdot should stick to always improving what it does best "News for Nerds." Don't waste our time and your CPU cycles on political pap. Please.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Master Rux]

Politics for Nerds. We need more flamewars.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

what did they lie about specificly?

Here's hoping...

[silicon not in the v]

that this gets the political debates out of the other stories on the main page. I get kind of sick of reading the comments in a post about Linux or technology or something and it just degenerates in a politics debate. Now if you want to debate politics, you have a section for it--GO THERE!
I don't hold a lot of hope that it'll happen, but I did just watch Miracle last night, so who knows?

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[lousyd]

That question is just another version of "When did you stop beating your wife?"

Yes, but... This is a political quiz. You think it's a false dichotomy, other people may not. That's politics. You're just supposed to agree or not agree with the statement. Obviously, you disagree with the statement.

Redundant Maybe

[focitrixilous P]

Thank you very much, editors, for a new color scheme that does not lay my eyes to burnination. The smooth blues lessen the rage of politics. Awesome.

Not interesting at all

[Anonymous Coward]

/me plugs ears with fingers.

Lalalalalalalalalala.

Nice to see that your grandparent post got modded troll, too.

I love /.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Rie Beam]

"Strike on Iraq by CmdrTaco"
"Saddam Hussein Arrested by CmdrTaco"
"Windows 2000 & Windows NT 4 Source Code Leaks by CmdrTaco"
"Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional by michael"
"Major Strike on Iraq Underway by CmdrTaco"

And who says Slashdot editors are lazy?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the funniest part is that Slashdot tries to be global, but the politics section fo slashdot is clothed in Old Glory ONLY.

Slashdot religion icon?

[phorm]

They might as well start up religion.slashdot.org and flame on.

Would the icon then be a burning bush? How appropriate would that be? :-)

EGG-ZA-LENT! An outlet for my leftist propaganda!

[Cryofan]

BWWAAHHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now I have another outlet for my leftist commie propaganda.

slashdot

[chunkwhite86]

We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.

Left, More-Left, and Extreme-Left. There, is that an accurate representation of slashdot's "diverse spectrum of political ideologies"? Me thinks so.

Another slashdotter got it right when he said "They should call it \. instead, since most it's readers lean to the left.

Now remember class, John Kerry voted FOR the DMCA, didn't he? Oh wait, maybe he voted against it. On second thought, I think he voted for it *before* he voted against it. Or was it the other way around?

Man... There's gotta be a Soviet Russia joke hiding in there somewhere...

Re:slashdot

[hsoft]

That is strange, I was under the impression that /. crows was a rightist crowd. Anyhow, this crowd is definately not leftist enough for me. BTW, Kerry is hardly to the left. He's just not extreme right like bush. If you want to see some real leftists, take a look at Canada's poiticians.

Re:slashdot

[mabu]

We think we can do a good job since the Slashdot editors represent a diverse spectrum of political ideologies.

Left, More-Left, and Extreme-Left. There, is that an accurate representation of slashdot's "diverse spectrum of political ideologies"? Me thinks so.

A person's political slant is irrelevant except to those who have lost the ability to be reasoned with and engage in productive debate. Who cares about "left" or "right" if you really want to talk about issues. But if you don't want to talk about issues and you just want to create a smokescreen, you start labelling people as "liberal" as if that's an excuse to discount their wisdom and experience.

Luckily not everyone is so shallow. I look forward to some substantive debate, which is what's sorely lacking amongst all the pundit-inspired name-calling.

If something comes along that you don't like, there are a few sort of four-letter words that you can use to push it out of the sphere of discussion. If you were in a bar downtown, they might have different words, but if you're an educated person what you use are complicated words like "conspiracy theory" or "Marxist." It's a way of pushing unpleasant questions off the agenda so that we can continue in our own happy ideology.
- Noam Chomsky

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Disevidence]

When someone mentions "Hivemind", I immediately get a picture in my head of a arrogant, self-absorbed prick who is "free-thinking", or so he/she believes.

You were trying to troll, but your lie was way to easily exposed. (Libertarian views abound in the editorial comments in stories).

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[vespazzari]

Although I know that this remark is not intended to be *mean* (well, i suppose it could be...) this kind of crap never helps any debate. Do you really think that there is no way that a bush supporter could be intelligent? Even though I am not necassarily a Bush supporter I find it personally offensive that you would call an entire group of people stupid for supporting the President. While there is a lot of desicions that Bush has made that I don not support there are some that I do. I am sure that there are many Bush supporters that do not support 100% of Bush's decisions, and that they have a good reason for supporting him. Many decisions that Bush has made can be good or bad based on opinion, do you really think that a personal opinion different from yours is a reason to call someone stupid?

I do think that the mods here should get a spanking for modding that comment insightful, at best it was funny

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[rpdillon]

How can you mod parent "Troll"? I mean, honestly, how many conservative posts do you see that are modded up? I'm not at all sure I've ever seen even one...and you modding here just proves it.

Then again, don't go read The Boston Globe and complain that it's liberal. If you don't want to hear liberal thoughts, don't go to liberal sources (i.e. Slashdot).

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Spudley]

no joke, but threads like that have been propagating through every other story lately. If politics.slashdot.org can trap them and thus clean up some of the other topics then more power to it.

You know, I was going to rant about how /. is an international forum, so why are they foisting American politics on the rest of us.

But then I read this reply, and suddenly it became clear - it's a troll-trap. I understand now. Thank you. :-D

All the more reason for me to disable this section in my prefs so it never has to bother me again.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Money for Nothin']

That, and IMO, there hasn't been very much in the way of technological innovation occurring in the last few years.

That's why the tech job market has been in a slump -- there's no "Internet of the 2000's" to get people all worked-up over technology. WLAN's are neat, and PDA/phones are a convergence in the right direction, but neither really are "killer apps," at least not yet.

So, with less tech stuff for /. to report, people have turned to being interested in other semi-geeky things, like politics...

What kind of politics do you usually have here?

[BitHerder]

"Oh we got both kinds. We got Socialism and Communism!"

sure

[zogger]

probably the best way to look at it is the unanswered questions angles, and also the string of amazing coincidences angle. There's also the "story changes" various angles, like exactly *what* was NORAD doing that day, and what's up with running a drill about running hijacked planes into buildings on 9-11? And all the lower level FBI agents who got ordered off the case, and are now in lawsuits against the government. And people being given "tips" to not show up for work at the towers that day.

There's a variety of sites out there now that have all sorts of this information. I got started looking into it (I was suspicious the next day when they announced they "knew" who did it, makes ya wonder if this was so why didn't they stop them), over to Alex Jone's site at infowars.com.(exact url http://infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm) The video and still evidence (911inplanesite.com) is telling (and not telling) as well, especially the closeups of the planes that hit the WTC towers (no passenger windows evident, eyewitnesses who claim they also saw no windows, etc), and the amazing lack of damage to the front of the pentagon where allegedly this huge airliner hit. As in unburnt grass where thousands of gallons of jet fuel would have been splashed and burnt. And WTC building 7...uhhh..nothing hit it. It still fell down exactly like a controlled demolition would have done it, and the actual owner of the place is quoted on audio as saying "they made a decision to pull it".

Lotsa stuff. Not sure where you have looked, but those are two places to start, and google will give you tons more. I have the video "9-11, road to tyranny" most excellent, free for copying and sharing and I know it's on the P2P networks. tyhat's a good one, too.

Her's a generic overview that was easy to find as well: http://rense.com/general32/25.htm

--basically, there's just too much evidence out there. There's way more than what is needed for an impartial grand jury, not a hand picked commission. Remember, bush orginally wanted kissinger to head it up. That's almost enough evidence right there with "POW/MIAs? All accounted for!" Henry the K if ya ask me.

If you want more, just ask, I can find more but it's better to look on your own. Some things are probably more important and clueful to me then they would be to others. For example, the lower level grunt cops taken off the case, ordered off in the months preceeding the attack. That's big old giant alarm bells to me, whereas other folks might dismiss that as not that important. The reason is I know/have known cops and military (intel), they tell me this stuff happens all the time with high level political shenaningans. NORAD beiong so lame and slow with the interceptors-never happened before 9-11, they always had fighters *right* on errant big planes that had indications of trouble or hijacking. 9-11, nope, "ho humm, guess we might mosey on over in an hour or so if we find 'em". uh huh, sure.... oh ya, the "magic bullet" "ay rab tarist" passport found later, unburnt in the rubble... uh huh, sure..... The plane in pennsylvania, they crashed it into the ground....first time in history a plane that auguered in left debris 8 miles away.....

Lotsa stuff like that. any one of which, cool, an odd occurrence, a coincidence, but ALL of it? Nope, that's what we call "rodent sign".

anyway, if you want more just ask, no probs.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

W00t! Hypocrisy is strength!

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[mec]

I don't know much about Fascism outside of Germany, like Italian Fascism or Japanese military expansion.

I read William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, this year. Shirer spent decades of his career living in Germany as a news correspondent. Then he spent five years writing this book.

History is a hell of a lot more complicated than most people's conceptions of it. I would have to spend 20 years of my life, full time, to approach the understanding that Shirer had.

Nationalism is still a potent force in US Politics and a lot of other places too. You want to see nationalism ... go over to a discussion on outsourcing and you'll see lots of it. Whether outsourcing is good or bad, there's definitely a nationalist streak to those debates.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

In other words, Bush sold his soul to the highest bidder.

Kerry, on the other hand, rents his out as the occasion demands.

Finally

[Dracos]

A slashdot design that doesn't suck and is readable.

I understand that POV...

[zogger]

...but that means you are always relying on others to do your analysis for you, plus just pure leeching. Everyone's time is valuable, yes? And yes again, if you read at say +4 you'll get some gems, but you'll also miss some gems because of unfair/illogical/partisan modding down. I've seen some pretty good stuff get whacked down for what seems to be merely fanboi political reasons one way or the other. If I had been reading at a high threshold I would have missed it. "Metamod" is supposed to fix that, but we have quite literally no way to know if it's working or not, with the ease of creating new accounts, etc.

Re:I understand that POV...

[cryptochrome]

Well it seems like I haven't had mod points in forever anyway... but when I did have them I used them. Yes I'm counting on others to do my analysis for me (at the top level anyway), yes I'm missing gems, no moderators are not always fair. But so what? That's part of the process. It's collaborative. I don't have to read every post, I don't have to look upon every gem (many look pretty much the same anyway). If felt like I HAD to read and rate every post on slashdot, I'd probably not read them at all or just stick to the articles.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

Is it really idealism when it pertains to a history that never actually happened except in the minds of those who originally made it up? I don't know really... *shrug*

What I do know is that you are right on the money. It's alwys been minority rule in this country. Actually much less so when it was initially founded than now. Now, a President is elected if he gets 16% or so of the total possible votes. Political mandate my ass. 16% isn't a political mandate, it's a half-stifled yawn. It means that 14% of the politically active (by that I mean people who actually vote) don't want you, and the other 70% don't care enough to bother registering their opinion.

The USA's population hasn't gotten along on compromise, it's gotten along despite constant in-fighting.

Hey, it's worked out wonderfully for the politicians though...

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

Yeah, but don't forget that they vote Democrat and Republican.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep...socialism...progressivism (aka socialism)...communism...anti-corporatism...anti-c apitalism

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[benzapp]

Please provide a link for Kerry's hypothetical plan for correctly handling the invasion of Iraq.

