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."
I'd rather call them transparently corrupt. How about a rubberstamp government, like those we lately seem to be suggesting oughta respect democratic principles, etc. (so long as they represent the right democratic principles, unlike all those heathen socialists in South America.)
I'm one of those old enough to remember quite a few of Richard M. Nixon's shenanigans and I'm absolutely amazed how much dirtier this administration is and profoundly disappointed that people just don't seem to care. Heck, if Nixon were still around he'd probably get a Presidential Medal of Freedom for spying on americans and his groundbreaking work on coverups. Small wonder Cheney's threatening to get tough with dems in the Senate, they see what's going on and the priorities of the administration.
On the way in this morning I heard a blurb about an upcoming film Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room and it got me thinking about what a hatchet job was done on California Governor Gray Davis (while I'm not a particularly huge fan of his) apparently to lay the foundation for a republican challenger to replace a disgraced democrat, while the Dept of Energy and the president sat on their hands.
Where is the sense of outrage? I dunno, pass me another beer.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
There was a time when a change in political parties ment that the whole staff of the government changed... all the way down to mail clerks.
He would have had the FBI investigate them first, if he behaved like the last Democratic-Party president.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
No - but they would have said that it was Kerry sticking it to those evil campaign-contributing corporations.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
You mean like this?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is a fantastic development. Thank you slashdot! We've almost purged the country of traitors..
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
Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
...the George Lucas tragedies are merely on TV.
-Valiss
But who would want bipartisan support on the same committee? Democrats at the same table as Republicans? That's just crazy talk.
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.
Maybe he would have, maybe he wouldn't have - we can't know. Even if Kerry would have had the entire IATC lined up and shot, it hardly makes this administration's actions okay.
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
Kerry wouldn't have done the same.
Find me ONE other instance of a Presidential Administration (other than George W. Bush's) denying access to an event based on which political campaigns people contributed money to.
This is a blatant violation of the first amendment. More discussion from this morning's thread on Ars.
Neither Reagan nor Bush '41 would have, either.
Hell, I don't think Nixon would have done this.
If we had a king, he'd have simply have killed all his political opponents.
God spoke to me.
"That Kerry wouldn't have done the same? "
There is no reason to think Kerry would bump technical experts from a telecom delegation because of party affiliation. Bush is the man know for valuing loyalty above competence not Kerry. Just look at Bush's nomination of John Bolton as UN Ambassador, or elevating Condi Rice to Secretary of State...etc, ad nauseam.
This is just another example of the Bush administration's partisan extremism. It is really, really hard to believe Bush hasn't been taken to task to live up to his "I'm a uniter not a divider" claim. While the parent can debate if Kerry might have done the same thing to the delegation, one point is not debatable: This was clearly not a move to "unite" the US.
Just reading Slashdot presents an excellent argument for doing exactly what Bush has done. Why should the US send people that have such a bitter hatred for the president? Such inherant negativity can only be detremental to productive meetings.
Mind you, I don't know if the people removed were quite at that point but it's not hard to imagine. The poision runs deep here on Slashdot.
I'm more of a libertarian myself so don't even start in on me. I'm just calling it like I see it, and have seen first hand what bitter negativity can do in a group. For something like this the people need to be on the same page.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
I am not surprised at all by the Bush Administration's decision, which is obviously politcal. What I AM surprised about is that they openly told the truth about their political filtering. Hmm..., maybe this is a trend?
Naaaahhhh....
Here
Read it. Its more informative that the short writeup above.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Not to sound redundant but I'm surprised GW doesn't have a little military outfit he totes around in. Hat, tiny dog, and all. What's next the Texas goose-step. Facism in its finest form. We're not publically executing those representatives or our own citizens yet, but I doubt that's far behind.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Anyone going to tell me That Kerry wouldn't have done the same?
Rather stupid generalization if you ask me. 'Because Bush would do it, of course Kerry would do it too'. Not likely. It's Bush and Co. that have the history of weeding out individuals that it deems 'unfit' for discussion of public matters. Just look at thier Social Security 'TownHall' meetings.
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.
RTFA:
"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."
Sounds like an unprecedented abuse of power. Somehow, I suspect Kerry would have been a bit more of a pushover about the whole thing and left things as they were before.
Would Kerry have kept Bush supporters on the same panel? I have to think not likely.
history, as well as the article, suggests otherwise. Nice theory based on opinion with no facts to back it up though!
RTFA!!!
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.
We aren't talking about diplomatic work, we are talking about standards work.
