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.
Or just keep them from getting worse.
That would be a great disturbance in the Farce.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
Successful votes: 46%
Unsuccessful votes: 2%
George Bush: 52%
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.
...will not be pleased if the only thing to come out of the House in the next two years is a bunch of investigations and impeachment hearings. (ha, you thought I was going to say something abuot overlords, didn't you?)
Now that the Dems control the House, and will have a solid say in what happens in the Senate (regardless of outcome in Montana and Virginia), I want to see some action on real issues.
(BTW - can you really call Liberman a Democrat now? I mean he votes with the Republicans and the national Democrats gave him the finger earlier this year. I wonder if he will consider switching parties? That woul d be the ultimate up-yours, especially if the Dems get both tight races left - as his switch would put it at 50-50, and "the duck" would then cast all tie-breaking votes)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
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!
Hello United States of America!
Maybe You should consider inviting the UN for supervising the next election like any other Banana Republic out there?
Oh sorry - You couldn't take a joke ;-)
were in ur house, beetin ur repz!
So far, in the close Senate races (Tester Vs Burns in Montana and Webb Vs Allen in Virginia), the vote counts all favor the Democrats, leaving the incumbant Republicans in the position of legal challenger. In percentage terms, the advantage for the Democrats is much higher than in Florida 2000's presidential election, so the benefit of the doubt before the votes are checked will be very high for the Democrats taking the Senate.
I'm actually very glad that we have such close races in this election - this makes for one of the best possible cases for both parties to demand drastic changes in the standards needed for the voting process. Especially in the case of the 'electronic' voting machines and optical scanners using software like GEMS, and with extremely lax enforcement of standards across the board. Even without the expected cases of shennanigans, I hope we can expect some level of bi-partisan smackdown of these dangerously flawed voting systems.
Ryan Fenton
you never want one party controlling congress and the office of the president. the less that gets passed, the better!
Gone!
It should read, "Concerns of election fraud..."
Voter fraud is people voting under false identities. It rarely happens. Election fraud is the kind of mass voter suppression and dubious vote counting we've been seeing in this country. Even the most celebrated examples of "voter fraud" are really election fraud, such as Chicago Mayor Daley allegedly engineered dead people voting for JFK.
You remember how you were going to send pro-war democrats a big message and kick Lieberman's sorry ass out of the senate?
Well, the way the senate results are coming down, guess what: you just made Independent Joe Lieberman the most powerful man in the Senate.
How do you like them apples?
With love,
-- Irony
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
There's more to holding a House majority than passing bills. The most important thing, especially in the House (rather than the Senate) is that the majority party gets to decide the rules of order. The Democrats will now have the chair of every House committee, Speaker Pelosi will have the power to decide what bills even make it to the floor. Having the chair of all the committees, the Democrats will be able to exert Congressional oversight that has been sorely lacking since Bush came to office. In short, Democrats in the House will be able to frustrate the President's agenda, and likely make his final two years very embarassing.
Tip #2: My belief is that the end-of-year-rally will continue, and October 2006 to October 2007 will be a good year in the market (with most of the gains early). If I recall correctly, it almost always is, in years of the mid-term elections.
Tip #3: One stock prediction you can rely on: "It will fluctuate."
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
1) Lag between policies and stock performance
2) Lack of adjustment for inflation
3) Small sample size
4) Lack of a mechanism (without which, correlation isn't causation)
5) Many non-repeatable events that affect performance (9/11, oil embargo, etc)
And so on. In particular, Clinton doesn't deserve credit for sitting on the run-up of the dot com bubble and happening to get out right before it crashed (the market was cresting and heading for descent right as he left). I don't blame him either, however, so this isn't a partisan thing.
In short, I wouldn't say there's sufficient evidence either way, but as a statistically-minded scientist, I have a serious hatred of studies like the one you cite claiming statistically-unsupported conclusions.
That ain't gonna help you. It just means that you didn't get to vote.
You may welcome your new overlords again now.
Concerns of voter fraud have been heard from around the nation as well.
WTF was this little gem thrown into the summary? Not only does the article not mention fraud at all (if it did, I blinked...), but according to CNN, Number of civil rights voting complaints 'low'.
With a summary like that, seems like the editor is angling for a new job at Fox News...
They'll go along with a minimum wage increase, but the president will add a signing statement:
"Within the context of this statute, the term 'Dollar' shall defined to be equal to 68 cents."
Well, the Democrats got a favorable outcome, so I guess that means they don't think there was any voting fraud this time.
You don't understand: The election districts have been so gerrymandered (by both the Democrats and the Republicans) that the number of seats where it is thought to be even theoretically possible to defeat the incumbent of each party is generally considered to be less than 10% of the total seats. For the Democrats to take 4-6 Senate seats (out of only 33 up for election this year) and 28-30 House seats without losing a single seat of their own is an absolutely stunning thing.
Pollsters had characterized this election as a irresistible force (the 'tsunami' of public opinion against the Bush and the Republicans) vs the immovable object (the incredibly rigged system of incumbent protecting districts plus the advantages of incumbency in getting re-elected in general). Apparently the immovable object wasn't quite as immovable as the Republicans had hoped.
The Republican majority has never understood or respected Congress. They literally believe that it should do as little as possible. That's what they came into power on in 1994. Immediately they cut oversight hearings in 1/2 (Yes, they only spent 1/2 as much time doing oversight of the Clinton administration as the Democratic Congress), and it has been on a downward trend to oblivion ever since. They spent 10x as much time investigating Clinton's Christmas Card mailing list as they did Abu Ghrab.
