Slashdot Mirror
IT Workers Split For McCain, Obama
antipeon alerts us to a presidential preference survey, done in late February and early March, indicating that Obama and McCain lead among IT workers with 29% each. Clinton follows with 13%, just ahead of Huckabee (11%) and Ron Paul (9%). The Computing Technology Industry Association commissioned the poll, and the article notes that this trade group claims the population of IT workers is four times as large as the Bureau of Labor Statistics thinks it is — the better to make a voting block whose views must be attended to.
...but on the ballot or not, Steven Colbert gets my vote!
The game.
Read his speech from last week. Think about leaders that you've disagreed with, too, but followed because you had faith in where they were going. There are lots of those in my history; we're not perfect beings and his pastor obviously has some issues with where America's been going. So do I. His pastor's not a showstopper for me. Given Clinton, who can't win, and McCain, who's too much of a turncoat and politico, Obama's the only remaining horse that can win this race and try to mend the mistakes made in two terms of an elected fear-monger.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
but the idea of a "voting block" made up by geeks, is uterly inane. Why, you say?
We like to think ourselves (ie, us geeks) as a special part of our society, (us vs the ID-10T problem). it's a dipole, hence a false dilema. we're part of the US society as much as everybody else. We are workers ourselves, even if most of us make a well-to-do living from our work.
But in no-way do we differ from another working caste of this society. In this Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baroque_Cycle of the wheel, we got the upper hand, because we are techically inclined. But the wheel *will* make another revolution, and we'll be bottom-feeders once again.
My point is, in these comming elections do not vote such and such because you are a geek/woman/black man/white man/polka-dotted-man from mars. Vote vote according to your class: a working man trying to make ends meet.
----
Um, McCain solictited and got the endorsement of John Hagee, an outspoken anti-Catholic pastor of a megachurch in Texas. Among other things, Hagee has called the Roman Catholic Church "the Great Whore" and says that Catholics are apostates (non-believers).
Of course, McCain now says he disagrees with Hagee's remarks on Catholics, but he hasn't renounced the endorsement.
Personally, I think these types of attack vectors are silly. People make all kinds of friendships and relationships throughout their lives, and to be held responsible for all the beliefs and actions of those friends or associates is just ridiculous.
You know, IT people are generally all kinds of smug how much smarter they are than everybody else, but 20 percent of them are apparently still backing candidates who dropped out of the race several weeks ago.
I'll add another log onto your flame war bait fire....
John McCain is the *ONLY Candidate* (of the three) who can claim "IANAL".
We can all admit to ourselves, that there are FAR MORE Lawyer jokes then Honored Veteran & Hero Air Force Pilot jokes... Just saying...
To serve in the military is NOT the same as to serve in any elected office.
i cannot understand why ANYBODY would want to vote for the party that has done more to destroy the USA in the last 7 years than any other party in my memory the USA seems to now stand for war,torture, xenophobia, racism, corruption and financial mismanagement full of the same corrupt actors as the nixon era but worse (cheney et al), even "conservatives" are disgusted with what the current incarnation of rogues that are perverting the name of true conservatives have done (record debts, gov size) but hey you crack on, the rest of the world is busy making plans without you (witness the dollars slump) if the GOP get back in power you agree with all they have done and you deserve everything you get
From the summary: "...done in late February and early March..."
I had the pleasure of growing up in one of the few really integrated towns/school districts. I had many black friends but none that would invite me over because they were afraid of what their father would say.
Rev. Wright is sadly enough the norm...
It would be nice if we could brush the situation under the rug, but we can't and we shouldn't. I don't believe that Obama shares the Rev. thinking, and I can understand why he doesn't disown him.
If you really want to find out the current status of race relations in the US watch some of the Chris Rock videos on youtube.
love is just extroverted narcissism
According to the summary, the people were polled in late February / early March. Mike Huckabee dropped out March 4th, and Ron Paul is still running even though he cannot mathematically win the nomination.
I largely agree, I like McCain and he's the candidate that will most likely receive my vote in November. It's really not surprising that he'd be getting most of the Republican votes out of the IT sector.
I too was really disappointed that sen. Obama didn't take the opportunity to say on the record that racism is racism and that black people shouldn't behave in a racist manner either. Just seems to me to be common sense, as well as common courtesy. Race relations are largely a mess because of the differing standards that come into play. As well as the willingness to not play well with other minority groups.
As far as McCain goes, he's the only Republican candidate that has an official statement on how he plans to remedy global warming. It isn't as strict as the ones pushed by most Democrats, but it does exist. He's officially on the record as saying that the government spending is largely out of control; furthermore has declared that earmarks need to be eliminated. Presumably cut in some instances and moved into the regular budget in others.
That's not to say that I don't agree with some of his view points, but at least I can respect that he's come by those viewpoints honestly.
OTOH if Obama manages to get gov. Richardson as his vp., candidate, that would definitely make it a tougher choice. Richardson was the only Democrat who could make a meaningful list of accomplishments which required making deals across the aisle. Richardson was the best candidate that the Democrats fielded this election, it's really a shame that he wasn't able to capture the attention of the Democratic party early enough to get his campaign going.
Do you feel better about Hillary Clinton being a Walmart Board member during the 90s when they earned their deserved anti-worker reputation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart#Governance
http://beforewisdom.com/blog/?p=276
Please do not take any offense.