Here, you don't even have to read the whole article, just read this paragraph:
Golly, the president doesn't want his rivals representing him.
What rival? John Kerry was not removed. The punishment was for having an opinion. That is the point. You speak up? You get punished. What good is the Freedom of Speech if using it gets you fired? Being fired for performance is one thing, but being fired because of how you are presumed to have voted is unacceptable.
You are allowed freedom, as long as you are agreeing with Bush. I can't help but wonder what your opinion would have been if it were Democrats firing Republicans.
Learn to love Alaska
So then you're totally alright with the Republican administration's plan to start removing (the majority are Republican-appointed) federal judges because they're not Neo-con enough for the current Republican party too?
If their guy had been elected, a similar purge would occur going the other way.
Congratulations, your party is just as shitty as the other. Aren't you just so proud?
I'd like to believe that someone could start a third party that was somewhat sane, open to compromise, and totally honest, but it'd be like throwing people to sharks in today's climate, and even if that party could launch a candidate that was competitive enough, the media would kill it because it breaks their head-to-head competition ideals and they'd have to come up with new debate formats to deal with it.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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
So you saying, that if a party is elected (by what ever means) to power, it is OK for them to systemmaticlly remove any non-party members for all boards (FCC, FAA, DOE, DOD, etc.) and positions they feel like.
What precentage of America do you beleive Bush is representing?
Have you read "1984"?
M0571y H@rml355.
You can't seriously be suggesting that organized religion and political government should work the same way. The two ought to work differently. The former is based on dogma; the latter, ideally, on reasoned dissent. And I would think this would apply at all levels.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
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.
"Whore" is such a dirty word to use in describing someone who doesn't hold a White House day-pass.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Next thing you know you're going to tell me that he only listens to partisan scientists. Oh, wait... :P
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If they are staging and scripting Bush, they are doing a horrible job of it.
They are doing a good job of scripting him, but he seem to think that he is actually capable of thinking on his feet (since at least the previous 4 presidents were all capapble of it). It isn't that the shaging and script aren't set, it's that Bush screws it up.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Thye filed this story from the "politics as usual dept" for a good reason. Because it IS the usual. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but it is. Postings made by the political class are handed out for political reasons. Doesn't always make sense but expecting political animals to hand out plums to declared enemies makes even less sense.
There was a time when it was understood that politics stopped at the border, but that time has long since passed. Both parties can share the blame for it, although personally I'd give it at leat 60/40 to the Democrats because a) they have been the party out of executive power for more of the last couple of decades and b) it really ramped up post 9/11.
If you want to just be an apolitical technologist then keep your damned checkbook closed. (Or at least stay under the reporting threshold) Money IS speech even if the 'campaign finance reformers' keep saying it isn't. You can't give a candidate thousands of dollars and then say you aren't involved in politics when they lose.
Democrat delenda est
This must be what the president meant when he said that he would be a uniter, not a divider. The usual message: don't pay attention to what I'm saying because it's really just fluff for the media. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next Democrat-controlled administration. Will the tactics be the same, or will we really get a uniter?
Well, looks like we'll get conservative telecom representation for the time being. Whatever that means.
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...
--MarkusQSo the president needs to have people that support his administration at every level of governement, no matter how non-partisan it is? Your comparisons to Powell and the Pope are ridiculous. Is Bush so paranoid and partisan that he believes that the inter-operability of networks is a neo-con issue?
I thought Bush was a uniter, not a divider. If he can't even let a few people who didn't support him into something as esoteric as radio communications, then this man doesn't understand what it means to be a leader at all.
AccountKiller
Kerry's campaign spokesman Chad Clanton made an obvious threat against Sinclair Broadcasting after they announced they were going to air an anti-Kerry documentary.
1) That was a hypothetical statement by an aide not important enough to get out of Fox News duty; Bush has actually done this.
2) The Kerry spokesman's statement was made in jest, if you've actually seen the clip. I was watching Fox News when that aired and have been amazed by how frequently it has been quoted, since it was really an inocuous comment.
Perhaps you should spend more time reading the article and less time dismissing it?
One of the prospective attendees was rejected for a personal $250 donation to the Democratic Party.
I don't hold out much hope, since you apparently didn't make it to the third paragraph of a three paragraph article, but you should read up on the K Street Project to see that, in fact, things are different now.
Clinton had a handful high ranking Republicans in his adminstration. He never retaliated against them.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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
Who cares what Kerry would've done? Point is, Bush _IS_ doing it. Everything is so damn partisan these days.
