Slashdot Mirror
White House: No Kerry Supporters at IATC Meeting
An anonymous reader writes "Time Magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election. A Bush spokesman admits it's true: 'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,' says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Employees of Qualcomm and Nokia are among those who have been removed from the commission."
Seriously, these are the same folks who were willing to commit an act of treason to get back at someone who dared speak the truth concerning the blatent lies the President used to lead us into this mess in Iraq. Why should anything these people do surprise us anymore?
Everyplace you look in Bush's record, you'll see a constant pattern of lies, deception, stupidity, selfishness and tribalism. Bush Jr. has never, ever been about what's best for the United States or its people. Americans will be paying for this particular mistake for decades to come -- anyone who thinks that the seeds of anti-Americanism and economic ruin that these arrogant, short-sighted little men have planted won't come back to haunt us is a fool.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The current administration values loyalty over all else.
The current administration brooks no dissent.
The current administration carefully scripts, stages and choreographs virtually every major public event.
The current administration is unwavering in their conviction and utterly unapologetic for their actions.
This is par for the course, folks. If you want a seat at the table, you're going to toe the line, period.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Ya know... I don't get into political stuff much, but this shit has. got. to. stop.
It really *does* seem as if we're becoming more Facist every day (look it up, it's not a troll)
Sounds like Nokia isn't putting up with this. Their VP is totally correct- an international meeting on telecom is not a partisan matter.
Bush is biting the hand that feeds him and the Republican party. He will change his mind once the telecom companies start threatening to close their pocketbooks. If not, this will only help the Democrats in the future.
It's not really all that new, but this is on a scale that I haven't witnessed firsthand before. I mean you cannot tell me straight faced that Clinton didn't make any politically motivated appointments, but he stuck to mainly well political offices. The people removed in this case were clearly experts in the field and their knowledge and experience could have actually helped the committee make useful decisions instead of the usual monkey at a dartboard ones they will inevitably end up making.....
Monstar L
The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.
I'm not up on US politics, is this a usual thing done by most parties when in government or is this something strange?
Yes, this is a very strange thing to be happening in the United States.
It is a direct violation of the First Amendment, as it seeks to punish individuals in their professions in a direct retaliation for participating in a political process.
This will lead directly to employers checking your history of political donations before they hire you. If you can't attend telecom standards meetings, we'll just hire someone who can.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
America needs to pick the most qualified, most brilliant engineers it can to represent at these meetings. You can be the most qualified person in the nation on telecom, but if you supported Kerry, you dont belong according to the WH. It not even like this group manages aid or something, they fucking design specifications.
Politics is beyond ugly, its now officially fugly.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
The shame is that the President is removing the people who *should* have input into this sort of thing based on personal retribution.
This isn't an area where partisan politics should play any role whatsoever. The message being sent here is that if your company wants to remain "in the game" with the competition, you'd better fall in line and support the President and vote GOP. It's nothing less than the use of the executive power that We the People entrusted the President with to force compliance with the GOP party line. This isn't how democracy operates.
The sad thing is that you can't seem to see this.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
George Washington knew what he was talking about when he advised against political parties in his farewell address.
Is this diplomatic work? I think you are stretching this quite a bit. These individuals actually represent the companies they work for, i.e. Nokia, Qualcomm, and not the "United States" at these meetings. No fair minded person thinks these individuals speak for the U.S. Government. It is one thing to reward those that support you, but it is another to punish those that do not. That is not a democratic process.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Before you rant on in the lastest bash-Bush thread, ask yourself honestly: is this any different?
It is, and here is why: Members of the Cabinet, Ambassadors, Judges, etc. are all offices that the President is given the power to fill by the Consitution (provided the Senate gives its consent).
Deciding who is allowed to attend a non-political, non-partisan industry event based on their history of campaign contributions is not a power given to anyone by any law of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: this violates amendment one of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees U.S. citizens the freedom of speech.
President Bush can certainly appoint whom he likes to those offices which the law allows him to, but he cannot "punish" people who supported his political opponents by denying them access to events for no other reason.
The wonks are the people who actually know how to make policy -- know what options are on the table, which of them might actually work, which have been tried before and didn't work, and so forth. In immense detail. If you read /., you are probably a wonk (or at least could be a wonk -- if you have a life, you aren't a wonk).
Hacks know one thing and one thing only -- politics -- and they do it 24/7. They are the kids who spent high school impeaching each other on the student council, and then got into college and did the same thing in student government. Now they have a real government to play with, and play they will. Nothing else matters to them. If you know someone who merely claims to read /., they are a hack.