If she didn't care about workers getting health care as Walmart Board Member Clinton, why do you think she will care about people like you getting health care if she is elected?
I want McCain. He's the only one who's proven his courage and loyalty under fire.
<sarcasm>What, by getting shot down?</sarcasm>
Seriously, whatever young John McCain, fighter pilot, may have done four decades ago, it's clear that old John McCain, politician, has no integrity left today. Look at the way he rolled over and showed his throat for Bush's people after the smear job they did on him in the 2000 campaign. Look at the way he talked tough about banning torture by the US military and intelligence services, then voted for the Military Commissions Act. He's a cowardly, self-serving, party-line Republican, and anyone who falls for his "straight talking maverick" act is a fool.
If McCain had associated with a minister who was a white supremacist and KKK supporter, he would have been kicked out, just like that.
Bullshit. McCain is closely associated with -- in fact, has courted and embraced -- right-wing preachers like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, who are on record with views that are at least as extremist as anything Jeremiah Wright has ever said. And yet somehow, the "liberal media" has failed to pick this up. Just like Bush, McCain is getting damn near a free ride from the press while his Democratic opponents are picked apart.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
cahoots? I think you're mistaken. He wasn't in cahoots with anyone. This whole thing got blown WAY out of proportion because the media tried to crucify (pardon the expression) Obama. What about John McCain and Hagee? I think you need to watch Wright's speech in its entirety before you pass judgement, I think you should see the whole picture first. And in any case, who cares? You're feeding into the propaganda machine. And FYI, the Clintons had invited Rev. Wright to the White House in '98..
McCain might help the economy if he is true to his word about reducing government spending.
I really wouldn't count on Mr. "Hundred Years in Iraq" to do that if I were you.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Have you heard of John Hagee? He's a Protestant-supremacist whackbag who things that Catholics are "the great whore" and the Jews in Israel exist to be wiped out in the coming armageddon. When the guy isn't out promoting religious intolerance or genocide, he's John McCain's "spiritual guide" (whatever that means). The funny thing is that McCain doesn't feel any need to distance himself from the guy, he's /proud/ of it. Of course, all of the column inches are being devoted to Obama, but the McCain/Hagee thing is way, way creepier. For one thing, this guy will be influential on McCain if he wins the presidency, and the last thing we need is anyone else promoting stupid incendiary anti-muslim "Crusade" rhetoric within 500 miles of the White House.
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_1.php
[McCain] is the only one who's proven his courage and loyalty under fire. The others are just talking heads.
That was decades ago, and has very little to do with running a country. Since entering the Senate, he's been a pretty mediocre Senator. He's already denounced his most famous accomplishment, the McCain/Feingold election law. He knows nothing about the economy or domestic policy. He's a part of the Republican machine, which is corrupt as hell and seems to basically exist to deficit spend and pump money into the defence sector (which then pumps it back in the form of campaign contributions, aka bribes). Plus he's old and his politics seems to have more to do with personal vendettas than actually advancing America's interest. God help us all if he wins. And god help the Republican party if they manage to "pull off" 12 years of mismanagement. They may con America into giving them one more shot at the presidency, but their long-term relevance to this country's politics is what's at stake.
From an IT perspective, since all of the candidates some how think that there is a massive shortage of IT workers in the US and we should increase the number of H1-Bs to solve this problem, it really doesn't matter who is elected.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I hope you enjoy war with Iran and a never ending war on an intangible concept that can't technically be defeated. Real bright decision there, chief.
I too was really disappointed that sen. Obama didn't take the opportunity to say on the record that racism is racism and that black people shouldn't behave in a racist manner either. Just seems to me to be common sense, as well as common courtesy. Race relations are largely a mess because of the differing standards that come into play. As well as the willingness to not play well with other minority groups.
Did you read the speech? The whole point was that people have reasons for their flawed beliefs, and we should empathize with what the origins are, but he in no way endorsed them. I think a lot of people haven't gone any further into this subject than "Wright is Barack's pastor" and a few 10 second YouTube.com clips. As for standards, they're different because people in this country have historically been treated differently. I think the speech was historic in that it spoke at an adult level. Now, if you chose to evaluate his words at the same old bumper-sticker level, then that's your fault.
Richardson was the best candidate that the Democrats fielded this election
That's obviously a very small minority opinion. Resume bullets are only a small part of the job interview. Remember, GWB had great resume bullets as well.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Remember, GWB had great resume bullets as well.
He did?
paintball
Looking at the Clintons' record on H1B visas and Hillary's deep connections with companies like India's Tata (remember this http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-22654114_ITM) its no surprise that IT professionals are rejecting her. She's all for sending our jobs overseas.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Don't forget Hageee's whole idea that the goal of US foreign policy should be to promote apocalyptic war in Israel so Jesus can return and take all the white strait people away in the rapture.
Obama offers real hope for the future. A future with Obama will change the politics of Washington and provide hope for America. The future needs more hope and this will only happen if we have real change, because the future is ahead of us and it needs a lot more hope. Change will provide the hope we need and the future, guided by the past, will be changed for the better.
Change is what America needs. Otherwise hope will wain and the future will be like the past, only with even less hope. The future will provide real hope when Obama brings the needed change. That is why I think the change Obama offers is what we need for a more hopeful future.
Anyhow, I hope you will change your mind in the future and vote for Obama.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
While that is a bit extreme.....it is nothing unusual for religions to point at others to say they are wrong, or doing the wrong things. If they didn't , well how would they differentiate themselves and get people to believe in what "they" say, you know?