I have read much of his criticism, and the evidence of which you speak, but I have yet to find any detailed alternative plan from the Democrat Party or their current presidential candidate. Further, as a military strategy is always subject to unknown factors, "evidence" that a particular strategy is flawed has to be overwhelming or very general (ie sending in troops with bolt action rifles is a flawed tactic).

I personally believe there was absolutely no justification for the invasion of Iraq. Further, I find Kerry's inability to take a stand against the war in its entirety, and not simply on its execution, to be the primary reason why he will lose this election.

Oh, that and his military record in Vietnam which proves him to be the morally bankrupt person he is.

Sorry, the Democrats had their chance to choose a path and a candidate that would certainly be Bush. Instead, they chose Kerry.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you count your reflection in the mirror, then there will be TWO editors at slashdot who are right of center?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[nocomment]

like this?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

paleoconservatives?

Cave men?

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

so when they reinstitute the draft and send you over there to live for a year or two, will you care then?

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup

And this is why. I only post as AC anymore.

I am a physicist and I had a science post modded down to troll, while a cold fusion crank got modded way up.

I don't log in anymore and I ignore all moderation. Slashdot moderation has really turned to shit.

Is "fair and balanced" news even possible?

[LinuxParanoid]

Thinking you are able to get a "fair and balanced" coverage anywhere is simply wrong. If you want different opinions and political diversity you need to read more than one newssource.

I read multiple sources of information precisely for the reasons you mention. Still, I think there is definitely a market for, and the technical possibility of creating, a news source or opinion forum that attempts to be evenhanded. Gathering and synthesizing multiple viewpoints takes work that not every consumer wishes to undertake.

In the UK, papers have explicit biases and the consumer is expected to pick one or weigh multiple ones. In the US, papers are expected to give straight news (and/or both sides of any story), with editorial and opinion coverage being quite separate. (In practice there is bias, but the ideal is valued and approximated to a degree that we could quibble about depending on the paper.)

From what I can tell, the US approach seems to have started shifting over the last decade to a more UK-like system and frankly, I'm not sure whether that's just "acknowledging reality" (consistent with your view that fair and balanced coverage is impossible), or whether it's an ultimately unhealthy abandonment of the "fair and balanced" ideal that imposes an unncessary searching+synthesis cost for all readers on even the most basic news.

--LP

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that Kerry's stance on the war hasn't been nearly concrete enough, but

Oh, that and his military record in Vietnam which proves him to be the morally bankrupt person he is.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Are you a swift boat vet?

Bushy Jr is a fucking DUI draft dodger and Kerry is a war hero turned hippie. Do you have some extra information that nobody else knows?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Compact Dick]

I'm pro-life ... I would gladly strangle anybody

Good one, mate!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

There are more commonalities between a republican and a democrat than there are differences.

Just because the differences are not numerous, does not mean they are not important. Goats and women are more alike than different, too, but I prefer women. You can settle for goats because they are not much different, if you prefer.

I get it now

[DrNibbler]

Taco's busy arresting Sadam, Invading Iraq, leaking source code... no wonder he's too busy to check for dup stories.

No, what's funny is...

[notestein]

I read it as:

Yes, and I am saying it is funny to think that, since I am the Republican party in Washington state.

Re:Blue - or Red?

[leerpm]

Ahh, nothing like braindead moderators who don't realize Canada actually IS a socialist country.

ps. This is coming from a Canadian.

Yeah, lame liberals

[jasonhamilton]

Liberals with a few mod points to blow. There was nothing trollish about my posts, the previous post stated information out of sworn affidavits and books from kerry's own biography.

I'd like to know who modded my post -1.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[kavau]

How about we just replace the current moderation system with things like "right-wing nut" or "leftist looser"? Those labels would be neither positive or negative, but your Karma rating would read something along the lines of "Ultra-left", "Moderate right", or "Unprincipled opportunist".

This way, if you enjoy reading only opinions that mirror your own, you can choose "Threshold: display only messages to the right of Rush Limbaugh (0 posts)" or something similar.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

In a conversation, when a few people do most of the talking, and the majority just listen, or at least appear to, that's not domination. You're playing the divide & conquer game that keeps corporate power in the hands of the old boy network. That's the minority we're talking about, dominating the majority. If entry to that club comes with some genes, they must have lost my invitation in the mail.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's simple. Show even one little inkling that you may be on the conservative side and POOF!, there goes your mod points. Even if you're normally centrist or left-leaning, all it takes is one little innocent post that goes right of center.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

In still other words, Kerry represents a fairly broad collection of interests, with access open as scenarios change. Bush represents a certain few interests, which never change, regardless of situation. Kerry is republican democrat, and Bush is just a republican - democracy need not apply.

Political Discussions

[Brian_Warner]

Hmmm, American political debates... Alright mods, get your "flamebait" modstick ready for action!

Angry Flower Veterans For Truth

[sbszine]

You need to see this.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Chris Burke]

Hypocrisy is integrity.

Get your goodthinks straight. :)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

In still other words, Kerry represents a fairly broad collection of interests, with access open as scenarios change. Bush represents a certain few interests, which never change, regardless of situation. Kerry is republican democrat, and Bush is just a republican - democracy need not apply.

I'd remove "fairly broad" from the first sentence. He represents a collection of interests, and can be bought when necessary. He has no loyalty, which, in a leader, is as bad as blind dogmatic loyalty (Bush). They both represent interests, rather than ideas or ideals, which makes them both scum from a political standpoint. Kerry is a political mercenary, Bush is a political fanatic. Neither have a conscience to speak of.

You can't have a republic without democracy. It's an extension of a broader idea. The distinction between republican democrat and republican is non-existent.

They're both from the same party, they just belong to different camps. Neither are interested in republican democracy, as far as the classical definition goes: all power stemming from the individual with strict confines upon what power the State can wield.

Neither Kerry nor Bush are republican in that they do not believe in constraints upon governmental power. A "republican" form of government is one where rights exist apart from and superior to the power of the government.

Neither Kerry nor Bush are democratic in that they support the perpetuation of the idea that power stems from the government, and all rights are beholden to the whim of that government. A "democratic" government derives its authority solely from the people, who may revoke that authority should they so choose.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

Well, it fit more along the lines of the Southpark commentary to say it that way.

Yours is certainly far superior in general though. :)

Yeah he's great

[paranode]

Not that I'm a fan of either of them, but Kerry is not the hero he wants people to believe he is. He was in Vietnam for 4 months. Researching his Purple Hearts will lead you to the fact that they weren't earned for anything remotely courageous. He knew he needed 3 to get out of there and he did whatever it took to get them. The last one was a result of him catching shrapnel in the ass from his own grenade. Some people say it was actually just rice from the rice patty he blew up for no reason.

Bush is no war hero either, but at least he readily admits that his service in the Air National Guard is not worth comparing to service in Vietnam. Kerry's political machine, on the other hand, is quite obsessed with his supposed sparkling war record. The guy went on the record talking about his war atrocities back in the day.

Just so I don't get modded as a Bush-loving troll, I'll have to throw in the standard "don't blame me I'm a libertarian" disclaimer. :)

Plastic

[Anonymous Coward]

I am somewhat weary posting this, but here it goes anyway (and I hope I won't regret it)

If you're interested in Slashdot-style discussion of non-technical topics such as politics, culture, etc., give www.plastic.com a click.

If you have used ./ you will feel at home with the UI (actually it's much more streamlined, though at some point it used to be Slashcode) and the read/respond process.

Anyway, have fun.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

Ancient Rome was a republic for a long while: senators representing landowners, without much overlap with our definitions of democracy. But otherwise we mostly agree. But the differences in degree between Bush and Kerry are important. Probably most important is the possibility of increasing citizen representation under Kerry, at the expense of corporate representation. No such hope under Bush. The coalition of people Bush's Republicans have found to vote for their lies, while robbed for the benefit of corporations, is a stable base. And expandable with the worst policies of education, media ownership, trade, labor, and taxes. It is unstable only in its eventual collapse of any government control of corporations, with only the corporate welfare functions intact. Kerry's government is unstable in the typical American style, with changing priorities to answer to changing conditions of power among organizations seeking access.

Recent evolution of noncoordinated political groups, including "527" corporations and the blogging public, give a glimpse at the kinds of layers of communication possible in a huge, complex global republic of relatively rich people immersed in interactive media. Given the limit of two viable choices in this election, I'm taking the one that is more likely to be influenced by the evolving public. That's John Kerry, warts and all. When the Bush nightmare is over, we'll have much Bush corporatism to roll back. Hopefully there'll be some momentum for making gains for humans. It's going to be fun talking about these developments on Slashdot.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[the gnat]

I guess I sort of agree, but the classical liberals were reacting to much more authoritarian regimes, and they never veered so close to anarchism. Most libertarians, as far as I can tell, believe that government should protect their lives and property and do nothing else. Although I can understand and to some degree respect this belief, I can't share it (maybe it's the ex-Democrat in me). I think limited government and greater personal liberty is an ideal we should aspire to, but I don't think this means that government can't play a positive role.

Hayek, for instance, makes a very clear distinction between laissez-faire policies and regulated free markets: he supports the latter, as long as the rule of law is paramount and the intent is to ensure fairness rather than central planning. Libertarians tend to be anti-regulation, even when the intent of regulations is to protect citizens rather than fuck corporations.

Um

[KaiSeun]

Did you guys HAVE to use American flags everywhere? I mean if this was for the US election, could this then be USelections.slashdot.org or USpolitics.slashdot.org?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[jericho4.0]

How, out of all the views expressed in this thread, did someone pick this one as 'Troll'?

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[dcmeserve]

Look at Slashdot's "Hall of Fame"

...

2 of those aren't 'political'

Which goes to show what a crying need for this new section there has been all along.

(Well, for the last 3-1/2 years anyways)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[maxpublic]

even when the intent of regulations is to protect citizens rather than fuck corporations

The problem here is that many regulations purport to be in the interest of protecting citizens, but in actual practice they're used to eliminate competition. For example, in order to be a doctor or lawyer one must abide by 'regulations' set forth by a specific organization, condoned by the government - all for our benefit, of course. But a doctor or lawyer who publicly criticizes others of his profession, or the organizations which regulate his profession, or who suggests that an approach condemned by his organization might actually be of value, can be thrown out of that organization and stripped of his right to practice law or medicine. Furthermore, in order to become a doctor or lawyer you have to both have the resources and be willing to abide by the belief systems of those organizations; anyone who cannot do both is barred from ever practicing law or medicine, and the government will arrest and jail you if you try.

Many other regulations are said to keep business from screwing the consumer, but business in turn uses these regulations to destroy any competition which can't muster the funds or favors needed to abide by these regulations and still maintain a profitable business - all with government collusion. I've seen this over and over again from the local level on up; an example being the enormous amount of regulations governing building code, including all the permits and reviews one needs (and has to pay for, either with money or favor or both) just to construct a simple, small office building. Large companies can afford the resources to get through all the paperwork (or make any paperwork-oriented obstacles 'disappear'); small companies are screwed right from the outset.

The point of regulation, it seems, isn't to protect anyone but established interests. Established interests already have the money and favors they need to hurdle over these stumbling blocks; their startup competitors do not. The more regulation, the harder it is to get into the game, the more security these established interests enjoy in the maintenance of their hegemony.