Buckethead
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
That Kerry wouldn't have done the same?
This is exactly the kind of thing I was saying in 1998. "But surely," I said to everyone, "Bob Dole would be enjoying fellatio in the Oval Office if he had won the 1996 election!"
See? I'm fair and balanced.
Every president before Bush *did* keep supporters on the panel regardless of their political affiliation. Check the link.
So, yes, it is different from what any other US president has done. And this organization was formed in 1923 so it is a clear and established precendent that Bush has broken. You might want to ask yourself why no previous president has ever done this. Aren't you the least bit curious?
IMHO, we're heading way outside of "politics as usual" here and in other recent matters in both the administration and Congress. But I guess some people will simply choose to be apathetic to it no matter what happens...
Your acceptance of corruption is heartwarming. Well done.
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!!!
I have no mod points, but that is indeed an interesting point. Not only to they exclude people who should have access to venues (e.g. the article at the top of this thread), they let people go places they have no business going--and all, as far as I can see, based only on how much they like them.
I always thought of that being something that only two-bit bannana republics did.
--MarkusQ
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.
April 1st 2001, The White House:
"I say old chap, shall we play a magnificent joke on the American public?"
"What did you have in mind?"
"Well we'll forgo the usual routine and have the president do an 4 year long impression of a Baboon! It will drive everyone crazy"
"I dare say that's the most ingenious April fools idea I have ever heard"
"Oh that's not the end of it dear fellow: after 4 years we give them the chance to vote him out, but we'll choose an opponent who resembles a science fiction monster! They'll have to vote for one or the other!"
"Oh hilarity! do take me, right here and now!"
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Maybe underneath the plutocracy, there is still an unsmothered democracy that could still be coaxed to life?
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.
This is nothing new in regards rewarding loyalty and punishing dissent. But, it does illustrate the adminstration approach to dissent. Basically, it prefers to attack rather than to compromise
.Examples:
CIA agent reports no link between Sadamn and Nigerian uranium; reveal the agent's identity.
Need Iraq's oil but you don't want to deal with Sadamn; Invade Iraq.
Hate Democratic Senators filibustering your appointments; Remove the filibuster.
Don't like courts making decision on gay marriage; institute an admendment banning gay marriage.
When dissent is finally quashed, we can finally live in peace under Republican rule. Don't feel too bad though, I hear that an one-party dictatorship has worked well in China
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
We haven't seen a man like this in the White House since Andrew Jackson.
You're right! It's crazy. How can this be called a democracy!?
My God people, this president received the largest amount of votes anyone has ever received. Ever. Period.
So did Hitler.
If political donations were secret, then Bush wouldn't have enough information to know who to discriminate against. Secret political donations seem very analogous to secret balloting, which is commonly accepted as a good thing.
There is nothing wrong with this no matter who does it. All those complaining are doing so out of ignorance. This is a democracy, not some philosopher kings' republic out of Plato's imagination where the wise rule because they are wise. When a President (or his agents - herein the state department) is elected, they are entitled to appoint individuals to office as they seem fit - everything from Sec of Defense down to attendees at international confereces.
Also, this administration is a capitalist one and as such would not want socialists/marxists helping to shape international policy. One way to determine someone's idiological bent is by their political contributions, and those who support Kerry over Bush either are not capitalists or do not care very much about capitalism, in either case making them inapprorpriate representatives of the United States wherein we elected a President who reflects our views to the contrary.
Golly, the president doesn't want his rivals representing him. Oh, for shame.
Sure, if this is a "Promote the Republicans" conference, you'd have a point. However, this is a forum for telecom providers and the top ones are essentially Banned by Bush(TM) because they donated to a different political party. What's next? The international committee on human rights abuses can only be attended by republicans? Foreign embassies only staffed by republicans? Want a job in the federal government... I sure hope you're a republican! After all, we don't want any rivals working for Uncle Sam, right?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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)
The Cardinals reject non-Catholic candidates for the Papacy.
Do they go back and excommunicate all the Cardinals who did not vote for the winning Pope? If so, then you'd have an analogy.
Learn to love Alaska
No, not a troll.
You're right, I didn't describe why the action was wrong. Many other comments on this story have done that perfectly well. Go point me to some effective refutations and I'll shut the hell up. I went looking and didn't find any.
I'm really just trying to call your attention to the possibility that your thinking may be completely wrong on this issue. If you can figure out why, then it may help you correct your thinking in other venues as well.
