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.
You mean like this?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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
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.
The sense of outrage is crushed by the lack of a decent political system to accomadate it. Who's going to actually stand up to our politicians? Commies? Democrats? There are no real non-money biased political organizations out there that anyone can even remotely consider mainstream. The system is designed to stamp them out, look at the green party. And the Libertarians. And of course, look at Ross Perot. There's no room for dissent beyond the approved dissent, and we need major change, and we have no leaders because of the smear-based media. The US is lamed by its politics now instead of uplifted, because we've become so shallow.
Hand me one too. Make sure it's not a Bud, though, I just can't stand that piss-weak stuff. It's nowhere near as fast as a good northwestern Imperial Stout, either.
My little site.
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.
Here
Read it. Its more informative that the short writeup above.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
George Washington knew what he was talking about when he advised against political parties in his farewell address.
I am reminded of a famous investigator (whose name I've forgotten) who cracked the CIA selling drugs in LA thing in the 80s I think?. He said, "People get lazy when they think they are playing in a fixed game." And tahts what is happening here -- they aren't even BOTHERING to hide their corruption -- because they think nobody can do anything about it.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
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.
"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.
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
try OpenSecrets.
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
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.
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?
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...
--MarkusQKerry'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.
Traditionally 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.
Well... lets come full circle, shall we? What happend the last time the people of north america felt like they were being oppressed by their government? Simple. They got their guns and took it out. That's what the 2nd amendment is for, remember?
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It's not there so people can protect their property from criminals. It's not there so we can all hunt with them. It's there so the citizens can protect themselves from their own oppressive government. Thats the last resort of our system of checks and balances.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
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
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Well, can anyone really do anything about it?
From the looks of things, the majority of people are very easily satisfied, and accept whatever the government is doing as right or perfectly acceptable. The media certainly isn't helping people think for themselves.
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.
Hand me one too. Make sure it's not a Bud, though, I just can't stand that piss-weak stuff. It's nowhere near as fast as a good northwestern Imperial Stout, either.
You are mistaking the USA form of government. We are not parliment, we don't form collations. There is only one winner, everyone else is a loser.
That does not mean a group can not influence an election, they often do. Clinton never would have been elected president if not for Perot. Perot stole 10% of the vote from Bush, giving Clinton the presidency. Some believe Ralph Nader took the election from Gore. Maybe if some of the far left liberals did not vote for Nader they would have voted for Gore. Look at how close Florida was. How many Nader people are there in Florida? Enough to make a difference?
If you want to change politics, start with campaign finance reform. Right now we have two parties, and nobody else. Part of the problem is the two parties collect money on a scale that nobody else can match. The second thing you must change is the debates. With the exception of Perot, no third part candidate gets a chance. And since Perot cost Bush, candidates are even more sensitive about giving a third party a voice.
I don't think we will ever have a third party president. But I hope we can elect a few third party Senators. But with a senate seat costs rising to 10 million a seat, who knows if Joe Sixpack will every get elected.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
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.
One thing that has me outraged is that he has apparently reneged on his campaign of decency, legal gay unions have been shored up in New York, California and Connecticut, abortion shows no sign of being halted and schools still can't make you pray, but the christians have taken off their political goggles, and can't see that he chumped them in a big way.
Kinda vindicates my opinion of American christianity.
Public contributions over a certain amount made directly to a Presidential Candidates, to the DNC & RNC are public record. Contributions made other groups (Like Move On & Swift Boat Vets for Truth) are usually not public.
In addition to OpenSecrets (Suggested by the other poster in this thread), check out Fundrace.
Talk about anonymity-- Plug in an address, and see who made a $250+ contributution to a candidate, with house number & everything. There's even a button to map the location of the house, which is a little frightening.
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php
The databases are not totally accurate-- my own contributions are not anywhere on the list, perhaps because I made a bunch of smaller contributions to multiple groups as I could afford them, instead of one big contribution.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
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.
Do you honestly believe that the founding fathers encoded violent revolution into the bill of rights?
I'm not exactly a gun nut here... in fact, I don't really like them. However, Jefferson wanted to encode precisely that. Here are a few quotes:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere."
