Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Attorney General Resigns
willie3204 is one of many to mention that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned. One of Gonzales' main opponents praised his decision stating that: "'For the previous six months, the Justice Department has been virtually nonfunctional and desperately needs new leadership,' said the Schumer statement. 'Democrats will not obstruct or impede a nominee who we are confident will put the rule of law above political considerations. We beseech the Administration to work with us to nominate someone whom Democrats can support and America can be proud of.'"
The Daily Show starts a 2 week break this week.
Is anyone noticing a trend where resignations seem to occur while The Daily Show is off on break?
Good! About damn time!
One of the most frustrating, maddening things about this administration is disregard for the people's will. Bolton was a good example. He was only supported by the president and Republicans. When appointing someone that represent the American people you need to have the support of the American people not just your party.
It's in that same spirit that I'm voting Republican in the next presidential election. Do you REALLY think one party rule is going to better under Democrats? I like the idea of one party controlling the White House and the other controlling Congress. It forces people to work together. Something this country BADLY needs now... and for the world as well before we damage things even more.
Actually Gonzo and I were at the same school at almost the same time. No way he could have graduated with such a weak memory, so I've basically been wondering what happened to him. He still has his wits and he's just faking the idiocy? Or was is some kind of mental disease from excessive mental gymnastics and brown nosing?
Anyway, I'm still amazed that Dubya let him resign, even if Chertoff is the replacement (according to rumors). The last thing the neo-GOP wants now is a functional DoJ. Everything is coming unraveled for them.
One more thing. Don't let the door hit ya' on yer way out.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I am no friend to Attorney Gonzalez. In fact I've wanted him out of the position for some time. But to his credit, he has been placed in a horrible position.
Lets assume for one moment, before he took this position that he was a good lawyer. But to be led by a man who has destroyed so many other reputations is no easy task. It is a great honor and massive amount of responsibility to be in that position. But then to be "Serving at the Will of the President...", augh. He has shown to be loyal to his president. Did he misplace is trust and loyality? Maybe yes, Maybe no. But a strong un-dying loyality in this day and age is very very difficult to find.
In many ways, I respect that ill lasting lasting loyality. But sadly, I would have respected him more had he had the courage to be an honest man with integrity.
This is of course, only my opinion.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
We pay lip service to the people, but really, the people have very little say.
When the country was founded, the founding fathers envisioned the electoral college as a hedge against mob rule...The members of the electoral college were typically rich landowners, and they weren't required to vote based on the votes of the citizens beneath them, so if the rich landowners didn't like candidate A, they could just vote for candidate B, regardless of how the people voted.
That's not the case these days. These days, most states require the EC to vote based on how the people in the state vote...No wealthy landowners here!
Except...Who do the people vote for? The candidates chosen by the two big political parties. How do the big political parties choose their candidates? Effectively it's money. Whoever can line up the most wealthy landowners behind them, that person wins. That's pretty much the point of the primary system...Trot out the candidates, and see which one the money guys like best.
Sure, there are two guys up on stage, but really they're the same. They go to the same schools. They know the same people. They do roughly the same crap in office.
Power to the people will be a first in this country, if it ever happens.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Strange after Sept 11? How about before? Remember when Janet Reno had all those (likely now "terrorists") people torched at Waco?
It's just a sad, sad statement when the most informed news you can get, in the paraphrased words of John Stewart, is a fake news show lead into by puppets making crank calls. John gets that. I honestly don't know how he manages to be so chipper and funny - he has to get up on that stage and make fun of some of the saddest/worst stuff in this country. Daily. Perhaps in the hopes that he's entertaining AND informing ... as opposed to places like Fox News, or CNN, which are failing us on so many levels.
That's why the impeachment proceedings are generally going after Dick first. If you get him first, then you can go after Bush on the same materials.
You know who then becomes president? Yep, that's right.
Yeah, well the difference is that Republicans have been blindly following party dictates and castigating anyone who dares criticize their brethren. Being secretly disillusioned means nothing if by action you show 100% loyalty.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Every politician seems to be using this logical fallacy these days, to the extent that they're pretty much one-trick ponies. I can hardly stomach any interviews with a politician because they just launch straight into a false dichotomy at the earliest opportunity, immediately muddying the discussion, turning it into an ideological debate rather than arguing the problem at hand, and diverting from any fault that may be attributable to them.
It sickens me. What annoys me more is that journalists (including the interviewers) love it too. They just carry on with their interview and debate the extremes. It makes for heated debates, and bigger headlines. It all avoids doing any actual fucking journalism.
The world isn't full of extremes but unfortunately it's currently being run by people with 1-bit vision and 1-bit responses. It's all going to end in a 1-bit result if it carries on - and I don't think it'll be the good one.
Thanks for that excellent post. Sadly it will probably not get its due in one of these topics where most people are more interested in venting than anything else.
The attacks on the traditional primary line up and the whining of other (larger) states is largely misguided and the current trend of trying to jump the line is going to be a disaster if allowed to continue.