This issue is a convenient litmus test: If you don't see the problem with the administration's actions here, there is a problem with your eyes. No, that doesn't mean you're wrong about everything, and no, honestly, it doesn't mean you'd drink cyanide coolaid. That was hyperbole.
But it does mean that you're wrong right now.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Sorry. I didn't know how to clarify that I meant specifically "Republican vs. Democrat".
There might be politics involved, but if the politics involved are based upon political affiliation, then the people assigned to the task are incompetent in the first place, regardless of who they support.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
But damn, George. Stop dicking around like this. You're pissing all of us off. If you're not careful, Hilary is going to gain a lot of support in 2008, simply by your screwups.
And if she wins, we WILL be screwed.
I voted for Bush both elections because I liked his conservative stance. I have to admit though that I'm starting to get rather annoyed with the way Bush is acting lately. Repercussions for voting a certain way is simply nonsense and should not be tolerated. Lately I'm beginning to wonder if I should have voted the other way, and have seriously considered doing just that to even the playing field in politics. I don't like the power plays that are going on in Washington DC now that reps are in control (admittedly though I am a republican...) I'm sick of the strong arm tactics that are going on, and I'm getting fed up with the way these people are conducting business. I think next election I'll vote democratic... (yikes...)
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
Except that it's not about the Administration, it's supposed to be about representing the United States (and our telecommunications industry, in this case).
They may also need to be reminded that the President is supposed to represent US and we are not his loyal subjects.
Start Running Better Polls
Maybe a new version of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy will fall through a temporal worm hole right to the passage that says, "Their backs were first against the wall when the revolution came."
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
Brilliance of the founding fathers... I forget, Devry doesn't teach history.
There were parties back then. Does Federalist ring a bell? And the anonymous bashing in the press was as rampant as any discourse today. Washington was accused of affairs, corruption, etc.
(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!"
Think about what you're saying. You're saying that the US should present a unified position... which happens to be EXACTLY THE SAME as the position Bush wants to present - because he just gets rid of anyone who doesn't agree with him.
"It's about people on a standards committee." exactly. Not a REPUBLICAN standards committee, you will note. That's what "standards" means. It's about representing the people, not the president, of the US.
But, you see, this is bush banning "INDIVIDUALS" that donated to the Kerry campaign. So, by your own logic, Bush is doing a bad thing.
"It's the little touches that make a future solid enough to be destroyed" --William S. Bourroughs
One point that keeps triggering my sexism detector--look at the gender ratio of the people that have been found culpable in the prisoner torture cases, vs. the gender ration of those that have been publicly acquited.
Now compare these to the ratio for sex offenders in general.
Smells awful fishy to me.
--MarkusQ
If
--MarkusQ
Here's a list of the topics they would've been working on:
... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda.' said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House."
* Recommendation for 400 MHz bands
* RLAN in the 5 GHz band
* Recommendation on harmonized frequencies for property protection
* Revision to Recommendation PCC.II/REC. 67 (XIX-01) on Low Power Radiocommunication devices,
* Radio frequency identification devices (RFID)
* Broadband Power Line Communications (BPL)
* Refarming of 700 MHz band
* Answer to Market questionnaire on IMT 2000 and systems beyond
* Results of the video conference on wireless broadband
History will be written by the winners. They'll be no trace of the dirty liberal hands that gave $250 to the Kerry campaign on these obscure telecommunication standards.
The Bush administation's genious is in it's recognition that all our problems, on all levels, are caused by liberal influence. Did you lose the signal on your wireless LAN moments ago? It's a little known fact that when this happens it's probably because of liberal influence.
Here are some more examples:
* Rebuilding Iraq : It's a well known fact that development specialists are mostly liberals. Which is why the Coalition Provisional Authority was wisely staffed almost entirely by young people with absolutely no relevant experience. What one and only one qualification they did all have in common, which no liberal could ever have, was they had all once sent a resume to conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation.
* The CIA : Why couldn't we find WMD in Iraq? Because the CIA is full of liberals. "'Goss was given instructions
Sadly, you don't hear about this because of the liberal media. I didn't do it mommy, liberals did it.
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.
It was normal under the spoils system which was started by Andrew Jackson in 1829 and ended by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883. That is the wikipedia article with the most information on the subject. You can still do this sort of thing with some jobs, but it is frowned upon because it was such a disaster the first time it was done.
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.
Yep, that's pretty damn bad. How will their careers be affected now that they aren't being permitted to participate in international standards collaboration?