This is because Republicans have always viewed Congressional hearings as merely a club to attack the other party with when they are truly essential to a well running government. A lot of our problems would have been avoided if they had kept fulfilling that role, but they are phobic about saying anything bad about other Republicans. Let's just hope that there are enough old hands in Congress that can remember how this is supposed to work!
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.
Stock futures are down big this morning, as happens after almost every democratic win. I believe NASDAQ is down 20+ and Dow is down 40+.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
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
As an American, I can say that you're pretty much accurate there. The voting system has led to a two-party system, which has led to bitter, bitter partisanship like you describe - despite the fact that the Duopoly is essentially a single monster with two heads. Now that the election is over, it will return to being the back-patting good ol' boy club.
The OP is right - divided government is good. So then why can't we get some stronger third parties? I, for one, would love to see no single party with a majority in either house. A coalition government seems like it would be much slower to pass new laws as well, which is a good thing for freedom. Nobody in this country looks beyond the "us vs them" of election day to the deeper (though mundane) issues of voting methods that could actually fix the problem we all complain about. All my fellow Americans know how to do is swing the pendulum back and forth. The system itself doesn't allow (much less encourage) real challenge to occur. Voting doesn't make much difference, because there are no choices, so the USA has one of the lowest rates of involvement of any free country.
My analysis is that voters wanted a change. They rejected the leadership of GWB and took it out on Congress, but it isn't necessarily an endorsement of Democrats. I think there are a lot of disillusioned Republicans out there, that would have taken the opportunity to vote Constitution or Libertarian if the media had bothered to inform them of these alternatives. But the media seems to be in collusion with the Duopoly, because those bitter two-way feuds make good news.
Constitutionally Correct
Just so we're clear: it is not hard in America to become an influential lobbyist *or* the staffer for a Congressperson, if you were so inclined.
...
I've worked on a campaign for a state legislator - the people at the top (the consultants who end up on congressional staff, the directors, etc) are mostly just like me, but with two differences: they were a lot more involved in politics throughout college (running for Student Senate, joining groups, etc) and most of them were eager beaver, suit-wearing boring clods. (Not that I'm not boring or a clod, but they took the cake.)
The people who get on national campaigns are only slightly more respectable. Add in a law degree and you can be a lobbyist, too.
In fact, here's a simple 10 Step Process To Becoming a Congressional Staffer:
1) In high school, be "politically" active. Run for student government, be a joiner, do the club thing (be President of at least one), join FBLA. Also, learn Spanish. And actually learn it, don't just sit in the classes.
2) Become an Eagle Scout. It's ridiculously easy, and it's great for networking. For girls, do a lot of volunteer work.
3) In college, repeat: join a lot of clubs, run for student government.
4) Write for your college newspaper. Especially the political section. If the main newspaper won't take you, right for one of the student-run alternatives. Or start your own (even better!)
5) Get a degree in political science with a minor in communications. Any liberal arts degree will do, but political science is as an easy way to
6) Network within your university. Ask all of your teachers and advisors about internships and positions on campaigns and staff.
7) Get involved in real politics around your college. Volunteer for the Democratic or Republican party headquarters in your area. Attend townhall meetings and generally get your name out there (business cards are great.) At actual elections, sign up to be a poll worker (you get paid $150 in Texas to do this.)
8) Once you've graduated, head to your party headquarters with your hat in your hand, and ask for a job on a staff. They will hook you up (I worked on 3 campaigns before switching fields.)
9) Focus on what you're really good at within the campaign. Good at math? Crunch poll numbers and offer strategies on how to be more efficient with your campaigning. Good at IT? Build websites, manage e-mail newsletters, keep track of donors, create systems to manage the campaign. Good with people? Be the PR flak, or coordinate the volunteers. Good with words? Be a speechwriter. Find your strength and hone in on it.
10) Wait 10 years. By the time you're 30, you'll be in a Congressional office, as long as you don't totally screw up. And even then, all of that networking will probably get you something cushy.
This strategy absolutely worked for me up to stage 8, when I decided I'd rather build websites for regular people and businesses than campaigns.
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
No, no, no, dig up stupid.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
It's a shame that we live in a matter of state where people have to say "don't vote for the candidate you support because it splits the vote, and in turn the guy both of us oppose will win". You should pick who you want, based on your criteria, and let the chips fall where they may.
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)?
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
How is this a conservative agenda? Every important item in your list is about telling others how to live! A true conservative agenda is that basically people should be as free as possible from government interference.
Government should be minimal. People should be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness - remember that line?
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
I understand your sentiment, and partially agree. It just seems bad that it's either a system where a 25% vote wins, or a system where you have one of two choices, neither of which are good, but people feel like they must pick a "lesser of two evils". Ours is a system where there very well could be a "perfect leader" out there, a man of the people, who would never see the light of day because he doesn't play the games the Big Two do.
Maybe I'm just too cynical....it all reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they had to vote between the two aliens....it's funny and sad because it's true.
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."
but it's hard to ignore the fact that you're getting in bed with a bunch of tax dodging fatcats who could care less about most of the stuff you want.
Eliminating taxes is a bit different than tax dodging... I think tax dodging is more a description of the goals of the Democrats and Republicans who want to give tax loopholes out to their corporate and special interest supporters like candy for votes. Libertarians just want to set a fair (lower) rate and have everyone pay their fair share. It hurts libertarians that they don't want to use the social and economic controls that have served the two parties so well to curry favor. In other words you can't give out tax breaks if the rate is already the lowest it can be in order to run a stripped down version of government.
I can't speak for all signatories, but in *my* Army, the Convention is taken very VERY seriously with enormous penalties for those who violate it.
If I caught any of my guys violating the Convention, particularly the sections on the mistreating of prisoners, I'd nail their ass to the wall, and I expect my chain of command would support that.
The Convention isn't just a nice idea; it's the LAW.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book