Regulation is a nice idea, but it's practical purpose seems to be to destroy the very idea of free-market competition. If the government were used to instead punish those whose products irresponsibly harm others (and I do mean the individuals who knowingly produced these products, and not just the company they worked for) you'd get a much fairer form of 'regulation' than is currently in place.

Max

Just look here!

[Giggle Stick]

Perhaps you were looking for

http://barreobliquepoint.org

or

Schraegstrichpunkt.org

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

I definitely side more with paleoconservatives than neoconservatives on domestic policy, but neoconservatives on modern foreign policy (my isolationist views changed, as with many people, following 9/11).

I am not a US citizen, nor do I live in the US. But I am a Muslim of Arab origin living in a Western country, working for a US multinational, and have visited, studied and worked in the US briefly.

Your attitude expressed above is very troubling for me, and for millions others around the world, Arab or not, Muslim or not.

The US may have been isolationist during the Napoleonic Wars, or in the first stages of the Second Word War, but after that, it is anything but isolationist, and every bit interventionist.

In the Middle East specifically, you have the following grievances widely felt by the majority of the population there, as well as others around the world:

• The United States role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unbalanced. There is no even handedness in dealing with the issue. How many UN resolutions are issued against Israel, but unenforced? How many against Iraq/Sudan/Libya are enforced to the letter and then some? How many attempts at resolutions are blocked by the US veto? Why the tolerance for extrajudicial assassinations? Bombing of cities? All in disregard of international laws. This one sided support and applying double standards pisses every reasonable person in the region, in Europe, and much of the world.
• The longstanding American support of authoritarian regimes in the Arab region and in Islamic states. All around the Middle East and in Muslim countries, dictators and totalitarian systems are propped up and supported against the will of the people, as long as US interests are safe. The hell with democracy and freedom if the US wins out. Do you remember Saddam? He was an ally once?
• The indifference to genuine democratic movements (particularly those that have a religious bent). The US is not interested in reform or democracy or freedom.
• The feeling that Washington's policies are driven by short-term economic and geostrategic interests.
• The use of military force as the primary means of establishing democracy.
• the willingness of America to tolerate Islam-bashing at home. Whether it is talk show hosts, generals in the Pentagons, senators, media or whatever, you see it all around. Whether it is Shia Islam in 1979, or Wahhabi Islam now, there is no principled stance, but whoever is opposing us must be wrong, and whatever stated ideology they espouse must be wrong. No matter if we contradict ourselves in a decade or two. Wahhabi Islam or Sunni Islam in general was tolerated adn encouraged when it was a thorn in the side of the USSR.
• The root causes of terrorism are never discussed. There are real grievances from the feeling of injustice that culminated with these atrocities. Whether it is ultra-patriotism, or the fear of being wrong, the debate just does not exist. They are evil and we are good and that is it, no debate, no probing, just psychological intimidation of any attempt for that debate.

To add insult to injury, Muslims were aggravated more by the invasion of Afghanistan and the 5000+ civilian deaths there, and then the invasion of Iraq and the 8000+ civilian deaths there. The initial support or at least neutral attitude to the invasion of Afghanistan, turned to anger and resentment as soon as civilians started to get killed.

So in the end, I really urge you to reconsider. This neo-con policy that has been on the slow cooker for a decade is not the most damaging thing America can do to its image and respect worldwide. It has already rendered the only half effective world forum (UN) as ineffective, and risks setting a dangerous precedence that other world-power-to-be (e.g. China a few decades from now) will use to invade/control/swallow someone else.

I have posted as an Anonymous Coward because this is such an emotional issue for the majority of Americans, and debating this is not even tolerated, hence the anonymity.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[rhuntley12]

He sure did come out against the Swift votes, very quietly and after the desired effect was already in place.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you get all your political education from cartoons?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[UnrefinedLayman]

"If you have to keep a gun locked in a underground vault, why not your cigarette lighter? Way more kids die from that. It's not an issue because it looks less threatening. What we really need is more water bucket control because more little kids die drowning in those things that guns"

Verily, I say unto you, again and again and again...

Guns are kept in a protected state because they are instruments of death and harm. Cigarette lighters are only dangerous to the point of death under specific circumstances, and even then it takes a considerable amount of time to create fatal surroundings with a goddamned cigarette lighter.

Let me put it this way: a cigarette lighter will not kill you if it is lit and held to your face for .2 seconds. A gun, most assuredly, will.

Let me even put it this way: the amount of time it takes for a cigarette lighter to kill you is way, way above the amount of time it takes for a gun to kill you.

That is why cigarette lighters are not kept under lock and key.

As for bucket control, we don't have bucket control because the bucket was not designed to kill or seriously injure humans. It was designed to carry water. It has a function beyond your description; in addition to killing people through drowning, the bucket is used to carry water. It's just like the gun: in addition to killing people through shootings, the gun is used to ... uhhm ... seriously injure ... people ... through shootings ...

Seriously, dude, think your arguments through before you post tripe like this. You can't drown someone with a fucking bucket of water from 50 feet away. You can't burn someone to death with a fucking cigarette lighter from across the street.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

We're talking about the President, not Congress.

There will be no more increase in popular representation under Kerry. Apparently you haven't heard that Bush has signed every single piece of legislation to cross his desk. Kerry will be no different. Hence, representation will remain where it has always been: in Congress, specifically the House.

The only way the legislative record will change is with changes in Congress. The President, whomever that may be, will sign whatever crosses their desk.

You actually think they'll roll back laws? That doesn't happen unless those laws have sunset clauses, and they roll back automatically. How many laws have you heard of being repealed? Not very many, and almost never important ones. You have to actually have broad support to do that sort of thing, support that neither President will have. No, Kerry will do the same thing Bush would: increase government at as many levels as possible. Make it bigger, make it stronger, make it cost a hell of a lot more. Kerry won't be influenced by the public any more than Bush is now. They INFLUENCE the public, not the other way around. Kerry will do whatever his handlers (whoever they happen to be any given week) want. Same with Bush. None of their handlers are ordinary people, hence they will neither cater to the needs of ordinary people, except perhaps as a means to a political end.

People have been kidding themselves that "the next one will be better" for a long, long time. Guess what, government hasn't gotten better, just bigger and more costly. Kerry isn't about to change that trend.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[NutscrapeSucks]

^ Just pointing out that this is a good object lesson on why /. Moderation sucks for political threads.

Sevn "scores a zinger" on jmorris42. So he ends up at 4 Insightful while jmorris is at 1 Flamebait even though jmorris probably had the more well thought-out and well stated post.

(I agree with Sevn, BTW, just trying to show how the peanut gallery gets involved in this.)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

With Kerry, the trend of bigger government will be smaller than the trend of bigger government under Bush. And the kind of government will more likely be in health insurance and education than wars and other corporate welfare. I don't think Kerry will be better, just less bad. I think Clinton is the least bad president we're likely to get, as Truman was a fluke. The system is designed to keep corporations floating atop the natural and human productivity that is American society. With Kerry, those corporations won't get as much as with Bush, all at our expense. And the Democrats are more vulnerable to other progressive political developments, like the increasing interpersonal communications, routing around the corporate media. That undid the Soviet mob empire, and it has the chance to empower Americans also to rebalance the power dynamic.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[bill_mcgonigle]

I even had an AC posting replies to my messages to taunt me about it.

I've seen this too. Remember, don't feed the trolls.

My suspicion is that some people sign up for hundreds of accounts and wait for them to fall into the 90th percentile of new accounts (the newest 10% can't moderate) and then just use them up one by one. Each one will get banned eventually but that's only a speedbump. If they keep getting new accounts there's an infinite supply. If they use anonymous proxies I can't see how to defend against this.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doobian Coedifier]

Hey, don't badmouth pico like that. Republicans are notepad.exe users.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[benzapp]

Did I say Bush was a better man? No.

All I am saying is the democrats had a prime opportunity to take the moral high ground and pick someone above reproach (like Howard Dean for instance).

Instead, they chose a typical, lying politician and now we have the very real possibility of an endless worldwide war against fantastic enemies.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[bigmattana]

Agreed. Of course it is the same people that mod reduntant lib* political comments up who are moderating that comment down.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[zardinuk]

God, have you anything else to say all seeing eye? There is no conspiracy here. Kerry is a flip flopper, the proof is in the pudding. You really reeeeally hate Bush don't you?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[stienman]

I agree.

Saying that slashdot editors have a wide political spectrum is like saying that a goat and a woman represent a wide mammal spectrum.

I don't think I said it was a bad thing. It's somewhat pointless to represent, say, the whig party at this time... :-)

-Adam

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

Since the President can't sponsor legislation, the trend in legislation won't change because of a new President. Because Kerry is as likely as Bush to sign everything that crosses his desk, whether it's a "Republican" or "Democrat" bill, the only thing that will produce change is in Congress.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[IntlHarvester]

I am a Goldwater Conservative...

Hi Pudge -- I've read your journals, and while I don't necessary agree with your politics, your points are substantiated and well-argued.

But, with all due respect, you often seem a little too "close to the action" to be an effective moderator of these kinds of discussions. Regardless of your positions, your online persona seems to be more of the Battlehardened Partisan Flamewarrior type, rather than someone who is trying to constructively frame a debate for others.

So, I'm mainly curious about the tone which is planned for politics.slashdot.org.... Is it just to put the "Super Important Bush|Kerry Blog Talking Point of the Week" in a more prominent place than the journals? Or will the focus be on broader, more constructive issues? (It seems to me that /. discussion tends to be of higher quality the more 'high-level' the issue is.)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

Why would Kerry rubberstamp like Bush? Bush has never had an original or independent idea in his life. Kerry has often led an unpopular vanguard. Especially as the Republicans have mastered Congress through rules and committees, leveraging their bare majority into actual exclusion of Democrats from legislative drafting, I'd expect to see more give and take between those "balanced" government branches.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Micah]

Now I find myself even debating the "in the instance of rape" option.

Can I help? :-)

Just a simple, quick question for you to think about:

Is there any other conceivable circumstance where you would support killing a kid for the crime of his father?

'Nuff said.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

What specific actions has he ever taken that would make you think he wouldn't rubberstamp?

What truly "unpopular" position has he taken? Kerry is the ultimate "go-with-the-flow" politician. He won't veto anything. He might threaten, but he won't actually do it.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but weren't the swift boat guys outted as complete liars,

The answer is no.

The swift vets are also behind the anti-Kerry best seller, "Unfit for Command," which has already forced Team Kerry to retract his decades-old claim that he was sent on an illegal covert mission to Cambodia on Christmas 1968.

Kerry's own handpicked historian, Douglas Brinkley, told the Washington Post over the weekend that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia claim is "obviously wrong," backing up a key claim by the swift vets who say it never happened.

Kerry at times has claimed that he only threw away his military ribbons and not his medals at anti-war protests, but the swift vets use video uncovered by ABC News that shows him saying he did in fact toss his own medals.

Here is another Kerry claim that is withering:

A primary claim against Mr. Kerry by the Swift Boat Veterans is that Mr. Kerry's first Purple Heart -- awarded for action on Dec. 2, 1968 -- did not involve the enemy and that Mr. Kerry's wounds that day were unintentionally self-inflicted.