Watching Slashdot flip out over this is rather funny. As if this is somehow new or unique to "teh eBil Bush Nazi!!11". This sort of slapdash political chicanery is commonplace, planet-wide. It's times like these when Ralph Nader has a lot of appeal.
What I find surprising is the raw honesty of this deputy press secretary, Trent Duffy. The man clearly has no future in public life.
As opposed to the well paid bias of any other nation-state and it's corporate favorites? Please.
The American Left has failed miserably. Until they figure out how articulate something without alienating vast swaths of the electorate, people like Bush will continue to get elected. I'm begging you, please, find a credible candidate that doesn't radiate BAF.
Disclaimer: All references to Hitler, Nazis, etc. contained within parody; Godwin does not apply.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
You are exaggerating a little here. The latest numbers I can find have the the real US GDP at about $10.5 trillion with the national debt at about $7 trillion. That is nowhere near "many, many times our debt". And the economy looks like it is growing at an average annual rate of 4%; decent, but not spectacular. And recent news I have been getting from my broker suggests that the economy may be slowing down. I don't think your optimism is warranted from everything that I have been reading.
As for the rest of your post, I could nitpick some of your other points, but I'll just say that I agree that debt is not a bad thing if you can pay it back. The problem is that GWB seems to be trying to increase our debt as fast as he possibly can. Every time I turn on the television it seems like he is pushing through some new bill that saddles the federal government with more expenditures, many of them not related to the war or military spending. There is no way that your little supply side utopia will ever work if government spending continues to grow faster than tax revenues.
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 this is why the vote of an individual in an election is anonymous.
His God got a Marvel comic book. I think that says it all, really.
Are you also freightened that Google won't hire Republicans?
I suggest you read Slashdot
That's the dumbest sig I've ever read.
The fix now is the fix that's been done at every "crisis", a few minor tweaks (change the taxable base, change benefit amounts) and forget about it for another decade, everybody will be paid.
If NOTHING is done, the Social Security Trust Fund would have to start reducing benefits below it's projected level (far higher than today)in 2042.
The attempted move by the Bushmen to "fix" SS is an attempt to make it possible for Wall Street campaign contributors to Bush to cash in on pension fund management payments, and to dump liquidity into the stock market. Anyone who remembers the dot.bomb (is there anyone who doesn't?) should be able to figure out that one's core pension funds should NOT be in the stock market.
Margie Thatcher tried this in the UK during the Reagan era... now, even the Conservatives want to dump piratization for a US style SS plan.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Look at the drop of the dollar against all other currencies to see what the world market thinks about whether the USA's debt is a good thing.
Look at the sudden move all over the world to diversify out of all T-bill holdings.
Look at the level of savings by individuals in the USA.
It's a known fact that the US consumes far more than it produces with the difference underwritten by private and public debt. Much of this money is going into financing personal consumption.
Any American who thinks this is a good thing... needs professional therapy.
Tech Public Policy stuff
...if these delegates supported Kerry because of their commitment to telephone standards.
I don't imagine they did, so it seems supporting Kerry has poisoned their mind on every topic, including technical matters they deal with professionally. If phone standards can have a right wing slant, Bush will make it happen.
On the flip-side, I have so little respect for Bush that I can't take anything he says seriously, so it goes both ways.
I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
In fact, we are growing right now at such a rate that today's billions will be a drop in the bucket tomorrow. This is due to sheer growth and expansion, not based on inflation.
Haha, he ha. Tell another one! Here: In fact, I am growing right now at such a rate that in 10 years, I will be 65 meters tall. That is due to sheer growth and expansion, not inflation.
Assumptions of eternal grow are moronic.
If anything, the fact that we can float such a huge debt and that our debtors are fine with the rates is a testament to the power of our nation.
That's true, and it's something to be ASHAMED of. Where I come from, "bullying" was still considered wrong.
Hmm, I hadn't heard of this before, but it's apparently true; it is referred to as the "Brooks Brothers Riot", google for that and you'll see a number of stories about it.
Heh. The definition of 'republic' should be updated to "a despotism with revolving dictators"
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Yes, yes, yes -- the same arrogant argument. "We leftists are educated, enlightened, intelligent, and, above all, rational, while those who support conservatives are easily-frightened, easily-duped, emotional, hyper-religious SHEEP who bought the propaganda, drank the Kool-Aid, (insert your favorite cliche here)."
Translation: "liberals are SMART and conservatives are STUPID".