"what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Etc. Jefferson was at the view that all governments will inevitably become corrupt, oppressive, and/or unrepresentative of its citizens; and when that time comes, the people must rise up and overthrow it. I think he'd actually be pleasantly surprised at how long America has gone without a revolution.
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
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.
they at least are generally union-made
At first I read that as "urine-made" and nodded my head in agreement.
- sm
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)
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 crack-in-LA reporter was Gary Webb. http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/04/dissonance-coope r.php
He committed suicide at the end of 2004 after 20 years of being called a crazy conspiracy theorist. But what he really reported (that the CIA did not care whether their LA informants sold drugs) turned out to be true. The CIA admitted it in an internal investigation prompted by Webb's report and subsequent book.
Wow... you sure have things backwards...
>Are you seriously suggesting that armed rebellion against the government is a right guaranteed by the constitution?
What exactly is a "right"? Your comment seems to suggest that you believe that a "right" is whatever the government allows you to do. How exactly do you protect your "rights" when the government says: "No, you can't do that any more". I know! You can all just sit down and talk about it! Yeah, that will fix the problem. History has shown over and over again that there is only one way to correct the problem of an overly oppressive government.
Also, no, I would not expect any government to say "it's allowed in the constitution so I guess we can't do anything to stop you." any more then the founding fathers expected the British to do. Oppressive governments never do. The fact of the matter is that it would take real work and the sacrifice of a lot of lives to accomplish that. Thats really the problem. People value themselves far more then the greater good or doing the righteous thing. Thats why we are all in the situation we are today, a lack of morality.
And just so you understand my personal position, I don't even own a gun of any kind. I have absolutely no desire to start or join in any "armed rebellion". My hope lies elsewhere when it comes to this worlds problems. This world is beyond hope in my eyes.
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
"I think he'd actually be pleasantly surprised at how long America has gone without a revolution."
Now, you are taking into account that little event that happened sometime in the mid-to-late 1800's, aren't you?
Yes, that is EXACTLY what they did. Having just fought an oppressive and tyrannical government themselves, they wanted to make it as easy as possible for the citizens to overthrow future tyrannical governments. Their letters on the subject make this absolutely clear.
They knew (as you apparently do not) that as every government grows and ages it gets corrupt and tyrannical and eventually must be overthrown if the people are to retain their rights.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive" -- Thomas Jefferson
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go around repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." - Charles A. Beard
"The greatest calamity which could befall us would be submission to a government of unlimited powers." --Thomas Jefferson, 1825
"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free. " - Sean Connery as King Arthur
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
(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!"
I see this term used, "Founding Fathers" quite a bit as if they were a monolithic bunch. They weren't. They were quarrelsome and scrappy, and often disagreed on a number of major and minor issues.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
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.
Bush and Co. are absolute geniuses for using people's own religion against them. IIRC, Bush first got the idea of using religion for political gain from Pat Robertson, who does the same thing.
These people are not Christains, because they are politicans first. They are most certainly not humble, they are dishonest, they worship power and money, and they do it openly but with such skill that people still vote for them. In a way, they could be compared to the notion that Satan is so devious.
I won't address why your precepts are wrong here, as other posters in this thread have done an excellent job already. It's the last bit of that sentence I'd like to correct. "There aren't any [citizen militias]", you say? Well, if you are a male between the ages of 17 and 45 (I assume you are a U.S. citizen from the wording of your post), you are a member of the citizen militia of the United States. Don't believe me? Look here: USC Title 10, Chapter 13, Section 311.
In any case, there are many smaller, slightly-more-organized groups of armed citizens. They have been for a long time and still are occasionally called upon by local law enforcement to assist in emergencies (natural disasters, for example). It's true that a lot of these so-called "militia" groups are crackpot vigilantes (and sometimes white supremacists as well), but they are fortunately a minority. If any of these groups on their own decided to try to overthrow the government, they would be quickly dealt with. That's the whole point; the founding fathers did not envision the citizen militia as a bunch of small groups of paranoid vigilantes. Rather, the citizen militia is simply the entire body of the armed citizenry, who can in dire need, as a last resort, when every other system put in place has failed to secure the rights and fair representation of the people, exercise their will upon the government by force.