They charge that in the confusion involving unarmed, fleeing Viet Cong, Mr. Kerry fired a grenade, which detonated nearby and splattered his arm with hot metal.
Mr. Kerry has claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, returned fire, and received his "first combat related injury."
A journal entry Mr. Kerry wrote Dec. 11, however, raises questions about what really happened nine days earlier.
"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky," wrote Mr. Kerry, according the book "Tour of Duty" by friendly biographer Douglas Brinkley.
If enemy fire was not involved in that or any other incident, according to the Military Order of the Purple Heart, no medal should be awarded.

And more:

None of Kerry's three Purple Hearts was for serious injuries. They were minor scratches, resulting in no lost duty time.

Each of these decorations is controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two cases, incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the injuries were caused by his own hand and not the result of hostile fire.

You should also be clear that not all of the veterans who have spoken out and revealed information contrary to John Kerry's claims are members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And then there is John Kerry's testimony before Congress in 1971, which was a masterpiece of political theater in the service of lies.

It is also interesting to note that while you will hear endlessly repeated that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth are funded by rich Republicans which means this:

But public records show that two of its three main backers are longtime GOP contributors: Bob Perry, a Texas home builder who gave $100,000, and Harlan Crow, a Dallas real estate executive, who gave $25,000.... The third major backer is John O'Neill, who put up $25,000 and is co-author of the group's book.

.. what you won't hear is that the seed money was followed up by a lot of people making small individual contributions:

But the swift-boat veterans have vowed to continue their ad campaign and have raised more than $2 million in contributions, a

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Pseudonym]

As anyone who has read The Diamond Age knows, it's only recently in history that hypocrisy was elevated to the status of worst evil.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Peaceful_Patriot]

You hit the nail on the head. The secret to the Republican sucess is their ability to wrap themselves in God and Patriotism. Still, I cannot fathom how even good Republicans can continue to support Bush. He has ballooned the deficit and the size of government. He has made us more insecure and a bigger target while destroying sympathy for our cause overseas. He dragged us into a war which no one wanted but his inner circle, and has cost the lives of tens of thousands of people.

Please, Bush supporters explain why you trust this man to lead the US. Name something which is better today than when he took office.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cigarette lighters aren't really a great example. In the long term, cigarettes kill more people than guns. But then, they kill more people than any other single thing.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Grayswan]

I'm not exactly big on politics, but it looks like a large amount of readers are.

I think the term apolitical is the best description of most /.ers. The reason these threads get so many comments is the political minority tend to be vocal. No suprise there.

I hope this section will take that minority out of the rest of /. It should reduce the number of "offtopic" mods so those points can be used better. But, me and my mod points won't go into the politics section and if nobody gets modded up/down over there, they will, unfortunately, come back to where everybody else is.

Perhaps we could have a bot do random modding over there, just to keep them thinking somebody is listening. Hmmm.....What is that saying about "keeping an idiot busy?"

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

Hmm, I never really considered it the worst evil. There are a lot of things worse than hypocrisy. It's just more annoying than anything else.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[cyberformer]

Unfortunately, the mainstream media doesn't care about facts. They give equal time to the accusations as to the denials, even when the simplest fact-checking can reveal the accusations to be bullshit.

If a GOP front group said the Earth was flat, CNN wouldn't bother to look at a globe and consider the veracity of the claims. They'd report the flat Earth theory as just one side of a controversy. We see this over and over again, on every issue from voting machines to global warming.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Years ago I had a boyfriend who liked to beat me up and rape me. He threatened to kill me if I left. The cops were no help. I eventually found protection going into hiding and sleeping on the floor at a friends house. If that jerk had made me pregnant, which he tried to do, I would have had an abortion. There is no way I would give him an excuse to be involved in my life for the next 18 years.

The point of this is that there are many sides to every story. It is very easy to judge someones decisions when you don't have to live with the consequences of that decision.

Posting AC because this could be your sister!

exclude

[rasz]

great, so i click preferences > Homepage and select exclude Politics .. and id doesnt work, thats neat

John O'Neill

[cyberformer]

Technically, SBVT is funded by oil executives who are very close to Bush. The guy who started it is John O'Neill, a longtime opponent of Kerry from the Nixon days.

This doesn't change your point, of course, but the Kerry / O'Neill story is interesting. C-SPAN has a debate between the two from 1971, which gets to the SBVTs' real motivation for lying. None of them served with him, so they have no idea how he performed in combat. But they do hate him for protesting the war.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[krow]

Timothy is very much a Libertarian, Pudge is very much a Republican. and Jamie is very much a liberal. Democrats are quite scarce. The daily IRC channel is filled with just about every thought one could imagine, and the only agreed upon source is Jon Stewart, who is god.

This section had it coming.

[slashelvis]

Bush - Real men use Windows and MS Word. Only terrorists, hippies, communists, and tax and spend liberals use Linux and vi. Cheny, how do you spell vi?

Kerry - I used a single hardrive to kill 27 Khmer Rouge warriors in Cambodia on Christmas in 1968. I voted for emacs before I voted against it. Teresa - can I have my allowance now?

Nader - Everyone is going to switch to BSD and my campaign is not dying.

Edwards - Doesn't my Mac go with my hair. If you call me Breck girl trial lawyer scum again, I'll sue your ass.

Cheney - Real men still use mainframes. If you say anything about my hair, I will have Halliburton squish you like a bug.

Clinton - I did not have sex with that BSD girl.

Arnold - Redhat is for girlie-man liberals. Real men use SUSE.

Gore - I took the lead in inventing Linux.

SCO - No, we invented Linux. Honest, we did.

Slashdot crowd - Are you calling use hippies ... and what's a girl?

Mac legions - We're hippies too - with snow and brushed metal tie dyed shirts. Using a Mac does not make you ...

Gates - If you unemployed hippies stopped giving your software away for free, someone might actually hire one of you someday. You also might learn what a girl is. Apple, get your programmers working on our next version of the ITunes store, and give me you lunch money too.

EU - We'll take that lunch money, capitalist pig.

Indian slashdotters - We already have the hippies' jobs.

2 Libertarians in the corner. Let's go program some Hurd and smoke a joint.

Anarchist - BEOS rocks. BTW My parents are out of town, Can you Libertarians come over and party.

Buchanan - Sun would stop crumbling if they would just invade Poland.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[mrwonton]

Seriously. This is just asking for a blatent misuse of mod points.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

Your attitude expressed above is very troubling for me, and for millions others around the world, Arab or not, Muslim or not.

Seeing terrorists destroy the World Trade Center was very troubling for me.

The US may have been isolationist during the Napoleonic Wars, or in the first stages of the Second Word War, but after that, it is anything but isolationist, and every bit interventionist.

Yes. And I disagreed with most of it.

The United States role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unbalanced. There is no even handedness in dealing with the issue.

I favor that unbalanced policy. Israel is a recognized state. Palestine is not. Most of the aggression is sparked by the action of the Palestinian terrorists and support from not only the PA, but much of the rest of the Arab world around it, through inaction and direct financial and political support.

Why the tolerance for extrajudicial assassinations? Bombing of cities?

Because I imagine what it would be like if the terrorists were attacking the U.S., and I would support such responses.

The longstanding American support of authoritarian regimes in the Arab region and in Islamic states.

Right, this is something I mostly do not support from our past. Today, I support it some, but only as necessary to support the war on terror and movements toward democracy, which I believe inherently combat the spread of terrorism. It's a dangerous game to play, to be sure, but I don't see any alternative.

For example, we support Pervez Musharaff, who leads -- by most standards -- an authoritarian regime in Pakistan. His support of our war on terror is absoultely critical. We really can't do it without him. We have no real alternative. But I don't support what we did to support the Shah in Iran, because it wasn't, in my opinion, necessary to our security.

The indifference to genuine democratic movements (particularly those that have a religious bent).

When the choice was between an authoritarian and democratic movement and our security interests were not at stake, I did not and would not support a policy of supporting the former over the latter.

The US is not interested in reform or democracy or freedom.

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous overstatement. Many Americans have died to help bring democracy and freedom to the world (most notably in Korea and Vietnam; regardless of what you think about the wrongheadedness of the policies there, the purpose was clearly to fight communism and promote democracy). And today, if we didn't care about reform or democracy or freedom, we would not have 100K troops in Iraq. We'd have left long ago.

The feeling that Washington's policies are driven by short-term economic and geostrategic interests.

That's how it largely used to be IMO, which is why I was more of an isolationist. Now I support long-term geostrategic interventionism that promotes reform and democracy and freedom, which is why I support the war in Iraq.

The use of military force as the primary means of establishing democracy.

Then why have we not invaded Iran? Syria? North Korea? Why did we wait 12 years to eliminate Hussein?

the willingness of America to tolerate Islam-bashing at home

I don't see that at all. Sure, it happens more than I am comfortable with, but it happens less than it does in Western Europe, from what I can tell. Note that in all the examples you mentioned, those people have been mostly chastised by the American public, such as the general who spoke against Islam in the church. His speech was not tolerated at all!

The root causes of terrorism are never discussed

Since when? This whole thing about promoting democracy in Iraq is all about combatting the root causes of terrorism. Here on Slashdot just last week, I recently discussed how there are two ways to fi

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[amerinese]

Most people that claim Adam Smith know little about economics and even fewer have ever read him. I take very strong issue with those that claim Adam Smith very casually. With that said, I think my reaction is driven by the posts on Slashdot, and not any one person's ideology. Adam Smith said invisible hand, but that's because it seemed to meet the interests of everyone at the same time. Smith decided that it was okay that Mr. Capitalist-Bitch can make a buck because he makes society better as a whole and doesn't just benefit himself. So if you see something fucked up, you don't need to go back to economics and say, well, gee, that's what the market decided so it's okay--the market was only justified, the rules were only accepted, because it's supposed to be good for everyone. I think that's the biggest fallacy when people claim free markets. You can't use the market to justify that something is okay. The market is okay because we decided that it appears to usually bring an outcome that's good for everyone--if it brings an outcome we don't like, then we certainly don't have to accept it. It's not sacred, even if some people act like it is.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

Sure. Free markets are a means to a positive end, not the end itself.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[The Islamic Fundamen]

Bah, /. has always taken a Civil Libretarion point of view from what I understand.

Herr Goebbels , is that you?

[jotaeleemeese]

Obviously you don't understand democracy.

It is not that all opinions have the same value, but all people have the same right to express their opinions.

The merit of the opinions are decided by the politicial process, if you are arsed to transform those opinions in policies and actions and if your peers think your opinions can improve society then yes, your opinions will raise above the rest.

Or what is your alternative? That only opinions of experts, annointed ones, the people in the know, are the only ones we should be listening to? Like G. Bush, T. Blair and their incompetent intelligence agencies?

Thanks but no thanks.

US based, US focused?

[jotaeleemeese]

You must be joking.

The bloddy computers may be in the US, but I have seen here many histories from places all around the world, from Malaysia, Mexico to Namibia and Vietnam. Heck, even the UK features for goodness sake.

It is good time that /. recognizes that it no longer serves an US only audience. If we are going to talk about politics I am pretty sure we are going to do it about politics all around the place, because politics is not a parochial affair but a global matter.

As such, the logo slected by /. should reflect this (perhaps two people arguing? or the logo of an assembly? or several heads with comic blurbs representing people thinking?).