Well, please allow me to enlighten you. Believe it or not, many of us Bush supporters are highly educated, quite intelligent, scholarly, and are capable of recognizing propaganda for what it is. Maybe some of us recognized that the terror link to Saddam was just that, propaganda, but because we agree with GWB on most other issues we decided to let it go. Maybe some of us really do think that the Christian right are extremists, but we would rather talk to them and rein them in a touch rather than accept the alternative -- a totally secular, moral relativist society with no social norms whatsoever. That's not to say we all agree with him on everything -- far from it -- but by and large we take the good with the bad, and with him we largely feel there is more good than bad.
And maybe -- just maybe -- we know what Socialism is, what damage it has done throughout the world, and we collectively decided that we would fall on our proverbial swords rather than let it gain a foothold here. Just maybe we support Conservatives (and welcome the alliance of the religious right) because we face a common enemy (in most cases, enemies) on idelogical grounds -- Socialism, and the social and moral consequences it produces. Maybe we support GWB because we actually agree with him on ideological grounds.
Understand that for people like us, no amount of repackaging Socialism, secular humanism, or Communism-lite will work. We know them for what they are, we actively oppose them, and many of us dedicate ourselves toward rooting such efforts out and exposing them to the light of day. A great many of us voted for GWB because WE DON'T WANT SUCH THINGS. We are not going to wake up one day and say, "Wow, that (leftist politician) is really making some sense! Socialized medicine/income redistribution/high-taxes/other Socialist program is the way to go! All he had to do was say it in a way that I could understand!" Sorry, Charlie. We're smarter than that. We vote such things down because we disagree with them on grounds of principle, not because people like GWB "scare" us into it. You should go read some conservative forums -- Bush gets slammed pretty regularly, usually because he has taken some stand or made some statement that flies in the face of conservative (here it comes) principles.
If the Clinton Administration had really been as slick as some liked to claim, Linda Tripp wouldn't have lasted two days in the White House after the '93 Inauguration, much less long enough to make a name for someone.
The work you're looking for is unethical, not slick. Unethical behavior is not to be rewarded or admired.
The second amendment is more important because it establishes gun ownership as a right. Meaning, members of the militia can blend into the regular populace. In other nations undergoing violent revolt, gun ownership = rebel and/or death. In a US revolution, the availability of guns to all citizens provides something most rebels will kill for: plausible deniability. That is, truly, essential. Rebels have to blend back and forth into the general population at will. An outright ban on arms will make that, largely, impossible...I am not an idiot. A militia of that size could form, and would be legal
You're being totally unrealistic here. The moment there is a hint of armed revolt, the 2nd ammendment, and any other protections, would evaporate and be replace by tight repression. You would have precisely zero rights, let alone the right to carry an arm. After the first weapons amnesty where upstanding citizens could prove they were not terrorists your arm would be a liability.
In a state of civil war citizens rights are no longer sacrosanct. Hell, the US citizenry has given away most of their rights already, and said thank you afterwards, all in the name of perpetual war with a nebulous, often changing enemy.
A widespread revolt would eventually topple the government in the US, but not via the means you mention. The mechanism of government would simply fail if enough people went on strike/marches and refused to co-operate with law-enforcement.
Quite apart from all of that, would you like the kind of government/civil war your proposed scenario would install any better than Bush/Cheney et al? Almost *every* violent revolution in the world's history has installed a dictatorship - the previous US one was a notable, and noble exception.
the more I read slashdot, the more I think that it maybe ought to be \.
since the comments here often lean so far to the left.
Communism is only democracy of the workplace. Tyranny of the workplace such as the structure of Walmart, thats capitalism.
You have to be prepared to make offers in order to live in the land of the Free, right?
You have the best democracy (two parties invited only, paid by companies) and with over two million people in prison you're definitely going places.
Now, if a president wants to punish you for your votes and further restricts your rights, isn't that a small price to pay for liberty?
What I personally find hilarious is that so many people voted Bush for "moral" reasons. It would be even funnier if the consequences for the have not's weren't so dire.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
Huh? What do you think the Communist Party is then? Opposition parties are banned (or at least very strongly controlled). This is almost exactly the opposite from what's being talked about here. Mainstream political policy/thought/discussion in China is controlled by what the Communist Party leadership decide. In a system without parties, a group of individuals (who you vote for based on their individual policies) would be able to reach their own conclusions to each issue rather than being ordered by their party (on the promise of later rewards, or the threat of punishment) on how to vote. Or at least that would be the theory - I've seen it work at local level where our local council had been run pretty much entirely by Tories for many years, but has for the past 20 years been almost entirely run by independents - with a wide range of political views. Over this time, individual councilors have come and gone, but the people still regularly keep voting for independents over politically aligned candidates.