The hacks have triumphed because of the "permanent campaign" that was brought about by C-SPAN and the cable news channels. If a politician thinks that it is vital to respond to everything within a single news cycle, they by necessity surround themselves with hacks -- wonks actually have to spend time learning things and thinking things through! Can't have that now, can we?
"All successful systems accumulate parasites" -- Hal Hixon
Mr. Clanton was referring to the possibility of taking legal action against Sinclair for violating campaign advertising laws (the reasoning was that Sinclair's "documentary" could be construed as an in-kind donation to the Bush campaign, and therefore illegal).
The Bush administration, on the other hand, is punishing U.S. citizens for exercising their first amendment rights.
Consider the alternative - Send people who dislike the president out to do diplomatic work?
Or you could just send the best people to do the job.
Remember the media fiasco when Powell and President Bush merely made conflicting statements?
Yes, because they were discussing whether or not the country was going to !@$@!# go to war!
It is simply not a good idea to look divided on issues when speaking on the international stage.
From the article:
Yes, because if you give a paltry $250 to a Presidential campaign, you're going to create an international fiasco when you say that VoIP should have access to traditional 911 systems, or something like that. The President isn't going to be making any pronouncements from on high about these issues, so let's not get all breathless.
Let's call this for what it is: an administration that values loyalty first and actual job performance second, and has the time and energy to be really childish and petty about the issue.
Another word for that? "Pathetic"
-jdm
Yes, perhaps important to get certain Homeland Security information out to the public. No, not important to increase the celebrity of Tom Ridge. Not a valid goal.
These twisted motherfuckers just keep getting more brazen.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
What are you smoking, dude?
This is the administration barring *individuals* based on thier polital past - it has nothing to do with thier competence with respect to a technical comittee.
Mayhap the Administration is ensuring that this "International" comittee is going to choose "standards" that are biased to favour Corporate America? Naw, couldn't be...
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
it's a matter of degrees... and bush's needle is pegged in the red zone.
it wasn't always this way, just a few years ago our political parties actually had conventions that weren't foregone conclusions.
you are right that the trend is towards more consolidation and homogenization of "the message" but i do personally feel that bush takes it to the next level. with clinton you didn't see things like the jeff gannon incident or the armstrong williams incident. bush went so far as to have the public sign sworns statements that they were going to vote for bush in 2004 or they wouldn't be allowed in to his political rallies, something that has never before happened.
so don't tell me it's just business as usual.
My question is, what exactly do they have to do to get an exception to Goodwin's law passed? I mean, so far we've got documented evidence of:
- Internal travel documents/no fly lists ("Transportation safety")
- Spying on your neighbor programs ("Information Awareness")
- Arresting people and holding them with due process ("The War on Terror")
- ...and occasionally torturing them (ditto)
- ...that sometimes leading to them dying (oops)
- Supression of dissent ("Free Speech Zones")
- Orwellean double-speak (see above)
- Supression of opposition (Locking the opposition out of the legislature)
- Arresting opposing party candidates weeks before the election (Clark & Badnarik)
- Manipulation of the media (including paying analysts to "support" their policies)
- Fibing to start wars
Ask yourself this: do you suppose the average Hanz Six-pack circa 1940 thought his country was anything like the country we now can't discuss without invoking Goodwin's law?Personally, I think they've earned an exemption...
--MarkusQTraditionally speaking these kinds of relatively low-level technical spots -have- been filled without a whole lot of view toward political affiliation. Clinton appointed plenty of Republicans to positions like this. Bush Sr. appointed plenty of Democrats, and so on. This isn't a function of poison, it's a function of pettiness.
I don't think it matters what side of the spectrum you call home. This isn't good for America.
Mod this one up! It's a goddamn pity that the United States has forgotten the brilliance of its Founding Fathers, and is rapidly turning into an even uglier pack of self-serving, corrupted aristocrats than those atrocious Whigs and Tories of 18th and early 19th century England. Washington only had to look across the Atlantic to see what Britain's early party system was doing there.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Unfortunately, all of these apply to any of the previous administrations that I can think of. Insert "The Clinton Administration" in there if you want. It all remains valid. Or Reagan.
How is this flamebait moderators?? Please try to remember that "flamebait" doesn't mean something disagrees with your personal political viewpoint.