Oh, and it is good time the FAQ got rid of the ridiculous comment that this site is US slanted by design. It is not anymore, so such a FAQ is completely out of step with the spirit and the content of the site.

Re:US based, US focused?

[Spy Hunter]

If the Slashdot editors wanted to change the FAQ, they would have already. Slashdot IS US-focused. They are, always have been, and will be for the forseeable future. The editors live in the US and care more about what goes on in the US than in other countries.

Now, a lot of people from other countries come here, there's no doubt of that. People from all over the world read Slashdot and make comments. And that's great. But that doesn't make Slashdot not US-focused. Nor should it. If people from other countries want to come to this US site, that's fine. If CmdrTaco is interested in attracting an international audience, THEN he should start doing all the things you suggest to make Slashdot more international. But time and time again, CmdrTaco has said that he is NOT interested in making Slashdot appeal more to an international audience. He realizes that Slashdot does have an international audience, and he doesn't go out of his way to alienate them, but he doesn't go out of his way to serve them either. They just come. If you think CmdrTaco should change his mind and attempt to make Slashdot an international site, then it's him you should be talking to, not me. I'm just telling you what he thinks, as expressed in the FAQ and other places.

Bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

That may have been the intention initially, reality has completely overruled that ridiculous FAQ. /. is known all around the world in the IT circles, it is good time that /. drops the pretense to be for USian consumption only and embraces its international appeal with gusto.

Re:Bullshit.

[maxpublic]

And that is what we call 'bullshit'. The internet isn't a democracy, and neither is Slashdot. Like it or not the owners determine the mission; and while I (and many others) may complain about the execution of that mission at times, no one in their right mind would challenge their absolute authority, and their absolute right, to administer Slashdot in whatever fashion they see fit.

Again, if that bothers you, start your own site. Then *you* get to determine the mission and purpose. But here and now your opinion on the matter is entirely irrelevent, regardless of what you might think to the contrary.

Max

Yeah great idea.

[jotaeleemeese]

Lets balkanize the Internet even more, lets stop hearing about what others have to say.

Lets be more exclusive, never inclusive.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

pudge is pretty far to the right.

Any Politics?

[MichaelSmith]

Based on the banner image I would suggest this category be renamed US Politics

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Etherael]

So should my thumb be a regulated weapon because I could jam it through your temple and kill you with it in less than .2 of a second? Should the knife hand of my palm be a regulated weapon because I can strike you upward at the back of the neck at a 45 degree angle with intense force and kill you with it in less than .2 of a second?

Should a garbage bag, a mobile phone, gasoline, and a lighter, all be regulated because of the massive amount of destruction that could possibly be wrought using just these four items at any point on the globe from any distance away in less than .2 of a second?

As for specific design, what if I made a 4 inch long piece of metal with the specific usage to jam it into people's temples, would you think it sensible to regulate such a device? would you think it even *possible* to regulate such a device? do you think it's sensible to imagine that every gun ever made was created with the intent to kill another human being?

It's not the item, it's the intent behind the item. Switzerland gets along just fine with their firearms laws...

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[syukton]

They weren't. The two subjects were explicitly mentioned in two distinct sentences, between which is a convenient period.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

For starters, Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Later, his Senate committee investigating Iran/Contra, then the breakup of BCCI. His vote against the $87B Iran blank check. There are many others in his 30 year public career.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[thecoach]

By the way: 12 minutes of your time should change your mind.

Hmm. 5 minutes of your time should show you that Kerry's about as bad as Bush

Still not convinced? Try this: George W. Bush: King of the Flipocrites

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are convinced well enough that we care down here to post about it?!

Alright...just kidding, but seriously - rampant socialism isn't something I would tout as a bonus. I recommend reading "Atlas Shrugged".

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[UnrefinedLayman]

I'm not going to recognize your first comments because they show that you didn't even have the goddamned courtesy to read my entire post. I'm not even looking at my post and know that you've consciously chosen not to address valid points in your rebuttal; ignoring them does not make them go away, so while you may think you're some hotshot with a point, understand that the premise of your reply is unfounded. So go back and try again, then perhaps we can talk about it.

As for "what if I made a 4 inch long piece of metal with the specific usage to jam it into people's temples, would you think it sensible to regulate such a device?" you're goddamned right it would be sensible. In fact, it's already done. And if you doubt me, the next time you get pulled over by the police, pull out your shiv and say "This has the specific usage of being jammed into people's temples to kill them." Bonus points if you're black.

Re:US-centric

[Doc Ruby]

Maybe you need a New Yorker's fist crammed up your Anonymous Coward ass? This is a genuine invitation. Talk is cheap, Anonymous Coward. Let's make a date for some expensive action.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[PMuse]

I have no doubt you have a diverse political spectrum - for an American.

The context here is, of course, coverage of the US election. (Which begs the question of whether it wouldn't be a fine idea to cover at least world politics, if not national politics all over the world, in the new section.)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[jamie]

Yup.

I'm not a typical liberal, perhaps; I support nuclear power, for one thing. I strongly believe in free markets wherever appropriate; I believe America should pre-emptively root out terrorists; and I'm a free-speech absolutist, which, sadly, separates me from both sides of the modern political spectrum.

Hm, maybe we need a Jon Stewart/Daily Show topic...

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[krow]

A topic plus someone to setup a bit torrent of the show's episodes :)

I don't think there are any typical liberals. In some ways pudge can even be liberal in a few cases.

Re:Politics on Slashdot? Never!

[Anonymous Coward]

and if you don't believe it, look at how the moderation went on the parents comment.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[jmorris42]

> So the swifties are telling the truth, and President bush, Dick Cheney,
> etc, are lying?

What Kerry did or did not do in Vietnam is debatable, and that debate is finally getting the coverage it deserves. There is certainly more "there" there than there ever was about Bush's National Guard records and it got covered out the wazoo. Kerry's admission of fraud in Purple Heart #1 certainly shows there is some fire behind the smoke screen they are throwing up.

What isn't subject to debate is what John Kerry did after he returned and joined the Viet Cong Irregulars (Hanoi Jane & Co.), and with full knowledge he was speaking falsehoods and that they were intended to support the cause of an enemy we were in combat against, engaged in several successful propaganda operations, including perjured testimony before the US Congress. Overt actions intended to lend aid and support to a enemy is the textbook definition of treason. It doesn't get more overt than live network TV coverage.

So no, John Kerry is not fit to serve as President. John Kerry isn't fit to sit in the United States Senate. John Kerry should have been given some hard choices; serving a very long prison term as a confessed (on live TV) war criminal, admitting he was lying and being shot as a traitor or rolling over and in a very public forum confess to his crimes and reveal the whole web of lies, naming all of the names and deeds of the VC third column. But no confession that didn't at least get Hanoi Jane & her VC/KGB handler against the wall would be sufficient. Unfortunately his side won the Vietnam War and got to write the official history, pardon the draft dodgers, recast themselves as Heros of the Revolution, etc.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Beats MS word for taking notes.

/me shrugs.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Three Headed Man]

Seriously. This is just asking for a blatent misuse of mod points.

You are incredibly correct. I'm a libertarian, mod me up. He's a conservative, mod him down.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[jmorris42]

> I cannot fathom how even good Republicans can continue to support Bush.

Truth be told I wan't a big Bush supporter in the last cycle. I voted for Mr. Keyes in the primary on the grounds he was the only candidate that had the balls to say exactly where he stood on every major issue and his positions were all grounded on pure Constituitional references.

> He has ballooned the deficit and the size of government.

Agreed. I'm majorly pissed at not only President Bush but with Congress as well. After all, THEY voted on that spending that Bush signed off on. Were it not for more pressing issues of national survival I'd vote a straight Libertarian ticket in November in protest.

> He has made us more insecure and a bigger target while destroying
> sympathy for our cause overseas.

Here I disagree. The French, Germans and Russians were colaberating with Saddam so their support was impossible to secure. Removing Saddam WAS the right thing to do, even Kerry agrees with that (I think that is on even days, on odd days he thinks leaving Saddam was the safer course).

But as for making us a bigger target, in the short term that is probably true. But we had four choices after Sep 11.

1. Apeasement. Turn on Israel, support the PLO, withdraw our presence from the Middle East (allowing Saddam to reannex Kuwait), etc. Totally unacceptable.

2. Ignore the provation. Treat Sept 11 as a law enforcement issue, continue trying to arrest UBL, but don't violate any country's soverignty in the process. The Kerry position, most days. (On days when he eats his Wheaties he gets a little more militant.) Totally unacceptable unless you are a Democrat.

3. Half assed War. Perhaps take on the Taliban, but blow plenty of smoke about how they oppress women, destroy priceless Buddist artwork, etc as well. Never admit US force is actually being used solely for our defense. Turn the whole thing over to the UN bluehelments to fuck up as soon as the shooting slows up to ensure the country becomes a basket case. What would have probably happened had Gore won. He would have declared victory vs terrorism. Then been totally shocked when something else went Foom! during his first term.

4. War. Total, this planet ain't big enough for the both of us, sucks you have elected to leave kinda war. Short term the enemy is going to be fighting for survival and we might take some hits. But if we stay the course we will crush them, leaving us more secure.

As for sympathy for our cause overseas, well they are either our friends and for us (even if they disagree with our current course of action, real friends can disagree) or they aren't. France has NEVER been our friend and never will be, they see us as a threat to French power and culture and would have sought to undermine us even without being in bed with Saddam. But in the end, nothing works in foreign policy like success. If we win they will all be loudly proclaiming how much they always loved us and were rooting (from safely in the rear) for us.

> He dragged us into a war which no one wanted but his inner circle,
> and has cost the lives of tens of thousands of people.

Only cost us a thousand so far, compare to over 50K in Vietnam, which while it WAS a just war and in the US national interest, wasn't nearly as vital as the current struggle. Me, I don't count enemy dead in the equation and as for the innocents caught in the middle in Iraq, that is the price they are paying to be free. If we succeed they won't have died in vain. Freedom is not Free.

The only way to "Win" the war on terror is to change the rules. So long as the Middle East is a cesspool of ignorance, poverty and oppression, with the only bright spot in the region their hated enemy in Israel, UBL and his ilk will find no end of desperate young idiots willing to strap on a bomb. The only longterm solution is to solve the problem at the source and that means yanking those poor bastards at least into

Re:No sanctuary? Anywhere?

[BenHill]

Oh, by all means, I believe that being informed is important. And I, as I believe many who visit this page often, stay informed through the myriad of other sources available. And, yes, of course, politics is everywhere - which is why I referred specifically to American, govenmental politics. Slashdot does such a fine job of covering the politics and issues of the hacker subculture - better than enyone else, I believe. I think the other stuff pretty well covered elsewhere... Ben an yes, li

Is this US-only?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems it is. Because of the US flag. This while /. FAQ says it _is_ US-centric but that people are free to submit non-US(-centric) news. Well, what about politics which ain't US-centric? How this correlates to the US flag in politics.slashdot.org is beyond my imagination.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

Apparently you missed the tide of public opinion he was swept up in regarding Vietnam. He wasn't going out on a limb there, he was going with public opinion.

Iran/Contra was about the limelight. He loved the political attention.

Kerry was hip-deep in BCCI. If you're going there, explain away David Paul. Kerry eventually did the right thing, but nobody knows whether it was for personal or political reasons.

