Slashdot Mirror
Democrats Take House, Senate Undecided
Every news publication on earth is saying mostly the same thing. The Democrats have taken the house picking up a sizable number of seats. But the Senate remains a tossup with a few undecided seats holding the balance. Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.
Yes, it's good for everyone, even the citizens that call themselves Republican.
Let me explain what was happening before. The Republicans owned all three branches of the government--House, Senate & Presidential seat. They didn't have 2/3 majority in both the House & Senate but it put the rest of the country in a really bad spot. You see, the three branches were put in place so that no one party/person could go nuts and foul up the country.
What has been happening as of late, is that bills are flying through all three branches and being approved. Some of these are good for Republicans, some aren't. Some of the things George W. Bush has been doing are aligned with his party and some weren't. The problem is that since "his party" was the majority, they were expected to pass whatever he proposed.
Compounding on these problems, it seems the Democrats were resigned that this would happen after their defeat in a lot of prior elections.
The fact is, I don't want anything to fly through the process of passing bills. I want there to be a large discussion before it becomes law. Recently, I've seen headings that say, "Bill passed that allows president to do X" and my response was, "When the hell was that even proposed? Oh, six days ago? That's aweful fast!"
The Democrats have a majority in one branch now, I don't care who gets the Senate. Let's just keep a nice balanced government. I'm not naive enough to think that this process actually works but I do know that as of late it's been really crappy--probably for both parties. I'd like to see the Republicans take the Senate, the Democrats have the House & let whatever nut jobs we want to be president.
So if you call yourself Republican, just remember that the other half of the country is Democrat--and it benefits you to keep them happy. A balanced government is more important for my health than balanced meals.
My work here is dung.
Nothing will get done. Bush still has the VETO stamp. Its been sitting in his desk draw barely used for the last 6 years. I am sure it is going to get a major workout in the next two. This is not a bad thing, government is best when it does least.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
As a believer in liberty, limited government, and rule of law, I'm no fan of the Democrats. BUT I do recognize that with a divided government, less gets done. And the less that gets done, the better off all of us are. Fewer wars are started. Fewer liberties are infringed. Fewer taxes get raised. Fewer vile "regulations" get passed. Fewer obstacles are placed in the path of economic growth and prosperity. Hence, although I'd never have voted for any Democrat, I'm still glad they took at least the House.
Nonaggression works!
They're democrats, not magicians.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Bush still has the VETO stamp. Its been sitting in his desk draw barely used for the last 6 years.
Unfortunately it's been sitting in there next to his stack of signing statements which HAVE been heavily used over the last 6 years.
If nothing else, maybe the new Congress will actually put this signing statement bullshit in check.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
you never want one party controlling congress and the office of the president. the less that gets passed, the better!
Gone!
Sure, if by "draft something at the president's request" you mean "take a bill written by Executive branch lawyers and pass it without actually reading it" like they did with the Patriot Act.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
It's more like: Lobbyists write new laws; congress votes for them in exchange for campaign donations.
THEY'RE ALL POLITICIANS!!!
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
As an ex-Republican (Bush created a lot of us) who still leans conservative at least on economic issues, this is no surprise to me. What is interesting to me is that a party that includes some pretty intelligent people seems to primarily target idiots in their rhetoric.
;)
For example, most conservatives I know could care less about gay marriage. It is not a huge issue for me, I find myself being for it. I have no reason to oppose it so it just seems fair. Yet Rove and co. keep making this a cornerstone of their "get out the vote" campaign. The Christian fundamentalists do not have enough numbers that you need only focus on them to win, especially when it comes out that your own party might be covering up for a gay (the horror!) teen-predator who inexplicably held a co-chairmanship in the "missing and exploited children caucus". That probably did not play well in the bible belt.
Corruption anyone? Of course this is a cyclical thing and I fully expect the Republicans will probably regain Congress in a few election cycles after the Democrats turn out to be just a corrupt. And the cycle will go on and on because corruption is not a party issue, it is a requirement for office in DC.