The early primary states are not a problem, they are a national treasure.
Any sense of disenfranchisement from states voting later in the season has less to do with the so-called lack of diversity in NH and Iowa than it does in party rules, the media, and political funding. The political conventions have become nothing more than a 3 day media spectacle because the parties have changed the rules so that the outcome is known 6 months in advance. When was the last time there was a real floor fight or 2nd or 3rd nomination ballet? Campaigns now approach elections using the Powell doctrine of warfare: use overwhelming force (money) and persuasion (crappy media ads) up until Super Tuesday and the winners then watch the other campaigns slowly bleed to death because they cannot finance media buys in the big states. This is the way the parties want it - not IA, NH, or SC. Undermining these states is the wrong solution aimed at a complete misreading of the problem.
The voters in New Hampshire, for instance, take the primary process very seriously and I would confidently put their collective political knowledge up against that of any other state. Yes, it has only a million people - exactly why politicians are forced to get out of the limos and participate in retail politics. Which works as intended. Mitt Romney, for example, cannot hide behind his money and slick ads when waitresses in Manchester diners can pummel him with questions and objections to his health care plans.
A national primary or front loading big states would be a disaster. CA or NY can never have real retail politics so all that will happen is that the pols will climb further up the asses of big corporate money so they can finance pigeon campaigns where they fly over and dump ads on the populace.
If your idea of democracy in action is 30 second ads by pols preselected by the corps, or political conversation on the order of our misnamed television "debates", keep dumping on IA and NH and front loading the primaries. We will get the political outcome we desearve.
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
A thing to note about that quote is that the guy who said it (and this applies to me as well, incidentally) is not really a Hillary supporter, though he is liberal. Its just that to most far-right Republicans, Hillary is the worst bogey man he could invoke. The point is that someone you disagree with could get elected, so don't be too hasty in tearing down the limits on Presidential power, not that 'ha ha, Clinton will get elected!'
Awarding electors proportionally doesn't work because to be fair, every state would have to do it. To take your example of Texas and California, if one of those states went proportional and the other stayed winner takes all, that would be unfair to the D's or R's.
What does work is the National Popular Vote, and it's not a huge overhaul of the electoral process. It's an interstate agreement to assign all their electors to the winner of the national popular vote. Once enough states sign on (enough to make a majority of electoral votes), the law goes into effect. It's simple and fair.
As I and about 500 others used our vote to throw a mayoral election in one of the nation's 10 largest cities, I can tell you without reservation that voting CAN work. As pointed out elsewhere here, you just have to have a sufficient number of pissed-off voters that're ready to put their vote where their mouth is. Details on the above election upon request.
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
You are doing it all wrong. You should vote. You should just vote for a third party. The reason people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate is that they have been convinced that they are "throwing away their vote". If you are actually advocating literally throwing away your vote, you can double the effectiveness by voting third party. There is little to no chance that the third party candidate will win, so it doesn't matter what the candidate stands for. Besides, they are unlikely to be a bigger problem than either of the two major candidates.
If you think that 20% voter turn out will get the governments attention, just imagine what a 70% turnout would do to them with 30% of the votes going to third party candidates! So, don't encourage your family and friends not to vote at all. Don't try to convince them that they should think a third party will get elected. Just explain that if they are going to withhold/throw away their votes, withhold them from the possible winners by putting them on a third party.
If not voting is supposed to be the death by a thousand cuts, voting for a third party is the salt you rub into the wounds.
Funny, that's how they do it in almost every other democratic, industrialized country. Hell, in France if breakfast is cold they run to the streets with pickets, and you can bet tomorrow their eggs will be piping hot. In most of these states, the government is actually scared of it's people, which is how it should be...
But in the US, we've been marginalized with stupidity. We are absolutely void of critical thought. All we needs is a "support our troops" sticker, an American flag flying outside of our house, and a sound bite from a politician saying "you won't die if you vote for me", and the rest will be OK. Fear breeds consent, and "some" of our politicians use it to the max. In fact, it's catching on in other countries too.
If we brought critical thought to the countryside, I believe this would be a much better country (as far as politics/power go). Too many with voter's cards think that "kicking ass!" is how we win, which is the great ruse of our time (US), perpetrated by those currently in power...
Kudos on your post...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
You are both right, in a sense. Doing nothing more than voting once every four years doesn't do a damn thing to help matters, but then, protesting by not voting at all accomplishes even less. I think you both need to get out there and try to actively make changes yourselves, just as many others have tried to do in the past. You may have no effect at all; then again, you could become the catalyst this nation needs to wake up and see the evil leadership we are under. If you think we need a revolution, then revolt! If you feel that by not voting you are making a difference, then do more than just refuse to vote. Talk to people about why, and not just on geeky internet forums like this. Get out there and speak to groups, rally the folks to see the truth behind the corruption and misdeeds of our woefully inadequate government.