Which $87B payment to Iran? That's a little vague, so if you have a bill title, or even better a bill number, I can comment on this. There are lots of no votes on appropriations. They're not out of the norm most of the time.

There aren't many others from what I've seen. Aside from his limelighting, he mostly hasn't accomplished anything but going with the flow (when he bothered to be on the floor to vote).

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

Typo: Kerry voted against the $87B to Iraq, as he noted (in public, at the time) the $15B blank check for "reconstruction". Not a popular move at the time, or now, as he's been represented as "flipflopping" in an absurd reduction of his actions. That would be a good, recent example of an unpopular stand, but the others are also valid.

Who cares what motivates Kerry to take his stands? You don't have to share his conscience, just live in the country in which he helps make laws. All of the examples I cite show Kerry leading a vanguard constituency against an apathetic majority, in spite of a hostile counter minority. And all are successes in stopping gross misconduct that worked against greater American interest, usually stopping killings and tyranny. And every one was directly opposed to the positions taken by Bush, which have been amply discredited by history. Kerry's many years of Senate leadership are full of other examples - that's what's behind the lies thrown around by those he now threatens, like somehow being "the most liberal Senator". You can backpedal and raise the bar in the face of every example I give, if it helps your rationalize your foregone conclusion. The fact is that Bush is a spokesmodel, and Kerry is a politician. In November, I will choose the politician.

Not good enough

[Orion Blastar]

"to make the world safe for democracy", you see, then the doves (those anti-war) would say "well how exactly are we supposed to make the world safe for democracy by invading Iraq. Who did nothing wrong to us or threatned us in any way?" You have to give them a valid reason. BushCo said "well they have these weapons see, weapons of mass destruction. They could use these WMD against the USA. Our military intelligence says they might have them, so that is proof enough to invade them before they can use them."

Then when we find out, we've been lied to, how does that make us feel?

Now instead you use "Iraq has oil, a valuable resource that we despirately need and will run out soon. Saddam is not a very nice guy and tortures, rapes, and murders his people, but he also controls the money for oil and the oil. Now if we invade and take SH out of power, we can build an oil pipeline and pump out more oil and lower the price of oil. It will generate money into our US economy and help create jobs, everyone will have a share of the loot and plunder."

See how much easier it is when you motivate someone using money or wealth?

Then you use the same reason for Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Pretty soon the middle-east looks like a Monopoly board and you got triple hotels on each square of property. ;)

Re:Not good enough

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

the doves would say "well how exactly are we supposed to make the world safe for democracy by invading Iraq. Who did nothing wrong to us or threatned us in any way?"

Iraq was not a democracy, and may not have had much of a chance of becoming close to a democracy for a few decades if Saddam Hussein had remained in power.

Of course, that's true for several countries. Here's why Iraq: 1) They broke the peace treaty from the last war. If we attempt appeasement, we risk the same fate as Europe did after World War I. The statement "they did nothing wrong to us" could've been tenuously applied to Desert Storm; when they break a treaty so blatantly, we have to do something about it. 2) They're strategically important. They may help us get Al-Qaeda, and they have oil. Better (probably) to get a few corporate execs rich than get Saddam Hussein rich.

Basically, Iraq was a strategically important non-democracy that we may have had to fight sooner or later.

And no WMD's explicitly referenced (though those were the main terms of the cease-fire) and only one reference to Al-Qaeda. It would've been equally valid an argument in the Clinton administration (don't know if they would've accepted it, though).

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any other conceivable circumstance where you would support a life sentence for the victim of a crime?

'Nuff said.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

He was still all for sending tons of money to Iraq. He just disagreed with the implementation. One bad implementation versus another. Still not seeing the good side to this. :)

I care what motivates people, because it has a direct correlation to how the take stands on future issues. Bad people can do good things on the way to fulfilling their agenda.

You really can stop arguing anti-Bush in this thread. I thought I made it clear that I agreed with you on that issue. :)

My point is that I can't support someone who is so clearly a dyed-in-the-wool politician, someone who is so firmly embedded in Washington culture that nothing coming out of his mouth can be trusted. He is first and foremost about his career, which includes catering to those who helped get him there. He's not beholden to the same few special interests as Bush, but he's still beholden, and that will be the direction he takes. The good that may come of his election will not outstrip the bad.

Where did I reverse a previously stated stand I made (to back-pedal)?

My conclusions were developed by delving into Kerry's records and listening to the words coming out of his mouth. I would have to have decided I didn't like him prior to getting to know his record and what he speaks about now for my opinion to be the result of a foregone conclusion.

The fact is, they're both spokesmodels. Kerry has just managed to accomplish more than Shrublet during the course of his career. That's not saying much though.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Doc Ruby]

Sometimes I emphasize my point knowin that this is a public forum, with other readers than the poster to whom I respond. When you asked for *any* example of Kerry going against the flow, and I responded, you backpedaled, wanting more extreme examples. Both Bush and Kerry are creatures of our severly compromised political system. But their differences of degree are important. For you this discussion might have mostly academic or ideological import, but for other readers, especially less experienced voters, it's worth noting that we must make a real choice, between unacceptably bad and kinda not so great - and not voting is a vote for unacceptably bad. I'll take Kerry, and try to fix it in the mix, rather than give up and let Bush destroy what's left of American integrity.

As for Kerry sending money to Iraq, the Congress passed its law specifying that it authorized sending troops to Iraq as necessary to defend America. Since that war wasn't necessary to defend America, everything Bush has done under that law was wrong. Kerry walked a thin line, letting Congress authorize troops, while not authorizing their justification. I fault Kerry for not swinging into action to make that important distinction clear, either then, or now, after WMDs have been dropped as justification. Timing is important: Kerry can still use that to get Congress behind him, as he challenges Bush. Even if he doesn't, he still gave the president power to invade only under justifiable causes. That's an important policy, which goes counter to the last 50 years of presidential wars without Congressional declaration. But I will become as disappointed as you already are, if nothing actually comes of it, and it's just a chunk of gravel paving the slippery slope.

Politics itself is a practical endeavor of building consensus and winning votes, either elections or passing laws. We have to focus on the difference between Bush, a miserable failure in everything he's ever touched except stealing a few elections, and Kerry, a leader who has managed to turn several ideas whose time has come into new orders of power for justice. Nothing so focuses a man's mind as the knowledge that he is to be hanged in a week (according to Oscar Wilde), and the November election must therefore focus ours.

Once we're past the crucial task of passing Bush like a kidney stone, we can keep our focus on Kerry, and find some structural changes to make. Like proportional voting, equal-access open campaign funding, and complete privatization of endorsement-only, nonexclusive political parties. Until Bush is gone, all that other talk is not just pipe dreams, but a distraction from their enabling Bush-riddance that makes them even less likely.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Fjandr]

Apparently you missed the tide of public opinion he was swept up in regarding Vietnam. He wasn't going out on a limb there, he was going with public opinion.

Iran/Contra was about the limelight. He loved the political attention.

Kerry was hip-deep in BCCI. If you're going there, explain away David Paul. Kerry eventually did the right thing, but nobody knows whether it was for personal or political reasons.

Which $87B payment to Iran? That's a little vague, so if you have a bill title, or even better a bill number, I can comment on this. There are lots of no votes on appropriations. They're not out of the norm most of the time.

There aren't many others from what I've seen. Aside from his limelighting, he mostly hasn't accomplished anything but going with the flow (when he bothered to be on the floor to vote).

I'm not sure where I asked for a more extreme example here (this being the exact text of my reply to your examples). Even had I, that still doesn't fit the definition of back-pedaling (to reverse a previous position).

You would be correct in your assumption that this discussion is mostly academic for me. My own personal course is already charted, and I have yet to be given a single decent reason to change it (this isn't aimed at you or this discussion, just a personal point in general).

I wouldn't say Kerry had the opportunity to let or not let Congress approve of the war. I think that's ascribing him too much power. He did vote in favor of the war, however. Every indication shows that he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

My problem with the entire action is that Congress never actually declared war, they simply authorized it. The distinction is profound. Without a declaration, there is no authority to invade another country. In consenting, Kerry joined Bush's camp. We're not out of the woods of the era of wars without Congressional declaration.

I wouldn't say that I'm disappointed. I'm far past that point. I've gotten to the point where I'm cynical to the extreme involving most political issues.

I would say that the concept of building consensus is a rosy ideal at best. Most often it is those of small mind and narrow vision who desire to impose their view on others stooping to dirty tricks, lies, deception, mudslinging, and a variety of other nasty behaviour who are the scum that rise to the top. As far as a practical endeavour, it is really only a method for a minority to take from a majority for (mostly) their own benefit.

Perhaps the biggest problem with politicians is that they rarely keep their promises more than a year. Only if he REALLY wants to be re-elected will Kerry need to appear to give a rat's ass about the individuals who make up the majority of voters for the Democratic block. The appearance is all that's really necessary. Media campaigns will take care of the rest. Even if he completely blows it, the Democrats will still stand behind him and he won't lose by much in 2008.

I have to say one positive thing about Kerry though: He's nowhere near as ignorant as Shrublet. At least I can stomach the thought of hearing him talk. Bush is just all-around painful to listen to.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Etherael]

I did indeed read your entire post, even without devolving to ad hominem attacks, which you have not managed to duplicate in this reply, I thought it was pretty apparent exactly what areas of your post I was addressing with each individual analogy I provided, but seeing as you appeared to miss the point, I'll go over it again.

Your initial point was that the specific purpose for a gun was to kill people, I pointed out that that was not the case, and even if I had made an item for which the specific purpose genuinely *was* to kill people, it would make no difference, you said a police officer on hearing about my ingenious killing device would probably be none to happy about it, I say quote me law, act and paragraph, where it says such a device is illegal.

You cannot do this.

You also said that justification for banning a gun was lethality, the very fact that it *can* be used in order to inflict lethal damage in a very short amount of time, I provided analogies where I substituted a gun for my thumb, the ridge of my hand, I could have provided many more analogies, I assumed however that those that were provided would be sufficient, do you doubt that you can in fact kill someone entirely barehanded in less than a second? Do you doubt that even a moron could do so with something as uncomplex as a screwdriver in the same period of time? Even your supposedly harmless cigarette lighter when used as a solid tool to manipulate critical areas of the human anatomy *could* indeed kill someone in less than a second. That's all I was trying to point out there, the fact remains.

You then said that buckets were not designed to kill or seriously injure humans, and thus bucket control was not necessary, I made the analogy of the 4 inch piece of steel with the specific design to kill humans and the fact that such a device is not regulated, You said telling a cop that you had a knife specifically to kill people would most likely get you in trouble, but that was not what I stated, I was quite clear, and I'll reiterate it a third time, the device itself is not regulated.

Your last argument that was unaddressed was the lethality of firearms from a distance, indeed, you cannot kill someone with a bucket from 50 feet away, but you cannot kill someone with a gun from 10 km away, which you *could* do with a mobile phone, a garbage bag, some gasoline, and a lighter, once again, items that are not regulated.

I think, as a final observation, and I should've really realised this from the parent post, that you're not interested in hearing about all the ways in which you are in fact wrong, your continuous ad hominem sledging just continues to back this up, if you reply to this at all, I predict that this pattern will continue, and hey, that's ok, because you're just proving my point that way.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

just as funny as those who support abortion (including forced) but hate the death penalty...

all things considered it makes more sense to support the death penalty & oppose abortion as the child has done nothing wrong while someone on death row has been through a trial by their peers & have been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....but most people don't bother to really look at things...