This is something MUCH more different than putting someone down for being of a certain race, or sex....something you don't have a choice in. You can decide what church you want to go to.
That being said...I think Obama got a HUGE slide on associating with that preacher who was giving some really, really racist 'sermons'. If someone white was known to be going to a church where the minister was extolling how the black man had been responsible for all the crime in the US or something equally distastful....I can imagine that white candidate would apologize enough or distance themselves enough to have a remote chance of staying in public office, much less run for high office. I was shocked how little this stuff Obama's preacher's statements initially was played on tv and discussed in the general media. It did finally get out there, but, it took a bit IMHO.
I still like a lot of what Obama says....I think he's a great orator....and I'll listen to what he has to say....but, I hate the double standard we have here in the US about what is generally tolerated by what minorities can say about whites vs what whites can say about minorities before the racist card is thrown and they are publically crucified.
Personally...I think both sides need to quit being so thinned skinned....and people shouldn't get so upset when someone says something offensive about someone. Free speech kinda negates freedom from offense.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Oh come on...
The electorate is so stupid about some things.
McCain doesn't plan to be or want to be in Iraq for 100 years. But, he plans to be there until the job is done. Why can't we recognize this as the only honest answer to the question? Not "We must leave Iraq immediately no matter what!" but "We will leave Iraq when it makes sense to leave Iraq."
Now, I'm still a fan of getting the hell out of Iraq, but I'm suspicious of anyone who promises to do so no matter what.
On the pastor front, who the hell cares what Obama's pastor says? That makes about as much sense as caring what McCain's mom says, or what Hillary's husband says, you know, the one who got his pole smoked while his wife was in the same building. EVERYBODY knows people who are even good friends of yours who say stuff that you absolutely don't agree with, or that is just downright stupid. If we all refused to associate with people who sometimes said things we didn't like, we'd have a pretty hard time talking to anyone!
If you videotape what someone says for years, you're going to have some tape of somebody saying something stupid.
And in this specific case, I think Obama understands, and tried to communicate, that while he doesn't personally agree with his pastor's decision, he understands why his pastor feels that way, and why a lot of Americans feel that way. It's not that these Americans hate America, it's that they feel that America has not treated them well. Some of their feeling is justified, and some of it is blame transference, but it's important to understand that. Justified or not, it's going to be difficult to resolve what causes opinions like Obama's Pastor's opinion if you don't even understand it.
Anyway, this pastor stuff is going to blow over. McCain doesn't even care about it - as he's an upstanding candidate who wants to campaign on the issues. It's only totally-desperate-Hillary who cares.
paintball
McCain is against net neutrality (and I sense he doesn't understand the issue either) while Obama is for protecting net neutrality and - judging by the way his campaign is ran - is a lot more tech savvy than the other remaining candidates.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Well, he did run the tap at that awesome kegger...
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
If McCain had associated with a minister who was a white supremacist and KKK supporter, he would have been kicked out, just like that.
Exactly -- that's why Strom Thurmond had such a short political career.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
He's consistent, transparent, follows the rules, supports strong currency, fair and free trade, reduced government and taxes, and no lame wars based on BS. Of the politicians running, he's the least of a politician and the most of just an honest dude. that's the impression I got, I forget now, 8 terms as a Rep, no hint of scandal or taking bribe money or anything like that. No FUD, and IT people can see FUD, so maybe that is why they like him.
I don't agree totally with all of his platform or personal views, but dang most of it and them, and I will be writing him in, after voting for him in the primary, I don't care what the official neocon party nominates. He's an old fashioned nice guy and statesman, one who has real constructive change at heart. You look how he votes, never one time voted for anything that would contradict the constitution or waste money or expand the powers of the federal government beyond what they were designed for.
Any of the rest, including the top three still running..meh...same old politicians.
For crying out loud Bush *endorsed* McCain. To make it even clearer, McCain voted against the senate
anti-torture bill --1E6 hypocrite points-- and supports retroactive immunity for telecoms -- basically
indicating he's for the blatant and outrageous violation of the 4th amendment by Herr Bush even
though in public he disagrees with the policy - another 1E6 hypocrite points. If you still don't
believe me, he says that the U.S. needs the military option to deal with Iran. I rest my case.
jdb2
What could possibly make an IT person vote for McCain? He doesn't seem likely to even have a cellphone, let alone relate at all to anything IT people have to deal with. He's confessed he doesn't understand the economy. His Republican anti-immigration policies don't protect any IT jobs. What makes him seem like he could possibly represent their interests as president?
--
make install -not war
I'm a bit surprised IT workers are split. While I voted for McCain for Senate while living in Phoenix, I feel Obama is much stronger on tech issues. Here's what really sold me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZwo
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Between "outsourcing" and "downsizing" a lot of American IT workers have lost their jobs. They're looking for work, but there's not enough openings to employ them all (not by a long shot).
Every time the call for more and more H1B workers goes out it further drives home the blatant fact that our government doesn't care about the citizens that it supposedly represents. All their actions do is further enrich their corporate masters.
But while this evil is transpiring, the simple fact that corporations need customers with money to spend seems to elude everyone. If your population is unemployed and unable to purchase your products, how can you continue to post increasing profits and make your shareholders happy?