From TFA
The message is clear to industry: If you donate to the Democrats, you will be frozen out of any participation in the formation of public policy. If any of your representatives do, they (and your company) will as well.
This is designed to foster an environment where companies and employees are frightened, even forbidden, from making political contributions to anyone other than the ruling party. In a system where funding drives politics more than anything else, it is the final death knell of democracy and effective dissent. The only well funded party will become the Republican party, which is the whole point. The result will be a one party system that doesn't call itself a one party system, with enough token Democrats to befuddle the American people into believing they still live in a representative republic (aka democracy).
This is unprecedented, terribly dangerous, and unsurprising that it would be the Bush administration presiding over this change in affairs.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." --Harry S. Truman
Visit the best Liberal Blog: DU
Man, walking on railroad track: "There's a train coming. We'd better get off the track."
Second man: "Shut up, you liberal whiner. What a fucking loser."
They aren't.
I think you are being presumptuous. They block your IP address or block you if you are registered and get moded down too much (not hard to get moded down). Some even joke about being moded down in their signatures. In political tests I score right smack in the middle but I know I'm careful about what I post here.
Before you criticize Bush's administration too hard, you may want to look at the last administration (or previous ones, it doesn't matter). Take health care reform for example. Bill had his wife - the first "Lady" run it, someone that wasn't even a government official, perhaps not even a government employee (Do they pay first ladies?). Someone that disagreed with her need not come into the city, nevermind be on her comission. The comission later collapsed under its own weight and obvious corruption. That was probably one of the biggest black eye's Bill got in his first term. There is also the case where Bill (or Hilary depending on who you believe) cleaned out the travel office. People that had been working there in that office since Kennedy was in office and even charged one of the men with felonies. He was later cleared of all charges. That scandel was known as travelgate. Lots of other examples but I hope you see where this is going. Same under Reagan, Carter, Johnson, even Truman and especially true under Roosevelt (aka King Roosevelt, talk about an iron grip!). This continues on back through history if you read old papers. Abe Lincoln was criticized I think worse than Bush is. They even went after his wife Mary. A Republican president that is universally recognized as one of the best we ever had.
That is, nothing new or different in what they are doing. No apology, this is business as usual in Washington. What is amazing is that America still gets stuff done and there is progress in spite of all of this through the years.
What I can point out is that Bush did keep on Mr. Norman Mineta who served under Bill Clinton as Commerce Secretary, he is now Bush's Transportation Secretary. He has allowed a number of Democrats/liberals/"progressives" (sometimes progressives are called socialists or communists) to serve that I though were not in his best interest. This is especially true in the State Department. When Clinton came to town he cleaned that place out and put his people in, Bush should have done the same thing.
"Now, if a president wants to punish you for your votes and further restricts your rights, isn't that a small price to pay for liberty?"
Can your choices actually be considered as 'free' any more when there are punishments/consequences attached to one or more of those two choices? How can one be told they are free to make the choices with the knowledge that they will lose their job if they choose something other than what their leader has. Isn't this an ultimate punishment? Take away your economic power to provide food and shelter for your family if you choose other than the directive? Are we blind to what is going on? Can't anyone see this is driving our 'democracy' into something monsteraous and that serves the purpose of only those who agree with the president, all others will be punished? The side of the fence that disagrees with Bush is getting smaller and smaller. Why? Because the price is to steep to stand against him. Where did my rights go? Why can't I disagree and not be persecuted for it? Is this the kind of America we really want? I certainly don't.
Why (in this instance) shouldn't this be directly tied to voting confidentiality?
Not at all. With both of the big two parties crying about contributions and the reform of contributions I think it's important for the public to see exactly who's getting what money from where. An informed public is better than a public that is excepting, in blind faith, that these reforms are being done "in their best interest".
Their using personal politics *against* people. Thats not even remotely American and it goes against everything we've based our system on.
That's a fairly gray area. Are you right to a point? Sure. But supporting the people who support you is also a mainstay of the entire political process and that is another reason for public disclosure of contributions. Should something be done to rectify this situation? Sure. But it's not illegal. Left handed, but not illegal. So an informed public should take this into consideration when voting the next time around. The question really becomes if republicans get the boot for this and the democrats do the same time are you going to switch sides? For the most part most people find things politically acceptable/inacceptable based on party. Don't think that this is the first time that political contributions have lead to favoritism. Don't think that it's only the republicans either. Perhaps this is the most blantent display we've seen but does it make it any better when it happens in the back rooms of the DNC?