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

do you know the number of kids every year who die in small ammounts of water (buckets, less than an inch of water in a tub, etc) or in toilets?

it's a very large amount but hey those don't go band so don't worry about them right?

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[UnrefinedLayman]

"without devolving to ad hominem attacks, which you have not managed to duplicate in this reply"

The man with the most solid of arguments is free to call those who choose to dodge points that which they are.

"Your initial point was that the specific purpose for a gun was to kill people, I pointed out that that was not the case"

Wrong. Guns aren't made to be paperweights. They aren't made to hold open doors. They're not made to be worn as an accessory. They do not filter tap water. They do not make good chairs. They're designed to move little pieces of metal very fast and into people.

"a police officer on hearing about my ingenious killing device would probably be none to happy about it, I say quote me law, act and paragraph, where it says such a device is illegal."

Law is not only that which is written down by legislators. Have you ever heard, "Intent is 9/10ths of the law?" If I carry a steak knife around with me, there's no issue if I intend to cut steak with it when I get home. If I carry a steak knife around with me for protection, or so I can rob a liquor store, then intent comes into play and there is a lot of leeway in legality. What all laws come down to is how the judge and/or jury interpret the law, interpret your actions, and interpret your intent.

So to better inform you, let's recap: if you cut a four inch piece of metal out in shop class to wedge under your front door to keep it held open, there's no issue. If you do the same so you can carry around a shiv, then there can be an issue. It's sad that you see law so cut and dry--sad only because that's not how it is.

"You cannot do this."

Indeed, you can't.

"I provided analogies where I substituted a gun for my thumb, the ridge of my hand, I could have provided many more analogies, I assumed however that those that were provided would be sufficient"

And like I said, the ridge of your hand isn't controlled, nor is a cigarette lighter, nor is a bucket, because of intent, among other things. It's like this (and as a slashbot I'm sure you'll get this one): Kazaa and other P2P networks are not considered illegal because in addition to facilitating the transfer of copyrighted works they have substantial non-infringing uses. Get it? Your hand has a substantial non-infringing use, like cracking its own knuckles, opening jars of pickles, holding a steering wheel, etc. A cigarette lighter can be used to light, of all things, cigarettes. Cigars. Fireplaces. Pilot lights. They can be used for illumination. They can be used to start controlled fires. Sure, you could slingshot a lighter into someone's head, or maybe drop it off a tall building onto someone's head, but are we then going to outlaw lighters? What if you dropped a rock? Are we to outlaw rocks?

The answer, as you already know, because I can see glimmers of understanding beginning to form already, is No . Resoundingly No . We don't stop lighters or rocks, because they have uses outside being dropped on peoples' heads. Instead, we deal with the intent of a person. We deal with the state of mind of the person when they dropped the lighter or put it in a slingshot.

You don't seem to realize it, but we do the same with people who shoot others with guns. If someone accidentally shoots another person, then we will let them off with a much lighter punishment than if they had malicious intent. But the punishment for shooting and killing someone accidentally is much higher than if you accidentally dropped your lighter and killed a passerby while peering over the edge of the Empire State Building. Why is that?

The reason that is the case is because lighters are not inherently life-threatening; guns are. Lighters are designed to burn things, not be dropped on people. If you drop your lighter, it was an accident because you took reasonable precautions not to drop it (i.e., you held onto it, b

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

AC: Your attitude expressed above is very troubling for me, and for millions others around the world, Arab or not, Muslim or not.

P: Seeing terrorists destroy the World Trade Center was very troubling for me.

AC: No doubt it was troubling. But that is not the issue we are discussing at all. We are discussing how on earth does this justify interventionism, invasion, ...etc.

AC: The US may have been isolationist during the Napoleonic Wars, or in the first stages of the Second Word War, but after that, it is anything but isolationist, and every bit interventionist.

P: Yes. And I disagreed with most of it.

AC: Don't understand. Disagreed with interventionism? Or isolationism?

AC: The United States role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unbalanced. There is no even handedness in dealing with the issue.

P: I favor that unbalanced policy. Israel is a recognized state. Palestine is not. Most of the aggression is sparked by the action of the Palestinian terrorists and support from not only the PA, but much of the rest of the Arab world around it, through inaction and direct financial and political support.

AC: You got it wrong. First, having a state or not is not the issue. The issue are they second class citizens or not. The blacks in South Africa were within the same state under apartheid. They were oppressed. The US supported them. Why not be balanced then and deal evenly in a similar case?

As for terrorism, some of it is so, but most of it is legitimate armed resistance. The world community and international law has defined the Palestinians as people under occupation, and that Gaza and the West Bank are occupied territories (notwithstanding the revisionsim of Bush and his neo-con administration). Moreover, Zionism was ruled to be a racist concept. Just look at the fact of rights of non-Jews vs. Jews in the same state and try to reconcile that with what the US (used to be/is) about.

When there was hope for the Palestinians for a settlement, there was no terrorism. After Oslo and Madrid accords things were going relatively smoothly. We saw Jews and Arabs shaking hands and exchanging jokes. However, when ultra right wingers (like those you support) of the Likud came to power (Benjamin Netanyahu) started backtracking on the land for peace deal, and taking a hard stance, the Palestinians lost hope and some of them resorted to armed resistance again, as well as some terrorism. When Barak was elected, he was hesitant and could not make up his mind what to do, follow the Labor Party historic peace deal, or Netanyahu and the Likud? Suddenly Sharon made his infamous visit to Al Aqsa mosque, and the second intifada broke lose, after 10 years or relative calm. It has been going down hill since then, with each side playing tough and tougher. Put it into perspective and you will see it as it is.

AC: Why the tolerance for extrajudicial assassinations? Bombing of cities?

P: Because I imagine what it would be like if the terrorists were attacking the U.S., and I would support such responses.

AC: And that is exactly how Israel wants the US to think! That it has nothing to do with injustice, inequality, land grab, and it is 'all about terrorism'. Think about it in another way. Suppose a minority (say Native Americans or African Americans) start to agitate. They are citizens of the USA. How would Whites react if the US governemnt starts sending missiles in choppers to kill the leaders? No trial, no defence, no charges, no judge, no jury. Just kill them because they are labelled as terrorists! How about families and neighbors bombed along side the alleged bad guys? That is exactly what is happening there, but you (and many Americans) don't want to see it this way, since it would cause a moral dilemma.

AC: The longstanding American support of authoritarian regimes in the Arab region and in Islamic states.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

No doubt it was troubling. But that is not the issue we are discussing at all. We are discussing how on earth does this justify interventionism, invasion, ...etc.

But it is the issue, in regard to how my views changed. I used to think we could be isolationist, should be isolationist. Now I see that doesn't work.

Don't understand. Disagreed with interventionism? Or isolationism?

I disagreed with both. Now I still disagree with interventionism as I did before -- only for the sake of national security -- but not with isolationism.

You got it wrong.

No, I certainly did not.

When there was hope for the Palestinians for a settlement, there was no terrorism.

Arafat had a chance for a settlement, and he rejected the offer and called for the intifada instead. There was a chance for settlement, and Arafat chose terror.

Suddenly Sharon made his infamous visit to Al Aqsa mosque, and the second intifada broke lose

It's quite clear that the intifada was ready to go before this, and would have happened without it, and that Arafat walked away before this happened anyway. With Arafat walking away, a renewal of violence from the Palestinians was inevitable.

And even if none of that is true, come on, you think Sharon going into a mosque during visiting hours justifies terrorist attacks in response? I don't think so.

Put it into perspective and you will see it as it is.

Funny, I was going to tell you the same thing.

Think about it in another way.

No. If you use terror, then I have absolutely no interest in trying to see things any other way. Look, if you punch me in the face because you are hungry, you think I am going to want to give you a slice of bread? No. Sorry, I just won't care. Stop using terror, and I might care. That's the way it is.

Suppose a minority (say Native Americans or African Americans) start to agitate. They are citizens of the USA. How would Whites react if the US governemnt starts sending missiles in choppers to kill the leaders?

If "to agitate" means "intentionally killing hundreds of innocent citizens, including women and children, with suicide bombs," then I imagine most people in the US would support it. I would.

Also wait till Musharaff turns into the next Noriega or Saddam or Bin Laden, though this time he has nukes and his arch enemy has them too.

Yes, that is a danger, though an unlikely possibility. But do you have an alternative? Didn't think so. We had to go into Afghanistan; we needed Pakistan's support. Forget about what happened before, the last 30 years, for a moment. Regardless of the past, we must deal with the present when it happens.

And the results on the ground say otherwise.

No, they do not. Results are to be interpreted, they don't say anything themselves.

Wake up and see it for what it is, and not for what you want it to be.

Back at you.

Even the sanctions against Saddam did not do the desired effect, and hurt the people who now loath you more and more because of their dead children, then an invasion.

So you're ... agreeing with me? We tried other means first, despite you saying force was our primary means. Those means failed miserably -- I agree entirely -- and so we used force. And now Iraq is struggling, but poised for a great victory as it transforms itself into a democracy.

Even Bush Sr. did not favor an invasion when he had the opportunity in 1991.

Because he was fooled into thinking that Hussein could be neutered by what you admit was a failed policy!

Bush would have invaded one or more of Iran/Syria/Sudan

That's entirely unrealistic, sorry. You expose a bit of ignorance here, because th

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Etherael]

I started off by saying that regulation is stupid because the problem is intent and not the object. You just start harping on this point last post and prove exactly what I was initially trying to say, as well as taking a stack of stuff out of context and manipulating it to suit your purpose, and indeed fulfilling my earlier prediction about your continuous ad hominem sledging, you're obviously COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of engaging in an actual debate, so I'm just going to have some fun with you, because I see no other reason to continue this thread.

You are a fuckwit, that felt good, thankyou, and goodnight.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[UnrefinedLayman]

And like I said, very clearly, it is both about intent and the item. Go back and read again about how we punish people who act foolishly with a gun more than we punish people who act foolishly with a lighter. It is not only intent.

I mean, how many times do I have to say this? You can't regulate people; you can deal with the consequences of their actions, though. If we only dealt with the consequences of guns we would have a lot of dead people and a lot of people in prison. So we instead regulate guns and deal with people afterward.

This makes so much sense it must hurt you. We can either have a shitload of dead and imprisoned people with free-wheeling guns for everyone, or we can have a few dead people, a few imprisoned people, and limited access to guns. Wow, who would have thought that dealing with not only the intent of people but the object itself would work?

"You just start harping on this point last post and prove exactly what I was initially trying to say"

I think you're a little confused. You seem to speak of intent only with the mind of the person. I speak of intent with the mind of the person, the object's intended use, and the intent of legislators. If you doubt me, you said it yourself:

"It's not the item"

You ask questions about whether we should regulate your thumbs or your hands. The answer is no. It sounds like whatever point you were trying to make could be wrapped up as "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," which is obviously wrong.

"as well as taking a stack of stuff out of context and manipulating it"

We call that "quoting," and if the best you can do as a rebuttal is say "(sniff) the bad man doesn't understand me!" then you're a long fucking way from Kansas. Don't try to blame your lack of standing on me. If you have something to say, say it, prove it, or shut the fuck up. Lying is unbecoming.