Sure, it's cheaper to produce it in China or support it in India. But who is going to buy it? Those American workers you laid off were the customers you were selling your products to.
These corporations are very short-sighted. When their market contracts (due to fewer customers) their profits will decrease. Will they try to make up the difference by hiring even more cheap foreign labor and further erode their customer base? Will our corporate masters continue to believe that their actions have no repercussions? Sometimes I wonder...
Is there an IT Policy matrix to compare the candidates? I know that both Clinton and Obama are in favour of net neutrality, and McCain opposes it, but what of the other issues? I know Ralph Nader is against software patents, but I don't have a clue about the other candidates stance on that.
Go away, I won't have your infernal logic sullying this discussion any longer.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Hell yes Bush did. He looked GREAT on paper:
My point is that resume bullets look good when you don't have to give the details; i.e. rejected by law school and daddy got him into the Guard to duck combat service, CEO of several failed companies, ripped off tax payers of Houston on the stadium deal then turned around and sold team to reap profit from stadium tax, only got into Yale because of legacy, etc.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Outside of science, technology, HB-1s, education, and a few other issues, IT workers don't have enough common interests to be a "voting block."
Your social class, religion/world view, general political leaning left or right, and to a lesser extent, gender, sexual orientation, are stronger "block identifiers" than your career choice.
On many big issues, including abortion, the war in Iraq, gay rights, the economy, etc. IT workers are just as divided as the rest of the country.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
>Personally, I think these types of attack vectors are silly. People make all kinds of friendships and relationships
>throughout their lives, and to be held responsible for all the beliefs and actions of those friends or associates is just ridiculous.
Certainly, a candidate shouldn't be judged on their friendships alone, nor should those friendships be evaluated out of context. But McCain has publicly accepted the endorsements from Hagee, Parsley, and other unsavoury characters. These are not simply business associates or friends, whose political views he happens to disagree with. McCain publicly calls them his "spiritual guides". That seems like poor judgment at best, and hints that he might have some private views which voters should get to know more about before granting him control of the most powerful military on the planet.
The same standard should apply to all candidates, not just McCain and Obama, but also Hillary Clinton, whose connections with "The Family", a church group from the rightwing Dominionist movement, deserve similar scrutiny.
Taxes must be raised or spending must be cut. The current economic situation demonstrates that stimulus policies based on debt spending do not work in the long term. Sure, it worked sort of well for a few years, but the bubble just burst and now we're all paying the price for it.
I don't like what Obama did either, but for a different reason. Check out the extended versions of Jeremiah Wright's sermons on Youtube. The media picked out parts that would sound inflammatory on their own, but in context they don't sound completely unreasonable. His 9/11 sermon is particularly moving. It actually includes examples of racial discrimination against non-blacks. The point of the sermon is to urge people to a greater self examination in the aftermath of the attacks. In other words, look at what you've done before you start getting mad at others. IIRC that is straight out of the Gospels, and even though I am not a religious person, I think it is still sound advice. Moreover, much of the sermon is devoted to Wright telling people not to get so mad that they end up supporting any sort of brutish vengeance in response. Again, I think in light of events since, we probably would have been better off listening to the Reverend.
Similarly, the "God Damn America" is not unreasonable viewed in its proper context. Wright argues (oddly enough for a preacher) that the law of God is inerrant, whereas the laws of men are not. In other words, he thinks we should not take the law of any particular nation above the law of God (or morality for that matter) and that any country which violates God's laws will be damned. In the speech he makes the same point about other states, particularly the British Empire. I don't think asking people not to submit blindly to the state is an unreasonable thing to ask. The "God Damn America" comment is made in this context, specifically with reference to the idea that the Biblical prophets rail against the injustices of the state in the name of a higher morality. Both are pretty damn good sermons as Wright is an exceptionally gifted preacher. I'm an atheist, but listening to them made me want to attend Wright's church, and I am not the only person who ended up thinking that way.
Please take time to watch the comments in context. You can find the extended sermons on Youtube. While I might not agree with everything that Wright says, I feel he has been the victim of an electronic lynching by the mass media choosing to deliberately misrepresent his comments. It realy is depressing, whether or not you agree with Wright. Obama didn't help by giving the impression that the Reverend was accurately presented in the media.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
"IT Workers Strip For McCain, Obama"
The mounds of ghostly pale cubicle flesh, bruised by flying chairs, monitor-burned faces with sunken eyes dead to anything that isn't composed of pixels, fingers continually spasming in the 3-fingered salute, skin courtesy of a diet of twinkies and cola ... ugh!
The entire text of the sermon can be read here. The worst bits, the ones that get all the play, are essentially Wright quoting someone else, inside a parenthetical aside from his main disquisition, using an essentially "devil's advocate" voice. Jerry Falwell's comments, even in context, on the same topic were far worse.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Blah Blah Blah sexism Blah BLah Blah.
Oh by the way... did I mention that if you don't vote for Obama you are automatically a grand wizard in the KKK and are evil racist scum?
See that's the problem with identity politics, the Dems were inconvenient enough to have candidates from two different victim groups so these lame arguments sound even sillier than normal.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Why settle for the lesser evil.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Did anyone hear Ron Paul's comments on earmarks on the House floor? (Yay for CSPAN) He had an interesting defense of the earmark.