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
Actually, it was Alexandar Hamilton in the Federalist Papers who argued against "factions".
"Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. As long as men hold different opinions, have different amounts of wealth, and own different amount of property, they will continue to fraternize with people who are most similar to them. Both serious and trivial reasons account for the formation of factions but the most important source of faction is the unequal distribution of property. Men of greater ability and talent tend to possess more property than those of lesser ability, and since the first object of government is to protect and encourage ability, it follows that the rights of property owners must be protected. Property is divided unequally, and, in addition, there are many different kinds of property; men have different interests depending upon the kind of property they own. For example, the interests of landowners differ from those who own businesses. Government must not only protect the conflicting interests of property owners, it must, at the same time, successfully regulate the conflicts that result from those who own, and those who do not own, property."
Federalist papers 10
In other Papers he argues that factions are a dangerous thing when used to oppress the minority. So while it wasn't George to begin with it was Hamilton (one of the creators of the US Constitution).
Next!
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
If
--MarkusQ
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.
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.
I can just see it now...
ENGINEER ONE: I think we should allocate more bandwidth in the 400-500Mhz range.
ENGINEER TWO: No, that's not anti-Bush enough.
ENGINEER ONE: You're right, I forgot about our bitter hatred for the president for a second. The protocol should be designed to express our ominous political views.
ENGINEER TWO: What if we shifted the bandwidth to the 750Mhz range?
ENGINEER ONE: That's a little more anti-Bush, but not quite enough...
ANNOUNCER (OFFSCREEN): That's right, if *you* gave $250 to John Kerry, your bitter hatred for the president would have been a detriment to this otherwise productive meeting. If you ever give money to a party not in power, don't expect to take part in the specification of obscure technology protocols. It's for the good of the country.
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.
Its an even greater goddamn pitty that American's believe that the brilliance of its founding fathers is the soul province of its founding fathers.
it is not a secret that american founding fathers were implementing theory and practice by french and english thinkers.
an even greater pity is american's disengagment from constructive political discourse. instead of deciding a future, you have enshrined your past leaders as gods in your cult-of-america religion.
stop daydreaming about manifest destiney and inherent infallability and look around you. your 'democracy' is a fucking laughable shambles.
corrupt dosnt begin to describe your problems.
The first time the rebels went to an army town and took out a couple dozen military family homes the army would crumble faster than you can imagine. Collateral damage is supposed to be for the enemy, not for the soliders families.
The first time the soliders bank accounts went into overdraw because payroll is disrupted and/or checks bounce the ranks would be decimated. Both from financial constraints and from morale issues.
The first time a unit is actually ordered and purposefully told to attack a rioting/rebellious crowd. Nothing kills morale more than taking out the people you are sworn to protect - not by accident, or lack of training, but by explicit command. All the laws and procedures setup now would be chucked out the window in a full style reveloutionary counter-action. Picking sides will halve, or quarter, the ranks.
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.
No. Federalist 10 was penned by James Madison, not Alexander Hamilton. Nice try, though.
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.
Are you also freightened that Google won't hire Republicans?
I suggest you read Slashdot
That's the dumbest sig I've ever read.
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
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.
As long as America remains a democracy, the power of a large, well-organized political force is enough. If it ceases to be a democracy, you damn well better count on fighting the U.S. Armed Forces, and no ragtag Idaho militia is going to go toe-to-toe with even one company of regular troops.
Yes, of course it can go toe to toe! That's the whole point of guerilla fighting. A company, let's say a full company, of what, 10,000 troops? Against a guerilla army of 1,000,000? Of 500,000? Of even 50,000? Or even 5,000?
You throw around phrases like "well-funded guerrilla army," but that has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. If you've got the funds for a guerrilla army capable of fighting inside the United States, the lack of 2nd amendment protections would hardly be a hindrance.
Well funded is crucial. Not for arms! But for other supplies. Food. Shelter. Transport. Bribery. 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.