"indeed fulfilling my earlier prediction about your continuous ad hominem sledging"

"I am right; you are wrong."

"No, you are wrong because x y z."

"QED."

I mean really, come back again when you have a fucking argument. Did you miss my previous post where I said the same fucking thing? Do you really, honestly believe that if Einstein had said "And Newton was a fucking idiot for coming up with the crap he did" that he would have totally invalidated his theories of relativity, and even further somehow prove Newton right? Do you really believe that if someone has a sound argument but calls you an idiot (which, as you know, I believe you to be) that your crap suddenly becomes true? If the Bible says rabbits chew cud, and I say to the person that quotes the scripture "Only an idiot would think rabbits chew cud" that suddenly the Bible is right and rabbits really do chew cud?

More to the point, can you even answer any of these, or would you prefer to continue sticking your fingers in your ears, a la Cecil?

"you're obviously COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of engaging in an actual debate"

I've yet to see you successfully challenge anything I've said. I'm (and have been) actively engaging you; you're attempting to dismiss me without even making an argument. As has been said: Kettle; thou art black!

"You are a fuckwit"

So by your reasoning, my arguments are all now correct. QED. Wow, your way of thinking is easy!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Etherael]

just about every single thing you just said was inaccurate, and the vast majority of said mass of error was not just inaccurate but *directly* opposed to fact, I'm not going to waste my time with a rebuttal, it's an exercise in common sense.

You are still a fuckwit, that is still fun.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[UnrefinedLayman]

That's a great cop out. Used millions of times throughout history but never as much as on the Internet.

"You're dumb. Everything you said was wrong. But as I'm reading and repeatedly answering you, I have to maintain my very high standards of Internet discourse. And even though in the space of these words I could have easily shown you how wrong you are, because, as I've said, everything you said was wrong so truly I would need only pick out one item to make my point, I won't do it. It is beneath me to do so. I wouldn't want to waste my time. Even though I just took the time to read your reply, click the Reply button, put in a reply and submit it. Fuckwit."

It's amazing I've haven't succumbed to the black hole of your mind, where anything can go but nothing of use can ever leave.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Etherael]

I never said it was beneath me, I just said it was an exercise in common sense, utterly obvious to any but the most hopeless moron (i'm talking about you here, jim) as to how one would go about dismantling any of your remaining flimsy and oft repeated yet previously handled illogical conclusions, and i'm not really up for repeating myself except to point out that yes indeed, you *are* a fuckwit.

as for your entire little preamble about how we know it's a copout to opt out of a pointless argument on the internet, well hey, that just *PROVES* that I'm desperately trying to avoid your herculean wit, because everyone knows how thoroughly useful the vast majority of online debate is, and how it never sinks into the restating of previously addressed and disproven trivia regurgitated by the mentally handcapped.

I guess I got "served" ;)

You're still a fuckwit, QED. (yawn)

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess we are going in circles, and your opinion is made up already.

I don't think you are willing to reconsider your views, and see things from an non-US non-Neo-con perspective, as most of the rest of the world see it.

This is typical of the Imperial mindset, and historically they have paid for it for the rest of the world hating them, rather than potentially admiring and respecting them

The world will be a darker, sadder, more dangerous place in the future for my children, because a maniac was able to drag a superpower into overreacting ...

Sad ...

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

Well, I guess we are going in circles, and your opinion is made up already.

And yours isn't?

I don't think you are willing to reconsider your views

And you are?

Jeez. Could you be less obvious about how hypocritical you are?

The world will be a darker, sadder, more dangerous place in the future for my children, because a maniac was able to drag a superpower into overreacting ...

Only if you allow your children to wallow in misery instead of going out to make it a better place for them. If that is what most Arab Muslims do, then yes, the world will be a darker, sadder, place. Stop whining and get off your ass and change your part of the world for the better.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is easy for you to dismiss me (and most Arabs and Muslims) as hypocrites, and accusing me of wallowing in misery, and failing to change our part of the world.

If you stop being interventionist, and supporting the dictators and despots in our region, there may be hope in us changing it. But your continued support of the Saddams of the past and future.

Want a recent example? The mad colonel Qaddafi is still in power after he cried uncle and gave up his WMD programs (who were on the drawing board). He is tamer now for sure, but only froom the US point of view.

How about the poor Libyans living under him for 30+ years? Did they get the freedom and democracy you neo-cons preach? No, the oppressive dictator is still there. There are no political parties, no elections. What hope is there for them?

The US is the one who is hypocritical and selfish, to the detriment of others.

Another point, if we do not change our mind (and most of the world agrees wit us on US foreign policy being bad), and 'wallow in our misery' as you say, then this only affects us, and no one else. But your foreign policy affects the rest of the world and future generations negatively.

Stop meddling!

Listen to the rest of the world!

Don't just be a hated empire!

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

It is easy for you to dismiss me (and most Arabs and Muslims) as hypocrites

No, only you. And yes, it is easy, because you were accusing me of the same thing you were guilty of. That's the definition of hypocrisy, and that you displayed it so clearly made it very easy for me to call you on it.

and accusing me of wallowing in misery, and failing to change our part of the world.

That's not easy, but I stand by it. Terrorists are created because of their circumstances, and their circumstances are primarily the result of their own people and leaders. No doubt the US and Russia and others have contributed to it, but these problems did not begin in the wake of World War II. They are far older.

How about the poor Libyans living under him for 30+ years? Did they get the freedom and democracy you neo-cons preach?

I am no neo-con, as I said at the outset. I agree with them on some things, but only someone who does not understand neoconservatism (or, perhaps, does not understand other brands of conservatism) would call me that. I don't consider it an insult or anything, it just weakens your case by being so imprecise.

That said, yes, the hope is that they will get this freedom. You want it to happen today or tomorrow? You can want that, but to complain about it in reference to my perspective is fruitless, since I am taking the long view. My view is that democracy for the Middle East is something that will come about over the next few decades, not next few days or weeks or months.

Another point, if we do not change our mind (and most of the world agrees wit us on US foreign policy being bad), and 'wallow in our misery' as you say, then this only affects us, and no one else.

See, that's the problem: it's not remotely true. When your miserable people come and kill other people in Russia, Spain, Southeast Asia, America, etc. ... sorry. That is why I referenced 9/11. I would have perhaps believed that years ago. I don't believe it anymore. It does affect us, it is our business.

But your foreign policy affects the rest of the world and future generations negatively.

That is a personal prediction of the future. It is not a fact, it is an opinion. And I disagree with it.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, only you.

Not only me. You are the one who described Muslims as wallowing in misery, and wretched people.

And yes, it is easy, because you were accusing me of the same thing you were guilty of. That's the definition of hypocrisy, and that you displayed it so clearly made it very easy for me to call you on it.

There is a big difference. You support your neo-con government going and invading another country, and justifying it as a defence against terrorism, when a large percentage of Americans objected to it, and most of the world too.

No matter what I said or would say, I would not condone nor agree to Bin Laden bombing America, or any Arab goverment fighting America (unless it invades, then it is self defence and resistance).

That's not easy, but I stand by it. Terrorists are created because of their circumstances, and their circumstances are primarily the result of their own people and leaders. No doubt the US and Russia and others have contributed to it, but these problems did not begin in the wake of World War II. They are far older.

Again, you fail to see the what it is, and just do simplistic projection of America's society. No one could have opposed Saddam (or Qaddafi or ...) and got away with it. The same mistake the Americans made with the former Eastern Bloc. They blamed the oppressed people under brutal totalitarian systems for not revolting. They can't revolt! They will be annihlated.

That said, of course the people share the blame, but expecting them to change it easily is naive.

And terrorism is a complex phenomena, and not only created because of oppressive governemnts. The fact that terrorism is channeled to a superpower thousands of miles away tells you that the problem is not only local, and that the brewing hate has its reasons. Yes, again, the local rulers do share the blame in it, and not only America or colonial powers (past and present).

I am no neo-con, as I said at the outset. I agree with them on some things, but only someone who does not understand neoconservatism (or, perhaps, does not understand other brands of conservatism) would call me that. I don't consider it an insult or anything, it just weakens your case by being so imprecise.

I do not care much about what neo or paleo conservativism says about America's domestic policies, or what they will do about Social Security or Education, hence I did not comment on any of that.

You said you agree with the neo-cons on foreign policy, and you supported the invasion of Iraq, and see it simplisticly as way to combat terrorism (though it is quite the opposite), and hence I objected. What you do in your own country is of no concern of mine. What you do to the rest of the world is my concern.

So whether you are a card carrying neo-con or not is not the issue. Supporting their aggressive imperialistic foreign policy -- under whatever moral pretense -- is the issue.

That said, yes, the hope is that they will get this freedom. You want it to happen today or tomorrow? You can want that, but to complain about it in reference to my perspective is fruitless, since I am taking the long view. My view is that democracy for the Middle East is something that will come about over the next few decades, not next few days or weeks or months.

You assume that the long view as you call it will straighten things up. That is a false assumption. Britain tried the same thing, and it made the entire region fall into chaos after WWI and WWII.

There was democracy in the region. Most countries had parliaments and political parties with a thriving opposition. It was no utopia, but it was destroyed after a series of coup d'etat by the military in the wake of foreign powers meddling with the region. Britain tried to install a series of Kings in Syria, Iraq, Jordan. The result is only one survives (Jordan), the rest were killed or ousted by military dictators. The same happened in Egypt, Sudan,

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

Not only me. You are the one who described Muslims as wallowing in misery, and wretched people.

No, I did not. "Wallowing in misery" was not referring to Muslims, but to people like you who would rather blame other people for their problems instead of fixing them. And I did not use the word "wretched" or imply anything remotely similar at all . You're lying, which means this discussion is over.

If you apologize, I will consider replying again, but life is too short to bother with people who are this dishonest.

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[kbahey]

Sorry for that 'wretched' thing, a memory slip. You said 'miserable', and I confused it. It was not a lie, but a mistake. Believe it or not, up to you.

Easy for you to characterize people who are interfered with, and invaded, and meddled with as simply blaming others, and easy for you to tell people to fix their problems.

I am sad to see that among educated professionals who are in a position to know better, there is this neo-con mentality of the a "white man's burden" to 'civilize the savages' or 'save the heathen'.

Anyway, the discussion is over, as you said. Sad ...

Re:Funniest. Summary. Ever.

[pudge]

I accept the apology.

Easy for you to characterize people who are interfered with, and invaded, and meddled with as simply blaming others, and easy for you to tell people to fix their problems.

No, it's not easy. But I feel a need to intervene because I see no other choice, and you've not lessened my concerns any except to assert it is not my concern, when I believe that it is.

I am sad to see that among educated professionals who are in a position to know better, there is this neo-con mentality of the a "white man's burden" to 'civilize the savages' or 'save the heathen'.

You're not seeing any of that in what I am saying, except what you choose to put there. For some people there is, surely, but not for me.

What you might be seeing in what I say is my belief that people in the Middle East are largely poor and in many ways oppressed, and that many of them feel like their culture and religion are being subverted and supplanted by the West, and that these factors are all contributing to terrorism. But this is not a belief unique to conservatives or liberals, or even the West. I hear it all the time from people in the Middle East, and I think you hinted at them as well.

Bottom line: I am not out to civilize or save anyone, I am out to give them opportunities to make their own way in this world, because the primary impetus for terrorism is the lack of such options.