It is flaimbait because it is inflamitory, as well as incorrect. Who coined the term "vodoo economics" in regards to Reagan's "trickle down" theories? I'll give you a hint. They later gave him a job as the Vice President of the United States. They didn't have the "toe the line or you are fired" stance. They respected opinions they didn't agree with and could overlook differences of opinion.
Also, posting an opinion with no supporting evidence that is nothing other than "you are wrong because I think so" is flaimbait. A valid discussion requires examples - I presented of a policy disagreement that was tolerated, where was the troll's example? Oh, they didn't support their postition because they know it is wrong, but they don't like the opinion they were responding to, so they attacked it.
Learn to love Alaska
It seems to me that this is blatantly trampling on the basic right to support whichever candidate you choose. Once people start being punished by officials in any way for who they supported in the election then our society can no longer be considered free, as we no longer have the freedom to support a candidate without fear of repercussions from the winner should our candidate lose. This is the first step on the move to a one-party "democracy." It seems that the "approved dissent" as you put it has been reduced from choosing between Democrats and Republicans to choosing between Moderate and Conservative Republicans.
Got anything harder than beer?
Sigs are for the weak.
More the framework than either of those. Really, the problem seems to be one of scaling to me. (as a computer person) We've got a system that was designed to elegantly run with approximately 10^ 7 or 10^8 users, and we're at 10^9 users + now. Thus our processes are all scaling badly. We're having problems with overload on certain portions, and underwork in others. When you get a system as big and complex as ours is, and resources are no longer as abundant as they were in the beginning, management of the processes and rules aligning said system becomes much more complex. This would not be that much of a problem if we were training people to be effective at designing and managing infrastructure and then electing them to office based upon the criteria of, "How good are you at making our society work well." Instead our criteria are rather.... skewed. I don't give a damn whether someone was a crackhead when they were 25. Can they make good decisions? Generally, the answer is 'No, but they have a good face for focus groups.'
And if you really look at American politics, the only people willing to take the mudwar that is a modern campaign are the most driven and focused upon a single goal. This is not necessarily the best trait in a leader of 200 million people, let alone 'the free world,' a title our President has made obsolete.
I'm so angry at the way our politics work I can't even think about it.
My little site.
Wow. You really didn't RTFA, or you're just a shameless liar.
People are being purged from a completely non-partisan position. This is for a technical conference. There are no politics involved here. Whether or not someone likes Bush has no bearing on their ability to serve competently at this conference. NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING THIS EXTREME.
This isn't a good thing. Bush supporters should not be cheering this, it makes them look like brainless automotons who don't analyze a single aspect of the administration's polities yet stand behind them 100%.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
This indicates two things: 1) That the republicans can do whatever they want, no matter how immoral or how illegal, and they can get away with it. 2) Partisan politics is being institutionalised. They are willing to take a short term loss (bad press about this story) to put long term pressure on supporters of their opponents. Their goal is to create a work environment where, to get anywhere you will have to be a member of the republican party.
Usually political parties only think forward to the next election. This shows tha the republicans have the goal of making it so they are the only party in america.
I just started browsing through this discussion at -1, to see if insightful conservatives with valid viewpoints were being squashed by slashdot groupthink.
They aren't.
If you can honestly defend this action, you have less critical thinking skills than a Jonestown suicide victim. It's not that big a deal, as I don't think it's going to kill too many people just because a few engineers couldn't make it to the meeting, but it is plainly and completely wrong.
If you can bring yourself to think that it is right, then you must correct your thinking. I am sure that I have similar backwards notions in other areas, and I would welcome such corrections from the right source. Some guy on slashdot is clearly not that source, so I'm not asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt. But please, consider that you might be wrong. Double check, just this once.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Egads! Another person on /. making a poor analogy. I'm so surprised.
Sinclair was attempting to violate a campaign law using a thinly veiled categorization of their ad as a "documentary." It was illegal. They knew it. Others knew it. They got called on it. End of story.
No one was threatening them for supporting Bush; they were threatening them for being loose with the law.
I'm so tired of hearing people say things like, "<sarcasm>Oh, it's Bush so it must be evil!</sarcasm>" Yes, as it turns out, a lot of the things that Bush and his administration have done are evil. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is very plain and undeniable. Some people are just afraid to admit it, because it will make them look like an ass for supporting him in the first place.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to red, gold & green)
Actually, I think that's exactly what they had in mind. They'd just done it a few years earlier, so they probably didn't consider armed rebellion to be automatically a bad thing. They didn't expect the government wouldn't try to stop an armed rebellion. They just wanted to ensure that if most of the citizens were part of an armed rebellion, the government wouldn't be able to stop them.
