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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.