An earmark is just Congress telling the government how to spend money, which, if you read the Constitution, is what they are supposed to do. Eliminating earmarks altogether gives control of spending to the Executive Branch. If you want to cut spending, cut spending, but don't further deteriorate the balance of powers by giving more Congressional power away.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
Have you tried all of the policy papers that every political candidate has on his or her web site?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Yup, as a Canadian I sincerely dislike NAFTA too, eh. All these American IT workers steal our jobs and we are forced to sell our oil for cheap to the USA, eh. We should be kick all these Yanks out, eh and we should charge them yankees CAD110 for oil, which is more like USD220 a barrel, eh...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Is that what you got from that speech? Because that was totally not the speech that I heard.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
Oh no, he got an endorsement from a kook.
He didn't associate with Hagee for twenty years. He didn't admit last year to running every major decision by Hagee. He didn't get married in Hagee's church, and Hagee hasn't worked for his campaign.
also, while Hagee has a negative opinion of Catholics, he has not said the horrible racist and conspiracy-theory-idiot things Jeremiah Wright has. I've seen video of the man claiming the government knew about 9/11, claiming Israel was involved in 9/11, and that the government lied about Pearl Harbor. In addition, he's apparently said HIV/AIDS is a government conspiracy to kill black people.
That's a whole hell of a lot more vicious and personal than "omg u catholics are teh suck." The Protestant/Catholic divide is pretty mean-spirited as is. The last thing this country needs, however, is a president in thrall to a racist lunatic. (I know someone will post something or another about how GWB is, but he's not on the ballot, and his term is coming to an end.)
McCain co-sponsored every nasty evil domestic internet wiretap bill for the entire period of time between Congress' discovery of the Internet and the 911 "Patriot" act. He even tried to ban strong encryption like PGP.
Proven courage and loyalty under fire to whom? Not me! Not the America I would be proud to bleed for!
I'm still waiting for the apologies to come out about associating with Rummy.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
On top of that, to blame Obama for what someone else says? Ridiculous. And Obama's speech afterward? Amazingly good for a politician. That's the person you want answering the phone at 3am, not the whining candidate who was dumb enough to lie through her teeth about "running for cover under sniper fire" at the airport in Bosnia, only to have video footage appear on youtube 12 hours later showing her landing where she was greeted by the president and his daughter, who read her a poem right there on the tarmac.
A-Bomb
Your reaction is exactly what the right-wing smear machine has counted on time and again.
What the right-wing smear machine wants, the right-wing smear machine gets. Witness:
- McCain having a black child out of wedlock in the 2000 primaries.
- Al Gore ridiculed for "inventing the internet".
- The introduction of a new verb in the 2004 campaign: swiftboating.
- In the 2008 primaries, the pastor Wright snippet, as if Obama had said it.
These carpet-bombing media campaigns have several things in common:
- They are distortions, fabrications or out-of-context shallow interpretations of reality.
- They intend to generate gut level reactions, as opposed to thoughtful analysis.
- They intend to generate images that stick, even as they are debunked in public, the meme kept alive until the end of the election cycle.
- Sadly, they keep alive PT Barnum's axiom: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the american people".
I was on the fence until last week, when Obama's speech on Tuesday nailed it for me. I watched the full thing three times, to assimilate and digest the trove of ideas in there.
IMO, Obama effectively condemned the words of pastor Wright, while acknowledging the deep sense of frustration felt by a wide range of the population that leads to expressions of damnation for a society that has failed your parents, you and your children.
Furthermore, Obama rightly expressed the fact that the United States is a self-correcting mechanism that has gradually tilted towards a better society for all of its' people.
But most importantly for this discussion, Obama spoke about a deeply entrenched, moneyed clique that runs the electoral process. Corporate interests have such a tight grip in Washington because they have the mechanism down to a tee:
1. Unfurl the corporate candidate or candidates.
2. Concentrate the largest amount of money on the key states (Florida, Ohio, etc).
3. Make the candidate go throw the well-established motions.
4. Smear, ignore or offhandedly dismiss the oponent via the mass media.
5. Win the election, by hook or by crook.
6. Profit!!!
7. Rinse and repeat.
What makes corporate influence so powerful is point 2. Under the current paradigm, the campaign contribution investment/return ratio is enormous. If the United States population can bust this cycle, the consequences will be HUGE, as corporate influence will wane in Washington. Grotesque saturation campaigns in Iowa-Florida-Ohio will not do anymore. Would corporations be willing to throw triple or quadruple the money into campaigns with an uncertain outcome? Lobbyists will still be there, but they won't be the deciding influence in election victories anymore. Imagine that!
If just to bust the cycle, Obama should win. But also, by virtue of his speech, which had brains, balls and heart, during a time when Obama was under fire, he showed that he is as cool as they come when that 3 am phone call happens. Furthermore, it's apparent to me that if and when Obama sits in the Oval Office, he will surround himself with tough-minded and extremely capable individuals who will be free to generate heated discussions with The President, as opposed to corporate "yes men" or consiglieris. No Chertoffs, Gonzalezes or Brownies, thank you VERY MUCH. Obama will roll up his sleeves and truly earn his salary, and not behind closed doors with Exxon and Mobil.
Finally, much of the world will be shocked into an more open attitude towards the United States if it elects a man named Barack Hussein Obama into the presidency. The prestige of this great nation will be salvaged from eight years of atrocities committed in its' name.