Any revolution as widespread as you describe wouldn't need weapons to achieve success. 1/3 of the population is more than voted for George Bush.
There may be a time when voting for president isn't pacification enough. I don't endore armed revolt, however, if you objectively analyze the difference between any of the two candidates who may win presidenacy, you will see that on a point by point basis, they are virtually identical. The variances they have are in degrees of gray. One supports this policy, this one supports it only tepidly. This one supports that status quo, this one only a bit more. Fundamentally, they are very similiar. On the big issues, there is a bi-partisan consensus. If, at some point in the future, this consensus runs contrary to what the people really need or want, watch out. Example: fiscal policy. The US fiscal policy is deeply, deeply anti-democratic. Just when things look like it may crash big and hard, a fix is found. In the most recent cycle of boom/bust, the answer was cheap money. Low intrest rates took capital out of hiding and spread it around. In the early days of the country, inflation ran wild, and there were very serious signs of a major revolution against the early American government. Foreclosure of mortgages was the cause. Something like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsing would be (1) more than any bailout could fix and (2) likely to affect about 50% of all home owners. More info: link, link, link.
b) If you honestly think that a guerrilla army of 5 million could form in the United States without drawing the attention of the government, you're an idiot. Assuming, of course, that it didn't form overnight, a la "Red Dawn." and if you assume that, you're worse than an idiot -- you're Patrick Swayze.
I am not an idiot. A militia of that size could form, and would be legal! That's why the second amendment is important. This army could form publically, advertise, cache arms/supplies and train. They could hold induction drives, and do just about anything the army can do. That's the great thing about the 2nd amendment. Sure, the FBI/whoever will infilitrate it. But if the unrest is real, a militia will form, and the government will uake with terror. At a time when the middle-east was white hot, yet, Clinton and the DOJ declared that anti-government right-wing militias were the #1 threat to the US. Depending on acco
This is such a fantasy I don't even know where to begin. Rebels in various industries? Kill a few high profile Congress people? A general strike? Who is going to set all this up? The Antichrist?
This isn't even an argument. It's a film script. Your numbers are just pulled out of thin air (here's a hint for you: a company is not even in the vicinity of 10,000 troops). What history of armed revolt within democratic nations do you have to draw on? Even stipulating (which I will gladly do) that the U.S. is not as democratic as it used to be, where does any of this lunacy come from other than your own mind?
Your so-called "tactical plan" reads like one of those /. joke business plans: 1) Eat a lot of donuts, 2) ???, 3) Profit! I mean, really, "Destroy civilian participation in government." Just like that, huh? An established army of insurgents with military training hasn't been able to do that in lawless Iraq, and you dash it off like it's comparable to going to the store and buying a loaf of bread.
And citing a colonial revolution against a monarchy on the other side of the ocean 200 years ago as a precedent for the ridiculous scenario you paint here... really, it makes me wonder why I am still participating in this thread. I have real work to do.
I'm not going to say anything about the logistics or administration of your 5,000,000 man army (that would be one of the largest armies currently on Earth). I'm not even going to argue with the blatant falsehoods that inform your thinking (though I will point out that neither Clinton nor the DOJ ever said any such thing). But I will say this: Politcal power has very little to do with guns, and if you don't understand the significance of the popular support of 1/3 of the people of this country in any terms other than Democrat vs. Republican (or in terms of how many people they can shoot), well, you need to branch out your reading list somewhat.
// This is not a sig.
With Bush, you "largely feel there is more good than bad." You "agree with him on ideological grounds." You vote against things because you "disagree with them on grounds of principle." (emphasis mine)
But nowhere do you mention making your votes based on logic or empirical evidence.
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.
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou
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.
Okay, reality check on this folks....
... and you could say as a member of the Republican administration, "Look Ma, We haven't done anything but change some figures and we're responsible for decreasing the unemployment rolls."
This kinds of thing happens all the time in every administration. This has been happening from the very beginning of our country. It goes like this:
* Someone forms a Commission. Do you know what a Comission is? Look it up. Wikipedia. Dictionary.com, etc. There is no reason why a Commission has to be bi-partisan. Bi-Partisan Committies, Commissions, etc are nothing more than an agreement by the ruling party to say "look we're being cooperative", or fair. This is nothing requiring the ruling party to do so.
* When a party decides to make or modify a commission, commitee, etc., (yes, even if one has been historically bi-partisan) you have the pleasure to put whoever suits your primary purpose on that committee.
Obviously this administration is pursuing the very thing they want, which is a partisan view represented by their administration. The Republican Party line has been for over TWO decades now "if it's not influenced by liberals, it's fair".
Here's a great example: In the 1980's, when Reagan was in office, his administration didn't want demographics coming out of the census bureau to represent the "democratic point of view". Those that were clear supporters of the party were kept and promoted to position within the organization to make sure facts and figures promoted the Republican agenda. One might say at this point these are no longer facts, but statistics, demographics, etc can be modified to suit the agenda.
Take unemployment figures. Unemployment figures are frequently modified by administrations to include and exclude different people with different qualifications. In the 80's when unemployment rates soared, the Reagan administration removed from the unemployment roles anyone with a part time job to reduce the amounts of people listed as unemployed -- The roles at one time listed everyone collecting a portion of unemployment but carrying a part-time job as on the rolls.
Well, are you unemployed? No, but it doesn't mean you aren't drawing from the unemployment pot. The percentages were modified to combat the soaring unemployment figures. Add to that anyone with a part time job was suddenly seen as "Gainfully Employed (yes, ignore the fact that you can't make a real living for a family of four working part time at Macdonalds even in teh 80's)
There were numerous articles in the 80's media that wrote about this situation and I'm sure if you look in the 1980-1982 Washington Post and New York Times, you'll see evidence of this.
As a liberal, I am unhappy that the Bush administration took this action, but you know what? They're allowed to. If you want your views represented, that means you have to get involved in politics. If you don't do that, you will NEVER win the day when it comes to true political equality, because the other party, liberal or conservative will consider weighting a panel, commission, or otherwise in their favor. That's called politics and it's perfectly legal. If you don't like it, you should have done your part to make sure that you and your neighbors did their part and voted democrat in the last presidential election.
"Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important." (Lisa Hoffman)
"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
At the risk of starting a big off-topic rant, I just have to respond to this... If you are poor in America WallMart is great; until they squeeze out local business and hike their prices back up. That is what happened in my tiny freeway exit of a town in Oregon. WallMart moved in and shut down every single local business one by one. That giant red white and blue Borg cube opened a tire center, video rental, grocery section... They put the locally owned video store, grocery store, farmers' market, hardware store, tire shop; everything out of business. Now my little town is dpenednat on WallMart and guess what? They hiked their prices right back up one by one as they shut down each of the small businesses.
Conginve your congress? What country do you live in? Our congress just tried to stick a feeding tube back in a vegitable despite polls ranging from 75-85% public opposition. Yeah, I'm sure if I walk up to congress and say "please stop taking lobbying dollars from WallMart and pass laws to make them play nice" they'll call a special session and Bush will rush back from his ranch to sign the bill! Hillary Clinton used to sit on the freaking WalMart board of directors for crying out loud.
Just increase the minimum wage? Ok, I'll go back to 2000 and un-rig the election 'cause GW ain't gonna do it.
Universial health care? Go back to Canada hippie.. . Here in American we like our poor to suffer! In fact, we seem to enjoy raising taxes on students so we can give $24 billion in substidies to the coal, oil, and gas industries and can drill in ANWR despite overwhelming public opposition. Oh, I know, we'll just force WallMart to unionize. You know, those communist labor unions seem to jive with the neoconservative faith based policy makers. I'm sure they can work something out.
I think it would be a start to get WallMart to obey the law as written. You know, like hiring US citizens and NOT locking them in the store overnight. Perhaps a little less discrimination, and I'm pretty sure mandatory daily propaganda viewing isn't on the up-and-up.
FYI congress is trying to levy something like a 27% terrif on all Chinese imports, so when our economy crumbles after China dumps all it's US T-Bonds in retaliation, WallMart will get what's coming to it!
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
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").