I beleive they realized that military power ultimately trumps any other kind. That the only way to garauntee the government would not become opressive was to ensure that ordinary citizens, if they acted collectively, would be the dominant military force in the country. In their day, that could be acheived (and was, by them a few years earlier) so long as those citizens had access to weapons.
These days, citizens can not become the dominant military force in the country. Unless we have the right to bear nuclear weapons. Which the second ammendment pretty clearly grants. If I'm part of a well regulated militia, my right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Saying, yes, but not those arms is obvuiously infringing. Since that would obviously be insane, we've engaged in all sorts of legal contortions to reduce the second to more sane levels. It would make much more sense to amend the constitution to drop the second, and admit that we have lost that garauntee against oppressive government, so we'd better pay attention. But the Bill of Rights has atained such a sacrosanct status, that that will never happen. So the NRA will keep playing their stupid game of opposing all gun regulation, no matter how sensible in the guise of defending our constitutional right to bear arms. And no politician is going to commit the heresy of admiting that the rights the founders intended to grant in the second amendment are already gone, and nobody sane would want them to still be around anyway.
The world has seen many fascist regimes, Nazi Germany was only one instance. But even that extreme case had western defenders up to the war - King George, Henry Ford (iirc), the Kennedy father or grandfather (when ambassador to the UK), and more.
A few years ago Free Inquiry published a summary of 14 characteristics of fascist regimes. One copy here. I think you can make a defensible case for 13 of the 14 points, with the final item a false negative.
I suggest reading the full article for details, but for the impatient here's the keynotes:
The main exception I see is the supremacy of the military. This administration talks them up, but its actual treatment of our troops is contemptable. We've all heard of soldiers injured, discharged, then told to repay their enlistment bonus since they didn't complete their term of service. Or told to pay hospital fees while recooperating from loss of limbs. (The argument was that they shouldn't have gotten a food and housing stipend while living on hospital grounds but not in a hospital room, or something equally lame.)
Most disgusting has to be the recent bankruptcy bill. Somebody noticed that it did not include an exception for servicemen forced into bankruptcy as a consequence of being called to duty. N.B., under current law creditors are supposed to forego collections of any national guard troop called up. But the Republicans in control of Congress had some petty rule that they wouldn't accept any amendments to this bill and they gave the shaft to our servicemen.
(P.S., I know that the sexism point is debatable. We have Condi Rice.... but she's from the oil industry. A supertanker is named after her!!! Some people see covert sexism in the policy on birth control, abortions, even the refusal to accept court rulings on Terri Schiavo's desire to avoid a persistent vegetative state.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
(P.S., I know that the sexism point is debatable. We have Condi Rice.... but she's from the oil industry. A supertanker is named after her!!! Some people see covert sexism in the policy on birth control, abortions, even the refusal to accept court rulings on Terri Schiavo's desire to avoid a persistent vegetative state.)
Just because a few points don't line up perfectly doesn't mean your point isn't valid. And the US military does get a lot of money, and a lot of use killing foreign people the government blames for its problems. The little guys in the military (regular soldiers) get shafted but that is completely in line with other government policies.
Anyway, most of the Christian fundamentalists who support the current Executive are crypto-sexists at best - they believe the Bible mandates a woman's place below her husband, even if they don't come right out and say it in so many words. And things like restricting access to birth control, sexual health information and abortion are all policies of that administration, and all are more detrimental to women than men.
Freedom: "I won't!"
It has been shown throughout history that a weaker force can win and overthrow a dominating military power. The American revolution itself was a ragged bunch of men and women fighting against the strongest army and navy in the world. If the US has an armed rebellion again, you're making the faulty assumption that the entire US military would willingly turn on its own countrymen.
You know. I'm frankly getting sick and tired of moral relativists claiming that it's ok for Bush or the Republicans to be corrupt because Democrats might be corrupt to if they were in power.
What's wrong is wrong. There are no shades of grey here, not it's ok if someone else did it.
Your excusing bad behavior does not help encourage good behavior.
Politics is very much like religion.
Most people believe the same things their parents believed and will have children who believe it also.
It's the same with religion and politics. Mostly because politics comes down to "values" about what is "good" and "bad".
Most people I know who voted for Bush did NOT vote for him because they wanted massive debt, never ending wars and a polluted environment.