Can this possibly happen? Here is where the words "Hope" and "Change" come into play. With the other candidates, there will be neither.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
I would consider Clinton to be the worst candidate of the three at the moment, for a couple of reasons:
I consider McCain a bad candidate purely because he comes from the Republican party (admittedly his affiliation is looser than the average Republican though):
I understand there are other issues like healthcare, the sub-prime crisis, the economy etc., but the war is just so much bigger. I'd make a case that if we hadn't bled over 500 billion dollars (!!) on the war over 5 years, the economy/housing crisis/VA-issues/healthcare issues would be nowhere near as dire as they are right now. And we'd have a lot more allies in the world than we do now. And there would be a lot less anti-american resentment fuelling terrorist group recruitment.
The sad part for us is -- Iraq is truly reduced to rubble now. We cannot leave until we repair the damage. It's gonna cost more troops lives, and more than another 500 billion dollars most likely. But its our cross to bear now -- we broke it, and we gotta fix it.
He's the only one who's consistently opposed the expansion of government surveillance.
That's why I've always liked McCain. Unfortunately, I haven't really seen much of that in the past couple years. It's enough to make me wonder, but not enough to make me choose Clinton instead.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Absolutely agreed. I've seen some of the Reverend's comments, and they appear to come from a man genuinely disappointed in his country, and not flame-baiting or hate-mongering. Are we so blind by national pride that we cannot see the faults in our own government and our own people? Don't damn the reverend for daring to say what we're all thinking, damn the people who refuse to criticize themselves.
I get the feeling Obama waited as long as he did to distance himself from the Reverend because he knew the whole thing was blown out of proportion. But unfortunately he did cave to media pressure in the end. The power of the media to latch onto a message and be blind to all other interpretations.
Besides, since when did criticizing America become unpatriotic? I would think it's the most patriotic thing to do.
Agreed, but I never said that people don't honestly disagree with Hillary or dislike her for other reasons. My assessments were not in just the results of the elections, but also how issues that are purely sexist by nature are handled in the media as if they were 'ok'.
Also, take Texas, she wins the state in private primaries, but in the caucuses she loses considerably, even though they are made up of the same segments of society, near each other. For this large of a discrepancy it would have to be a massive statistical anomaly at best.
When put in a room where you have to pick your candidate in front of your spouse and neighbors, societal pressures and accepted stereotypical attachments come into play. I strongly think caucuses are antiquated and anti-American in their inception, as they force public proof of support, which is strictly forbidden, to the point we can't even film or have witness to our votes in main elections so we can't 'prove' who we voted for to showboat or 'pay back' interests outside of our own.
I'm not even saying the statistical anomaly in Texas is a pure sexist issue, as many of the people in the caucus may have voted for Barack when they were on the fence between the two and didn't want to appear racist. But see again here, people would be more afraid of being painted racist than sexist. It may be as much passion and plain peer pressure as well.
I know growing up as a white male in middle America (Iowa even) that racism and sexism is programmed into a tremendous amount of our basic lives and influences that shape our thoughts that are still as old as slavery or 'rule of thumb' thinking and persist in sly ways. I detest racism and sexism both on principle, but honestly can't say I am free from them, as I don't even fully understand the levels that my life has been indoctrinated by them.
I try to seek them out and identify them, and this makes me a bit more sensitive or aware of these issues, but no more free from them than anyone else raised in this generation.
Generational differences were the topic of Barack's Speech last week, and he was very much on target that many of these issues feather out but don't disappear and it still doesn't break down the divide of generational differences in views. But this applies to sexism as much as it does race, but that aspect of the conversation is being left out, and I think we should be openly addressing it as well while we have the courage.
I guess my main point is that sexism was a larger part of this election cycle than I expected it to be, and back room 'guys' talk even emerged into the mainstream media as 'ok', which I don't understand how they could either A) Be so blind or ignorant to not realize it. or B) Know it is there and not care.
Thanks for the intelligent input on the subject, it is something that is complicated and the more collective thought always helps.
PS As for your preference against a 'Clinton', I have a lot of friends like that feel the same way, although I personally tend to put my support into people that get results and have respectable intelligence, and even if I don't like Hillary or Bill, I would choose their intelligence over a idealist or idiot with set beliefs that their low level of intelligence can't challenge or change. (Barack is also brilliant, so it makes the Democratic primary tough for a lot of people that respect intelligence.)
I don't know enough about Cynthia McKinney to make a comment (I would have to do a Google or wiki to even catch up or remember who she is for sure, and won't discredit this conversation with my admitted lack of knowledge.)
Smart people are more apt to change their minds, or even do the right thing against their personal interests. Bill Clinton was a good example of this on a number of issues, and other 'intelligent' leaders have also represented the power intelligence plays in policy and decision making.
This is why I wasn't a big fan of Gore personally or on many issues, but I respected his intelligence, especially in comparison to Dubya. And Dubya has more than lived up to 'his' level of intelligence and it is still painful to watch.
Thanks again...
Well first of all, there is a big difference between a random supporter and your friend, mentor, and pastor. The better analog to Hagee would be Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama, which frankly I didn't think he had to renounce (or reject, for the Hillary Clintons of the world). While it can be slightly embarrassing, the fact that someone likes your politics does not mean you like their politics. In fact, it can be a testament to the broad appeal of your politics. Casting away everyone who disagrees with you is not generally considered a noble trait.