I will once again rant that without a serious third party threat the other two parties are pretty much free to do as they will. Who's going to stop them? The party lines are already drawn and neither hell nor high water is going to sway the core of these parties. Perhaps they'll lose a bit of ground from time to time but in the end they know they'll always be in the black.
And I won't bullshit you, I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I don't like what's going on. I normally vote third party for the reasons that they better represent my ideals and the fact that I know serious reform within the current system is as likely as me hitting the lottery, and I don't even play the lottery.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
There is a difference between politics and policy, and it is one that this administration has forgotten. Policy is a bottum-up decision making process based on unbiased facts. Politics is a top-down decision making process based on domga and belief. This President cares nothing for policy, only politics, which is evident in his inability to ever, EVER admit a mistake unless he can pin it on a subordinate.
This tactic is essentially parallel to Tom DeLay's intimidation tactics used against lobbyists. This is dirty politics at its worst. This is intended to make it hard for the opposition party to have any power by cutting off all of the richest funding through belligerent threats.
This is not just. People who truly respect freedom try to compromise with their opponents and not bury them without giving them a voice. The Republicans' naked greed for power is just disgusting.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I'm trying to find a list of the members still in the U.S. delegation as well as those added to replace existing members.
No one in the current administration will ever admit to having done anything wrong, correct a problem, etc. But the members of this committee are supposed to be engineers and/or scientists and well aware of the meritocracy that they are supposed to participate in. They need to be contacted individually and convinced to quit the delegation.
Also, anyone who accepted the post of an existing member who was kicked off should be well aware of how they got the position and should have already resigned by this point. If not, then people within the telecommunications industry need to know who they are.
Only if the administration cannot find people willing to participate in this farce will they be forced to stop. Otherwise it will be full speed ahead.
Sigs are for people who started using the net _after_ '86.
OK, this bit right here shows me two things:
- You either didn't comprehend part of the constitutional quote I provided in my last post (specifically the "not herein otherwise provided for" part), or you plain didn't read it.
- You're using the words "Senate" and "Congress" interchangably, apparently confusing what the Senate can do alone and what both chambers of Congress are required for.
These two things tell me that you're too far gone in your "understanding" of the Constitution of the United States for me to be able to salvage anything here.I would reccomend sitting down and reading the entire Constitution of the United States some time. It's not that long (the original fit on four pages, IIRC) and shouldn't take you more than a few minutes of your time. Even if you've already read it, even if you think you understand it already, it couldn't hurt anything to read it again. I admit the language is a little dated but I find that it comes smothely after the first few paragraphs. Don't worry about the amendments yet, just focus for the time being on the structure of the government.
Beyond that, I wash my hands of this thread. Feel free to assume victory on your part.
People you get these appointed positions owe the appointer. If Pres. Clinton appointed these folks, then of course they support values and ideals that Clinton (and then Kerry) are likely to support.
BECAUSE THEY WERE PICKED TO SUPPORT THOSE IDEALS.
Now these guys/gals are under Pres. Bush's appointment authority, and they obviously do not agree with him. In fact they publically opposed him and his ideals. So as an *authority* figure, he removed them.
THIS IS HOW IT WORKS. Not just politics but real life too. You are in fact beholding to whoever is your *authority* figure.
Let's assume your boss is your *authority* figure. Now try disagreeing with your boss publicly. Do it once and you're in trouble. Do it three times and unless your boss is a moron you will be gone.
If you run your own company, and some one of your people start disagreeing with you, you'll be concerned and rightfully so. Is this person loyal? Will they follow your policies and rules? Will they steal from you and try to date your daughter?
If that person persists in his disagreemnt, it will eventually become insubordination - and out they go. If you are a Saint, they might last a while longer, but even God cast out Lucifer.
Don't get on his back because Pres. Bush is replacing these guys. Any leader, Pres. Clinton, Pres whoever, GOD it doens't matter - they want supportive people around them.
If you feel the need to disagree with your boss, do it privately and assure him/her you will respect and support their decision(s) even if you do disagree. And before you disagree, decide if you want to die in that ditch first, cause even one disagree can lead to an "unappointment".
Now feel free to heap scorn and disagreement with Pres. Bush, but he might be watching you! **Deploys tin-foil body suit**.
*click**beep**beep* Scotty, One to Mod up!