They voted for Bush because Kerry would make everything worse. Or because Kerry lied about Vietnam. Or because Kerry wasn't a good Christian. Or because Kerry was a liberal. Or because Kerry was a friend of Jane Fonda. etc.
In other words, they looked for some reason (however non-substantial) to "justify" their voting for Bush.
Bush's message is very simple. He's strong and good. The US is strong and good. Those who oppose him/the US are weak and evil. He will protect you. You need his protection. The bad guys are coming. They're coming real soon. THEY'RE HERE! TERROR ALERT ORANGE! They're gone now. But they'll be back. Maybe with nukes. Bush needs your support to protect you. He is willing to pay any price to protect you from the evil men out there.
Don't laugh. Read through the transcripts of the speeches over the years. Look at how often the "Terror Alert" went up at politically opportunistic times. Yet when was the last time you saw the "Terror Alert" go up?
It's all about fear and religion. The religion of fear. No matter how safe you think you are, you aren't safe enough.
And that message sells.
Even back in WWII it was practiced. Just keep telling the people that the bad guys are coming and that anyone who says differently is a fool who will get you killed or a traitor and supporter of those evil men.
That goes back to the witch trials. Satan has allies. People that look just like you and me. Any actions we take against them are "good". Even if we accidentally torture and kill an innocent person. Because we cannot risk losing this battle.
They disagreed? We can't have that in this day and age! Won't someone think of the children being killed by terrorists?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
That's the dumbest sig I've ever read.
I take it then that you're against Social Security, and would prefer to go back to a time when the leading causes of death for the elderly were malnutrition and hypothermia, and most of the elderly lived in poverty?
Name three evils of Socialism. Seriously. I'm curious to know what they are.
Explain why the US spends more (at least 2.5x more) per capita on health care than any other industrialized country (all of which practice some degree of national health care) but does not have the highest life expectancy, best child mortality (and don't take that as your queue to start talking about abortion) or healthiest population. You call that a good investment?
You wrote no amount of repackaging Socialism, secular humanism, or Communism-lite will work.
This leaves me wondering what does work? How about public education, is that socialism? Libraries? The fire department? How about a political system in which one political party controls everything? Subsidies for farmers? Corporate welfare? Protectionist tarriffs? NAFTA? The largest expansion of the Federal government since FDR? American citizens in prison indefinitely with no access to a lawyer and no charges brought against them?
In your position statement I see a lot of words and passion, but I don't see substance. Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" merely stand in opposition to one another and don't convey much about what you, personally, (morally, I dare say) believe in.
I'd also like to see these conservative forums you speak of where Bush gets slammed, because my account at freerepublic was banned after two posts.
Disrupt paychecks? FYI, paychecks for junior grade servicemembers are for booze, hookers, and playstation games. All you are going to get is a lot of pissed off men with rifles. How about instead you try to disrupt the logistics train; oh wait, that'd take a hell of a lot more effort.
You might have something with this. US Servicemembers are men (and women) of honor. However, It'd have to escalate quite a bit before lethal force would be required. Actually, faced with the situation I'd find it rather funny watching the crowd on their asses in super-slime engulfed in CS gas. Where's your gas mask?
The problem with your analysis is that you define a soldier as a version of you with a rifle. This is not the case. Today's military is an all volunteer force. Men and women take the titles of Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine because they are motivated to action. You're not dealing with conscripts or mercenaries.
To quote my Drill Instructor from boot camp, "The Marine Corps is a dictatorship designed to defend a democracy." Even in today's connected world, a military is a military. Servicemembers have a drastically different set of social obligations than the average citizen. Don't underestimate the mind-control, those helmets aren't made of tinfoil.
---k--
</stupid>
Number One has never worked like that. Please get this into your head: nevernevernever. Strategic Bombing against civilian targets only incites revenge and makes it easier for the opponent to wrap themselves in "victim's sanctity". See Sherman's March to the Sea, Gettysburg, Battle of Britain, Dresden...
Attacking a soldier's pay isn't going to have the desired effect either, since most soldiers are going to beleive that the pay thing will get straightened out eventually.
Your last point is valid, but admittedly untested. Most likely when ordered to shoot, most will deliberately aim low (aiming high means the bullet comes down somewhere else), but the panic that the shots create will be the real cause of bloodbath. Consider also the example of Tianmen Square and Kent State. In a prolonged conflict you may see mass desertion, but before that a lot of innocents will be killed.
Armed revolution is messy, barbaric, and causes years of trauma. Do not dupe yourself into thinking that it can be easy.