The main problem I had with the whole Wright controversy (not that I was inclined to vote Obama anyway) wasn't that it made me doubt Obama's judgment or values. It made me doubt his effectiveness. Much of his campaign is based on his supposed ability to bring people together, whether they be of different political parties or they are of different races (I guess he thinks he is a uniter, not a divider, though that sounds a bit familiar...). Well if his community back home has the opinions expressed during Wright's sermons, clearly he hasn't succeeded at that so far in his life.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
It's all political theatre.
Nobody is actually afraid of Rev. Wright. He's not a threat to society, or to anybody individually. And nobody actually believes Barack Obama agrees with any of this after he's said he does not, and has never shown in any of his writings or speeches that he agrees.
Someone thought they could avoid the issues of the economy, foreign affairs, the future of America in this world, etc... and undermine Obama with this cheapshot.
That's what politics is all about. Nobody actually pays attention to the important issues. How did GW Bush get elected? He's a guy you want to have a beer with, even though he's a fucking moron who couldn't find America on a map.
Anyway, better to get this bullshit out now instead of waiting until October like they normally do.
To say people have a reason for flawed beliefs is to excuse them.
I understand your reasons for saying that, but I do not excuse the ignorance they represent.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Funny, Paul's site says nothing to indicate that. To the contrary, he has encouraged his supporters to continue winning delegates for the national convention. Granted, the only way he can win is pulling an upset at the national convention; such things are not entirely unheard of, and McCain is so unpopular...
Overall I think this is working in Senator Obama's favour. As long as he is publicly associated with a wacky Christian it is hard to accuse him of being a Muslim.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The current wars (occupations) are already going to be costing the US upwards of $2 Trillion when all is said and done, and McCain wants to increase the number of fronts we will be fighting on, and you think he somehow will reign in spending?
Heck, his current campaign is already over the legal spending limits of a law he helped write . If he can't control his own campaign spending, how do well do you think he will handle the finances of an entire country?
All that proves about John McCain is that he is MORE likely swayed by false politics, not grounded in the reality of an existing legal framework. I think a Civil Law and Constitutional Law expert is much more likely to do exactly what I want in office -- to protect the existing rights of ALL Americans, even at the expense of political expediency. That makes Barack Obama the ONLY candidate with qualified experience, in my book. Warmongering, Senate back-rubbing, or Lobby appeal experience are all counter to the main experiences I want in the White House.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
He said exactly that -- that the bitter racism, from either side, is not productive. He just pointed out that entirely *ignoring* existing resentment isn't productive either. It's useful to examine the roots of all resentment, on all sides, and to work on the core issues that cause those resentments. That's the only way we will ever really solve the core problems, that underlie these false (but not baseless) resentments.
He also happened to point out how the politicians of the last few decades, Repubican neo-cons in particular, have exploited racism on both ends to accomplish their real goals -- which can be summarized as setting the Corporation above the Worker, in all senses. They channeled all that racist fear, hostility, and knee-jerk reaction into votes. Yes, they are an equal opportunity exploiter, but that's not to say that they're not also racist. The Republican majority today is all based on the "Southern Strategy", from Nixon on. It was continued by sustaining the same fears that the white majority had back then -- that somehow a gain in the black community is automatically a loss for the white community. That has never been true.
The politics of fear all fail to acknowledge an important truth: that helping your neighbor -- by whatever label of race, creed, or color -- is almost always a help to yourself. When you raise the bottom of society, all of society rises with it. The main failing of Republican politics, in the past few decades, has been to overlook that truth, and to exploit their more ignorant constituents, who never had any opportunity to learn that truth in their lifetimes. I think in that speech, Barack Obama proved that he is the one candidate who can raise America out of its long ignorance. John McCain, in his appeals to the religious right, the neo-cons, and the old Republican guard of Southern Strategists, has already proven to be the exact opposite kind of politician -- he is much more likely to keep us in ignorance, as long as it is politically expedient.
Barack Obama is the one candidate with the guts to come out and say what we were all already thinking, and even provided some hints, on how to escape our long-held ignorance. OTOH if Obama manages to get gov. Richardson as his vp., candidate, that would definitely make it a tougher choice. Then does Richardson's recent announcement, of his endorsement for Barack Obama, sway you yet?
http://news.google.com/news?q=Bill+Richardson+endorses+Barack+Obama&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title
Also interesting is how in the other big line of his, the "chickens coming back to roost" one the Reverend was actually paraphrasing a former US ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck, who was interviewed on Fox News after 9/11. Of course you would have no idea that the "racist" minister was actually referencing a very white American ambassador if you only saw the context free clips on the 24 hour news networks.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Spending eternity in heaven with those type of people will surely make it feel like hell.
Can I bum a sig?
1) Unemployment is historically low.
This is correct, but it is no good enough if your home is going to be repossessed.
2) Self defense is not war mongering. Even if you think Iraq was no threat, they've
gone from 50,000 killed per year under Saddam to 50,000 killed in the time since.
It may be the lesser of two evils, but this evil is a LOT less. Don't forget that all
the Democrats WANTED the war in Iraq. They just don't want to stick around and WIN it.
What did ever Iraq do to the US?
You know, to defend yourself first you have to be attacked or threatened.
Then you bring as part of your "self defense" strategy the plight of the Iraqi people.
Look, that is great, now we know you are truly generous and we will send you a medal for that. But the plight of the Iraqi people was not the reason for the Iraq invasion. You were lied to but here you are, matching the unintended consequences (that would need checking, mind you, I don't know where you are pulling those numbers of Iraqis killed by Hussein from) to cover thsi sameful invasion failures.