Then you have Iraq, the elephant in the room that none of the Republican commentators wanted to touch (no pun intended). Again, you would have to be a totally uninformed moron to think that everything is going great and we need to "stay the course", yet that has been the message for years, flying in the face of reality (with its well known liberal bias
But the most ridiculous thing to me has to be the "listen to mommy and daddy you stupid little children" approach the Republicans have taken in warning us what would happen if the Democrats win. Probably plays well to those who only get their information from Rush/Hannity/etc., but for those of us who are not spoon fed our beliefs by paid mouthpieces it is insulting. "The terrorists are cheering the Democrats on", "The Democrats want us to lose", "If the Democrats win, we will lose the war on terror", "The future of civilization rests in the balance of the election"
Give me a break, both parties are pro-America and want the best for us, they just differ on how to get there. To suggest otherwise is fear-mongering of the worst kind.
Then you have the issue of how far Republicans have come from the "94 take over" years. Go back and re-read the "Contract With America", it is chock full of some really good stuff that I could really get behind. However, it is as far from the Republican party as you can get.
A good number of us are not religious/social conservative fanatics (or as I like to say, Shiite Christians), but that seems to be all the Republicans are targeting. Many of us ARE fiscally conservative and you will not find a more fiscally irresponsible government that the Republican controlled federal government of yesterday. Almost none of us are willing to join Bush's delusion regarding Iraq anymore. The WMD scam, the clueless management on the part of Rumsfeld, and the "la la la, I can't hear you" approach Bush takes to any news that is not positive has clearly taken its toll.
Personally, I hope the Democrats take the Senate for a clean Congressional sweep. I still disagree with many of their positions, but more important that that is my belief that checks and balances between the two branches of government is preferable to a mono-culture.
I am Finkployd, and I approve this message
The US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. In fact, the US government is now the most powerful government and world empire that has ever existed in the history of organized coercion.
Over the last 100 years, US political power has been domainated by the republicans and the democrats together. Neither party dominated by itself; they shared in the power over this period. This trend continues today in full force, as does the trend for expansion of power. Every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before, thousands more ways for a peaceful individual to become a criminal.
Given this near-exponential growth of the US government, it is clear that both parties are primarily driven by power -- otherwise, why would they have fought so hard to expand their powers over the past century? If they valued the freedom of the individual more than their own power, then logically, the incredible growth of the US government over the past century wouldn't have been possible. If even one of the two dominant parties actually worked to reduce, rather than expand government power over the individual, then wouldn't they have cancelled each other out?
Of course that's not the case. So let's answer your question: Will the democrats be able to make things better, or will they only be able to keep things from getting worse?
You're going to have to deny history to come up with a positive answer on either count. I'll bet my life that when the democrats are finished, the US government will be (drum roll please) bigger, more powerful (measured in both revenue and power over the people), and last but not least, there will be yet even more ways for peaceful individuals to become criminals.
That ain't gonna help you. It just means that you didn't get to vote.
You may welcome your new overlords again now.
I thought slate had an article saying that democrats were better investors recently ? Too lazy to search, sorry.
I think you're referring to the claim that companies with "blue" managers outperformed others significantly. I don't have the Slate article, but this is the prospectus for the fund.
Now, here's why you shouldn't buy it (the argument, or the fund):
1) They've based this on FIVE YEARS of market history. In terms of the stock market's history, that's nothing. The last five years are not representative of the market's performance. For example, the S&P's historical return is over 10 percent, but in the last five years it was ~6.5%, about the same as bonds.
2) The fund promoter doesn't seem to understand what would count as a valid explanation for the perceived phenomenon (which, again, they got from only five years). The prospectus proposes that democrat-leaning CEO's "better understand employee needs" and crap like that, but that would't explain excess returns. To explain excess returns you would need to explain why that better management *is not already accounted for in the stock's price*. Even if that has historically happened, how do you know investors haven't "learned their lesson" by now and quit undervaluing that kind of manager? It's common for theories to backtest well and blow up when you try them.
If you really want to invest in "socially responsible" companies, go to vanguard.com and look up their "social index fund" (under stock funds). You get the benefits of low-cost indexing, plus you'll only be investing in companies that were pre-screened for social and environmental criteria. But don't expect to do consistently better than the rest of the market.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Um, the reason why Bush has never vetoed is that his agenda calls for expansion (not reduction) of government power, just like the majority of US politicians (republican and democrat alike) over the past 100 years. Nearly all new bills call for expansion of government power, not reduction -- that is why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. That is why the US government is now the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire in the history of organized coercion. You don't get from strictly limited constitutional government to world empire by vetoing bills.
My point? If Bush dusts off his veto pen, it certainly won't be because the democrats are calling for expansion of power. And given history, it is quite unlikely that the democrats will be calling for reduction of power. (Of course they'll throw us a few bones here and there to give the appearance, but I guarantee that when all is said and done, government will be -- drum roll please -- more expensive and more powerful, just as it has nearly every susecutive year for the past 100 years).
To be up front, I will state that I am a conservative and vote along that ideology. Even so, I am pointing out the lies and hypocrisy of the "Repugnacan" Party.
:-)
:-( Will the Demoncrats live up to their promises of affordable, quality healthcare? Will they do something to steady the flow of American jobs to overseas slave labor countries? Will they repeal the "Patriot" Act? Will they restore the legal protections that Americans had under the Constitution? The most likely answer to all of these questions is likely not just no, but HELL NO!!! Remember the Democrats' promise when they ran against George Bush Senior? They railed against the republicans about their eagerness to send American jobs overseas (to repressive countries such as Red China). When in office, they did nothing to stem the flow of American jobs overseas. In fact most voted for the North American "Free Trade" Agreement. Healthcare costs also skyrocketed during the Clinton era. There were also the uncoinstitutional intrusions on peoples freedoms. Will there be any real changes in the way we are governed in the next few years? HELL NO!!! It will be business as usual.
The Republicans had control of both houses of congress, the presidency, and "right wing" majority in Supreme Court. In other words, they had a monopoly on power in the United States? Did they live up to their "party platform?" NO THEY DIDN'T!!! Rather than reduce the size and scop of government they have made the government size and scope the largest in U.S. history. As far as abortions and "gay marriage," the carnage continues at abortion mills, and NO LAW was passed to prevent "gay marriage." In fact, the Bush administration has appointed the largest number of openly gay people to office. The Republicans claim that they were tough on Muslim extremeists, yet they voted to outsource our nation's security to Arab companies while at the same time passing unconstitutional laws that intrude upon American freedoms. Christians and other moral majority type people fell for the Republican con plain and simple, and the Republicans did not keep their promises as a party. As a result, FED UP voters rightfully threw their sorry asses out of office
The problem I have with the election, however, is the fact that Demoncrats were elected in their place
I call the state of American politics the "swinging pendulum of sameness." When voters become fed up with the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Democrats, they fall for the lies, deceit, and corruption of the Republicans. It is the same game, but with a different name. The main difference between each political party is which group of voters they target with their empty campaign promises and lies, deceit, and corruption. Each election, voters are still stupid enough to actually swallow these lies. It is the stupidity of voters that allow these assholes to get away with all their crap. I am sure that this post will be modded down or catagorized as a troll. So be it. However, that still does not change the fact that the American voters as a whole are still stupid. Most believe that they have no choice but to vote the "Lessor of Two Evils." ost are also too lazy to do research on the candidates on the ballot even when sample ballots are available weeks in advance. If they would actually take about 15 minutes to do research, they would see that they never even heard of the majority of the candidates on the ballot. This is because the vooice of these candidates are squelched by the mainstream media. In fact, most media outlets will not even list them as being in the race.
I did my research this election, and I found several alternative party or independent candidates who had very good ideas. I also found quite a few who were plainly kooks. I told people about the candidates that I like as well as the other alternative ones. Most people's reactions were, "but they have no chance of winning. You are throwing away your vote." I say that they are throwing away th
Cuba has an excellent, well developed acute and preventative medical programme. Doctors from all over the world learn from their system. They also train many, many Drs from the 3rd world, cheaply, which allows them to go home and benefit their country. I saw a BBC2 (UK) show recently where they even interviewed some trainee medics from the US who were learning in Cuba as a)it was cheaper b)they liked the system. That's not to say the Cuba is a wonderland - Castros human rights record stinks - but it is simplistic to dismiss their socialised healthcare for this reason. Also, you might like to consider the quality of social healthcare availble in, for example, the Scandinavian countries. If I had to get cancer (Intelligent Designer forbid) I'd rather have it in Denmark than Delaware. Unless, of course, you think your medical choices should be solely a function of your personal income. NB As a Canadian, if you don't like your healthcare system, exercise your democratic rights and vote for a party that will improve things (in your eyes, anyway). Failing that, run for office yourself. And be damned grateful you can - unlike people in the 3 countries you mention can/could.
echo $SIGNATURE
For example, the law may read "Noone in the employ or contracted by any part of the Federal governmeny may torture any person in their custody" with the usual dozen pages of verbiage defining what "custody" and "torture" mean. Then Bush writes "I will interpret the law as if noone means anyone", and signs it.
If that's not writing new laws, I don't know what is.
Lower taxes vs lower interest rates. Hmm. Let the government take out a $2,000 loan per person per year for the population, with no one making the decisions being responsible for paying it back, or let the population decide if they want to take out a loan themselves... Which one is more responsible?
All the government did was borrow money to inject into the economy. They didn't decrease spending, they increased it. And I'll bet that many of them got a hell of a lot richer in the process. If you want lower taxes, tell them to cut spending. If you want to cut spending, tell them to cut the thing that takes over half of the budget: the military. Guess what? That won't happen. People in the US are so brain washed that we have to control the world that they'll never let that happen. The other thing is military contracts are a sizable chunk of the US manufacturing jobs. If you cut military budget, you cut jobs in every state. That'll be real popular. It doesn't matter that if we cut the military in half, we'd still out spend everyone else and have no deficit. Plus there's the whole pride BS: Military BIG! Penis BIG! AGHHHH! Me Crush YOU!
So, I'd say you can pretty much live with your taxes. They're never going to go down long term. You might get some short term bribes from politicians, but eventually, the bills have to be paid.
But even assuming the Democrats pull together and show brilliant leadership and vision (and I'm not holding my breath), it would take years to undo Bush's damage. I think a key issue to watch is going to be Rumsfeld. It's clear his strategies have failed, repeatedly; he needs to be held accountable. And it's clear he can't fix things in Iraq. He has to go. Bush's instincts will be to protect him, because Bush rewards loyalty (a good character, to a point) and because Bush thinks that firing him would be an admission of failure, and Bush does not admit failure (but admitting failure is a technicality at this point, Rumsfeld and Bush's efforts in Iraq so far have failed utterly).
Your taxes are going to go up because the Republicans have been cutting taxes and spending like drunken schoolboys for the last six years. Just because they didn't pay for it then doesn't make it the fault of the people who inherit their mess.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Once upon a time, war was the (almost) exclusive purview of uniformed armies fighting other uniformed armies.
Later on, as victory became less about the actions of groups of determined men carrying sharp and pointy things, and more about the ability to mobilize and deploy highly mechanized forces (the three best American generals of WW2: General Foods, General Motors, General Electric) it was almost as important to deny an enemy the use of his industrial production base as it was to defeat his armies in the field. This ushered in an era where targeting essentially civilian enterprises was militarily acceptable if it resulted in damage to military production. Merge this with the concept that the state had the right and ability to conscript every male between 16 and 55(ish) into military service, and you have 20th century Total War.
Total War is, indeed, brutal and ruthless, as you are effectively pitting the entire population, technical, agricultural, and industrial capabilities of states against each other.
But more recent actions are not about all-out state-vs-state contests. Instead, you are looking at state-vs-uninstitutionalized factions, where victory is not measured by reducing an opposing state's armies and industrial centres to ash, but rather, in converting an undecided third party (the "normal" citizens of the host state) into seeing things your way and conducting themselves accordingly.
This is "hearts and minds" stuff. You aren't in the game of killing everything in sight. Instead, you are in the game of reducing the freedom of your enemies to act and denying them support, while simultaneously trying to improve the quality of life of the citizens of the host nation.
It is in the conversion of the host people that the game is won or lost. If everybody wants the insurgents to win, then they will - you are an army of occupation and they will eventually bleed you dry. If everybody wants the insurgents to lose, then they will - insurgents rely on the support of locals to survive. And when you have an undecided populace, where some support you and some support the insurgents... well, then you have Iraq and Afghanistan today.
And experience has shown that heavy-handedness - "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"; "those that run are VC, those that stand their ground are well-disciplined VC" - plays into the hands of the insurgents, as every injustice done to an innocent creates support for the insurgents.
A man who supports you and who wants to see the insurgents stopped will change his tune when a 1000lb bomb dropped on the "insurgent stronghold" across the street flattens his home and kills his family - even if there really WERE insurgents across the street that were legitimate targets.
Tactics that were entirely acceptable in the Total War days are now not only unacceptable in the Three Block War days, but are actually counterproductive.
The main goals in Iraq have to be the restoration of basic infrastructure, the training and fielding of an effective, corruption-free Iraqi police force, the cleanup and rebuilding of damaged and destroyed buildings, and the establishment of effective government. Until those are done, you cannot win.
Is there still a need for troops? Hell yes - all those infrastructure and reconstruction efforts will be actively opposed by insurgents, and there is a dire need for security and protection for those actors. But that's a different role than a massed armoured spearhead charging into the Fulda Gap.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Speaking of, why does the Green Party get so much support as opposed to the Libertarians (which from what I can tell, seem much more "mainstream" in that if you asked someone their thoughts, would probably fall in line with them)?
Most people I know dislike Libertarians because they're seen as economically too right-wing. That is, the whole personal economic freedom thing is great, but people want social economic responsibility enforced as well, i.e. a social safety net of some sort, which the libertarians don't seem too fond of. The greens are more economically moderate, and as you'd expect from just statistical distribution, most people have moderate views of some sort or another.
Incidentally, I'd say that what we call "socially liberal" is actually quite socially moderate, hence it's popularity; only a few of the most radical anarchistic liberals say that "people should be able to do whatever the want to long as they aren't harming others, and there should be no system in place to catch those who do try to harm others and protect those in danger of coming to harm". Fewer still say simple "people should be able to do whatever they want, period, even if it hurts others". Most everybody favors the existence of some sort of police, and emergency services like firefighters, and nobody wants complete anomie; all of which would be more liberal positions than even libertarians hold.
Which doesn't make them better positions mind you, at least in my book - there has to be a proper balance between personal freedom and social responsibility and too little of either (or conversely, too much of the other) will give equally bad results. Too much "social responsibility" - when you start not only supporting the needs and general wellbeing of a society, but also giving in to it's arbitrary whims - leads to authoritarian tyranny of the majority, and is just as bad as the anarchy in the above extremes. (Consider it analogous to giving your child what it needs, which is a responsibility and thus somewhat a limit on your freedom, versus giving your child everything it demands, which would go beyond mere responsibility and make you a whipped parent). Apply this same line of reasoning (something the likes of which I suspect lies in the back of most people's minds) to economic issues and you'll see why more moderate economic stances are more popular than either of the extreme capitalist or extreme socialist positions.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Two questions.
1. Can you point me to that clause in the Conventions? I was not familiar with that. (As I understood it, signed international treaties are the law of the land.) I'm curious to see what you are referring to.
2. Assuming your 'uncomfortable truth' is correct, and a nation does not have to follow them in combat with an enemy who does not recognize the Conventions, do you think - personally - that we should still follow them on moral grounds?
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
You are a brave squid for posting that. With the complete destruction of civil liberties you've pointed to, I certain you have already been detained for crimes against the state. I hope you survive the torture you will certainly receive without delay. But with the havoc the deficit spending has had on our economy, at least you will get bread and water between your torture sessions. Since I can't find a job, maybe I should post something similar so that I can at least get a free meal.
I am alive and posting to slashdot so I, personally, have not been murdered. Therefore, murderers do not exist.
I've got a simpler solution: If the law is unconstitutional, don't pass the law. If the law gets passed despite the veto, don't execute the law. Then the Supreme Court is supposed to jump in and decide whether the law is constitutional or not.
Yes, I understand why you consider signing statements useful, and even reasonable when used in exceptional circumstances. But it seems like the Constitution doesn't authorize the practice, and letting it go on despite that effectively takes one of the powers of the Judiciary (to determine the constitutionality of laws) and hand it straight over to the Executive. Maybe the Constitution should be amended, to legalize the signing statements or give SCOTUS a way to quickly weigh in on such perceived constitutional turf wars.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!