3) Wanting free trade with other nations is not a sign of xenophobia or racism nor
is appointing the first two black Sec's of State.
4) 3 Documented cases of waterboarding in the GWT is not a pattern of Communist style torture. Overall, enemy combatants have been given better treatment than domestic felons.
Sorry, any shreds of credibility you had as an interlocutor were burned in the above paragraph.
All serious human rights organizations have found the shambles of Guantanamo as one of the most egregious violations of human rights by a liberal democracy (of course if you compare this with other countries, like your allies Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, then you are doing fine).
The Bush administration has broken pretty much any moral and legal precedence by setting up this concentration camp (honestly, I can't think of a better description) and as an aside, has created precedence that even US citizens can be denied funddamental rights if the terrorism word is involved in there somewhere.
Although Bush did not achieve this alone (to the eternal shame od Democratic and genuine Conservative politicians) he was the engine pushing for this quasi fascist situations. How somebody can still excuse this, is beyond any logical comprehension.
5) People have more stuff than they ever have. The NY Times, which is NOT GOP
friendly, ran an op-ed explaining that consumption by the top fifth of the
population by income is only twice that of the bottom fifth. How many other
countries can come close to that?? Yes, there's a big mortgage problem out there, but before lending homes to poor people was "predatory lending" the Dems were pushing the banks to give those loans.
6) We've even cut greenhouse gas emissions for hippies who still believe in that crap.
Yes, the GOP should cut government spending and get rid of dumb-ass shit like
Social Security and Medicare but they don't have the votes to make it happen.
Uncle Sam collects about $17,000 per worker, most of which goes to social
programs that no one would ever need if their taxes were less. It won't stop
no matter who is in power until the public realizes the true cost.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I don't live in the US, but I am currently here on a business trip.
I spent yesterday in NYC, as a sort of small holiday before travelling on to Connecticut where I've got my meeting.
In NYC, I took one of those tour bus things to take a look around as I didn't have much time or knowledge of the city to really spend it looking around on my own. One thing that sticks in my mind is a statement that the tour guide guy said. "The average income of a person in Manhattan is $1500 a month". He went on to clarify that that is of course taking in to account the millionaires as well as the dirt poor, however I think it may still be a fairly representative figure, but was clearly attempting to say that $1500 a month is a lot of money (basically attempting to impress the tourists about how wealthy Manhattan is). That surprised me a lot - from what I saw, it's NOT a cheap city to live in at all, and $1500 USD a month is NOTHING compared to the average wage back home, which is also a much cheaper place to live. If the US dollar continues to fall, I can really imagine places like Manhattan very quickly becoming slums.
Note that this is just "first impression" and I could well be wrong, but as an outsider's perspective, it's pretty scary. Whoever you do, as a nation, vote in next, I really hope it's someone that is capable of doing something about your economy.
As a side note: I'd also hope it's someone that can do something about your security policies and free speech... I almost got arrested for "public disturbance" at the Statue of Liberty for arguing with a couple of Americans about the meaning of "Liberty" and how excessive security erodes it. I was ALMOST tempted to continue the argument and let them arrest me just for the irony of being arrested for a discussion about the meaning of the word Liberty when standing only metres away from that icon that is supposed to represent it. (I decided instead to apologise to the "nice officer", shut-up and leave, as it would REALLY not make a good impression on my company to miss the business meeting due to being arrested in New York City)
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
Lots of negative questions in that... rather frustrating actually!
Suffice to say, I came up -4.62 / -5.49, which is roughly where I expected to fall as a "typical European IT geek".
I also think the test could probably do with some more degrees of "agree/disagree", and clarification over some questions. The question "a significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.", I had to agree with, because it IS an advantage of that system, despite the fact that that system is unworkable and horrific to me on so many other levels. Nor do I think that the delay of progress in a democratic system is really a problem - because the cause of that delay is the checks and balances that make sure what's being done is truly right. Without this delay, a lot of very bad stuff could happen. But, I still had to agree with the statement as it was worded, because if there were a way to have checks and balances WITHOUT a delay, it would be better, and therefore the lack of delay in a one-party system is an advantage.
I'm not entirely sure that my answer "agree" accurately reflected my belief though.
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
I've seen the whole clip. The text you're referring to is: "He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) --a white man-- he pointed out-- an ambassador-- that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Now he could mean that Edward Peck personally quoted Malcom X or he could mean that what Peck said supported that thesis. Given that bloggers have searched transcripts and failed to find any where the ex-ambassador actually used that phrase, it seems that the latter interpretation is most likely. Unless someone digs up a clip or transcript showing his sermon to be a quote or close paraphrase, I think the clear interpretation is that he was riffing off a sentiment he heard on the news.
This is further supported by the tirade having the tone and rhythm of a sermon rather than an answer in an interview and by a backreference to the sermon Wright was making before his "faith footnote", specifically a quote from psalm 137: "blessed be they who bash your children's head agains the rocks".
And really, what would it matter even if an ex-ambassador had said it first? He obviously believes exactly what the media has been quoting - "america's chickens have come home to roost" - and judging by the reaction of the congregation it isn't a radical idea in that church. It really doesn't matter whether he invokes a crusty old white guy to lend credence to the idea.
It was the Texas Rangers in Dallas (well, Arlington). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush