Slashdot Mirror
The Ridiculous LexisNexis Search that the Justice Department Used
[First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!
Needless to say, when asked about it, Williams first said she didn't remember ever seeing it, then said she'd used an edited version just once. LexisNexis records show she used it, as shown, 25 times." Note that 'sex!' appears twice in the query. Must be VERY important.
what the hell
If I read this query right, this thing would practically dump the entire LexisNexis database (at least, all of the interesting cases).
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
"Sex, sex, sex, that's all they think about!"
What the hell?
(Okay I'm gonna research it now)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Can someone tell me what a LexisNexis search is and why I care?
goatse!
But the damage he's done will remain for much longer.
For those of you wondering what that query is about and what it's being used for, here's TFA:
So there you go. The Justice Department was using a screwy LexisNexis query to try to determine the political leanings and affiliations of people they were looking to hire, because they were illegally filtering out applications people (non-repubs/conservatives) based on their political affiliations.
You really should drink more coffee in the morning before you start posting, Taco.
Lexis Nexis should adopt regular expressions.
So what you do is insert the name of a candidate, and it searches for everything listed in that paragraph (if it can even really be called that.) assuming that ! is generally the same as and/+ in regular search engines. (moderately confused, sorry if the post is a bit jumbled on thinking.)
Why would you bother writing such an inane and senseless post? Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed? There is a reason we hate him, and it isn't just because he's a stupid, self obsessed, spoiled frat boy who somehow fooled the nation into voting for him twice. We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.
You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Plus, whatever he decides to do in the last few days of his administration. Let's hope he only limits himself to the typical last-minute pardoning spree.
So it looks like the search looks for variations of any of the words that I've bolded(controvers! would cover controversy, controversies, controversial, etc.) within 7 words of the person named at the start of the search. It's ridiculous, and is a very broad way of searching that would yield a lot of false positives.
Don't forget, the Democrats (and Republicans) in the House and Senate are just as complacent in whatever damage has been done, by allowing it to continue and contributing their own malfeasance.
If the Ds really didn't want a war in Iraq, they shouldn't have given Bush the piece of paper authorizing military action.
GWB isn't any more evil than Pelosi and crew! The whole bunch is corrupt! So until you stop voting for the Republicrats, you get what you deserve.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Why shouldn't an administration be able to hire people on their side of the political fence? Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs? I can understand certain things such as race or gender being illegal to use as hiring factors but I would assume that a given administration would not want to hire attorneys who hate everything that administration stands for, whether the administration is conservative, liberal or anything in between.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
Not commenting on the back story of why she was searching in the first place, but if she had used a librarian who knew the correct method of searching that database, she would have located the information she was looking for.
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LexisNexis
They used Lexis to do a form of background search on people. They used the information from these searches to decide who to hire. The DOJ said the way they did this is federally illegal and also against DOJ policy.
And if you're an actual RTFAer, here you go: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/goodling072408.pdf
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
And how does this differ from any other president?
Note that 'sex!' appears twice in the query. Must be VERY important. As do fired, racis!, arrest!, intox! and contravers! A fine example of a GIGO query.
And my mod points expired this morning :(
Just remember - if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.
...is also in there twice (along with fired) - what curious priorities they must have!
The massive spending spree, the total ignoring of the constitution, lying to go to war, outing undercover agents (aka treason), just to name a few.
fun that intox! comes right after arrest! and racis! Does the order have a signifigance ? I imagine the search algo will just ignore repeated args in the same query. But to me it is interesting if this is the original context of the search, does this say anything about the mindset of the author ?
But the damage he's done will remain for much longer.
One reason I supported Obama over Clinton is that I was afraid of what Clinton would do with the power Bush's successor will inherit. I'm not too keen on Obama holding that insane amount of power but anyone's better than Bush I guess.
I found this here:
/n, +n, NOT /n /s /p /seg /seg
/p and /s connectors with a proximity connector (e.g., /n).
/25 discharg! AND student OR college OR education /5 loan is operated on in the following manner:
/5, the smaller of the /n connectors, ties together the term loan and the previously formed unit of student OR college OR education!. /25 operates next and creates a unit of bankrupt! /25 discharg!.
Connector Order and Priority
Connectors operate in the following order of priority:
1. OR
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. NOT
7. AND
8. AND NOT
If you use two or more of the same connector, they operate left to right. If the "n" (number) connectors have different numbers, the smallest number is operated on first. You cannot use the
Example: bankrupt!
* Because OR has the highest priority, it operates first and creates a unit of student OR college OR education!.
*
*
* AND, with the lowest priority, operates last and links the units formed in the second and third bullets above.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
There are certain high level posts in the various executive branch agencies that are tagged 'political appointments'. These jobs, which steer those agencies, can be determined based on politics.
For everything else, such discrimination is illegal. It is assumed, by the law, that people are professional enough to do their job regardless of who is in charge - and anyway, they can be fired if they intentionally sabotage the agency without legal cause.
Only recently, since the Neocons took over, has it even been an issue that 'attorneys hate' the people they work for. I mean, really, is such harsh language remotely accurate? Or is it being used as a boogie man in order to make an end-run around very wise laws; laws that prevent the government from swinging to extremes with every change in the administration.
(And lets not even bring up the fiscal nightmare it must be if agencies have to rehire everyone every eight years...)
Now, with my straight face: Clinton did NOT weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs. He in fact explicitly hired many people across the aisle, for better or for worse. The idea that you never hire people who disagree with you is one that has only seen it's heyday in the last eight years. It's actually often a very good idea.
[Ego]out
Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. Yes, the House and Senate are somewhat complicit, and everyone loves a good 'Republocrat' joke, but there is a HUGE difference between the two parties. Don't forget, the Democrats do not have an overwhelming majority in either house, and Republicans can win if they just filibuster.
Bush and company are qualitatively different from other politicians. It isn't just a matter of the amount of corruption. It is the type of corruption and the unmitigated, "What are you gonna do about it? hur hur hur," GALL of these criminal clowns.
Stealing a pack of gum and robbing a bank at gunpoint are both crimes. That does not mean they are both equally serious.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.
This Nietzsche quote seems apt, "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
Back when I used LN a lot, about ten years ago, the thing that made it useful to me even when searching through sources that were indexed elsewhere as well were the search terms like A w/5 B, which searches for term A within 5 words of B. That always produced much more relevant results than A and B, and despite all the praise of things like Pagerank, I've never seen a modern internet search engine give nearly as good of results as I was always able to find using this sort of technique.
Is this type of search still limited to LN, or are there ways to do the same sort of thing on Yahoo/Google/etc?
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Why would you bother writing such an inane and senseless post? Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed? There is a reason we hate him, and it isn't just because he's a stupid, self obsessed, spoiled frat boy who somehow fooled the nation into voting for him twice. We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.
For eight years, most that dared to criticize Bill Clinton (the person, his policies, or his actions) were summarily dismissed as "Clinton haters". It shouldn't be a surprise that after the roles are reversed, anyone doing the same to Bush is diagnosed with "Bush Derangement Syndrome". It's the nature of partisan politics -- get used to it.
You know, defending the man at this point is pretty much an admission that not only did you vote for him, twice, but you are too proud to admit you screwed up.
You are projecting someone else onto the grandparent. He correctly pointed out that Bush will be gone soon. "Get over it" isn't a defense of anyone or anything -- it's simply a suggestion to move on.
But, don't delude yourself into thinking that any prior or future administration didn't or won't do the same thing. They will just be less blatant about it, or at least not stupid enough to not leave evidence of it lying around.
Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that President Clinton's administration didn't weed out conservatives from executive branch jobs?
But... but Clinton!! *rolls eyes*
The fact that Clinton did it does NOT excuse the current administration. Both administrations are wrong for doing it. It's not a matter of who did it first. The fact someone else got away with it is not a permission to do it yourself.
Note that 'sex!' appears twice in the query. Must be VERY important.
My employer was asked for a list of employees, broken down by age and sex. He replied, "Just mcgrew".
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
...the recipe for a good time!
What is insipid about people wanting some accountability from their president? Oh, you meant "insipid" as in "doesn't agree with me." Here's a quote from me that seems even more apt: "At times idiots remain faithful to a cause only because they can not admit that people they don't like were right."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Get over it. He'll be gone in six months.
Because, after all, the only reason to disagree with any of the things he and his cohorts have done is irrational hatred. It has nothing to do with subverting the Constitution he swore to protect, failing to prevent a major terrorist attack despite warnings, unapologetic law-breaking, stove-piping intelligence to justify a war of aggression and an occupation that's trashing our armed forces and our economy, gutting the balance of powers, alienating long-time allies, making the tax burden even more regressive, hamstringing prosecution of marketplace abuses, blatantly politicizing the Justice Department, rewriting science in the name of ideology, or any other similarly whiny little complaint.
Nope, those things are all just shallow excuses. It's all about the hate.
It's a Shibboleth. Something that you can use to guess at another person's social/regional/political origin.
Back in 1992, there was a plan to log some forest. Republicans liked the idea of logging. Democrats didn't like the idea of logging.
Democrats went with environmentalism -- the notion that a risk to 50 of the 500-odd remaining spotted owls in existence outweighed the commercial interests of the loggers -- as their means of obsctructing the Republicans' goals.
Republicans went with the commercial argument -- "preposterous to forego millions of dollars in revenue over 50 spotted owls!" -- as their means of embarassing the Democrats.
The spotted owl became a shibboleth. Anyone who said "save the endangered owls!" was likely to be a Democrat, and anyone who said "to hell with the owls!" was a Democrat.
Many of the things in that list are shibboleths from the Clinton era. If you followed events such as Iran-Contra (a scandal embarassing to the Republicans), the spotted owl (a shibboleth for environmentalism), the recounts in Florida (which could have only benefited the Democrats), or worked (or ruled) on cases involving other politically-loaded wedge issues -- whether economic ones like NAFTA, outsourcing, and Enron, or sociolopolitical ones like racism, sexism, abortion, homosexuality, and gun ownership -- you had political opinions.
This query wasn't designed to figure out what those opinions were, but it would be a very clear way listing all the times someone identified their political stance by using a political shibboleth within seven words of the name of either Presidential candidate:
"John Doe accused Al Gore of placing the interests of the spotted owl above the legitimate interests of the taxpayers" -> John Doe is almost certainly a Republican.
"Jane Doe suggested Al Gore wasn't doing enough to protect the spotted owl" -> Jane Doe is almost certainly a Democrat.
The spotted owl is a particularly effective shibboleth; most of us have opinions about gun ownership, NAFTA, or Enron that don't necessarily dermine how we vote. But the spotted owl was a manufactured controversy; outside of birdwatchers, very few people knew or cared about the spotted owl until it became the center of a political debate.
Modern-day shibboleths include "homicide bombers" or "the Democrat party" (phrases used only Republicans), or "big business / big health care / big pharma" or "multinational corporations", or "neocons" (which are phrases used almost exclusively by Democrats.)
Why does the fact that Bush will be gone in six months mean we have to stop talking about the crimes he and his administration committed?
It doesn't, and I fully hope to keep hearing about him after Obama obliterates McBush (no, I don't really like Obama, just stating the obvious)...
Specifically, I don't want to hear about an impeachment that will never happen, I want to hear about actual federal charges relating to racketeering, election fraud, and lying to congress. Ideally I'd like to see him hauled before the Hague for human rights abuses, but I'll settle for Bush sharing a cell with his new top, Bubba.
He hasn't just destroyed our international image and our economy by ineptness, he has outright broken both US and international law.
I suspect that a number of Bush loyalists truly believe that he's a great president and that what he's doing to our rights &c is /right/.
I can't get into the headspace of that sort of person, but I can easily see people who "think" like that.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Okay, first, there was a huge concerted attack by the right wing against Clinton for the most minor of offenses. It wasn't 'dismissed,' the man was IMPEACHED. Why hasn't Bush been impeached? We will move on when there is at least the same level of justice for Bush.
Second, your cynicism is disgusting. You can't excuse one wrong act by pointing that others have done lesser evils. Wrong is wrong and it is never right to pressure people into shutting up about it.
Third, the GP wanted this story gone. He wanted us to stop talking about the crimes committed by this administration. The justice department engaged in criminal and unethical behavior, and he obviously doesn't want that talked about.
Finally, no, sorry, no past administration has ever been this blatant in apply purity tests to career hires rather than political appointees. And unless people like you get their way and this is all swept under the rug, then future administrations will have even less of a chance of doing it.
It really sounds as if you'd love it if everyone would just shut up and let ourselves get fucked over by the powerful. Not gonna happen, sorry.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Okay, so what's wrong with spotted owls, from a republican point of view?
According to the Vanity Fair article "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush" [December 2007] (1):
"our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush."
And, I believe it will be longer than that due to the stated facts in said article.
(1) http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
Let's be honest...this is politics.
Like the Bush administration is going to want to place someone in a position that is an absolute raving Bush hater like many on here. Um no thanks...not good for productivity, and not good for office peace.
It's also why when each administration changes thousands find themselves looking for new jobs. When Obama comes on, rest assured he will not be hiring candidates that are conservative believe in fiscal responsiblity, reduced government, etc.
I dislike this argument not only because it's used in virtually every political discussion on Slashdot, but also because it appears to be designed to encourage complicity. Sure, the argument states that change is just as simple as deciding to vote for some third party, but all of the existing third parties tend to only appeal to a very limited fringe group, so that's really no solution at all.
So, dismissing the idea that simply voting for a third party will change everything as realistically unfeasible, we're left with the central part of the argument, which is that both parties suck, so you might as well just throw up your hands and do whatever you've been doing. Neither party will ever change anything, the argument goes, so just vote for whoever you've always voted for and go on with life. Of course, this argument is designed to assure the current party in power stays in power.
However, it contradicts actual reality. It's possible, given their complicity in GWB's antics, even probable, that the Democrats would not be any better if they took power. However, the evidence we currently have is that while Bush has actively sought to come up with new ideas to destroy the country, the Democrats are responsible only for allowing it to happen. Yes, passively allowing someone else to screw everything up is a bad thing, but is it really just as bad as actively screwing things up? Isn't it at least possible that the Democrats might screw things up less if allowed to implement their own ideas rather than just being content to allow someone else to implement his ideas?
In reality, what we have now is the fact that Bush and his cronies have done a monumentally shitty job. We also have a theory that the Democrats would do an equally shitty job. You seem to be content to stay with the people in power because a shitty job will be done either way. I, on the other hand, would rather not reward a shitty job with more time in power, and would instead rather give the other party a chance to prove they are capable of doing a less shitty job.
An individual's best bet for political change these days remains to pick the party that most closely aligns with them and attempt to change it from the inside (a difficult and time-consuming task to be sure). Simply voting for the Loony Toon Party, knowing that it will never get more than 3% of the vote, is just not a practical solution.
This must be what they mean about a search with a "wide stance".
Perhaps it's more enlightening to add together all the terms appearing more than once, like sex!, fired, racis!, arrest!, intox! and contravers!. What emerges is an interesting psychological view into the heads of the people doing the search. Based on what they list more than once, I would guess Jan Williams and Monica Gooding are afraid of getting so drunk or otherwise intoxicated that they wind up having sex with someone of a different race, being arrested (perhaps by an aggrieved other-racial spouse or something), and having the subsequent controversy cost them their jobs.
Just kidding, but who knows? Some of those prim and proper morality queens get really, really twisted when they drink a bit too much. Yeah alcohol!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
We might learn a lesson from this. Like, if you find out the day before the election that a Presidential candidate has a conviction for drunk driving, vote against him. Not because he's a reformed alcoholic or even a reformed cokehead, not becaue he was driving drunk, not because he was a criminal, but because he hid that fact from the American people.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
If you had not slept thru high school civics you would not embarrass yourself with question like this.
The law, which the practice was violating (not according to any court, BTW, but only to the new Justice Department), is, probably, unconstitutional in itself, because it tramples on the President's power to run the Administration however he sees fit. He may be limited by the non-discrimination laws, that apply to all employers, but political views aren't among the criteria that one can't discriminate on.
It is incredibly expensive politically to oppose such a law, so it was never challenged in court before. But I would not blame Gonzales for trying to find like-minded people for underlings.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We hate him because he has tried to take away our rights.
In addition for crap, he's actually responsible, I've grown accustomed to blaming him for stuff he's not responsible for. So far his most punishable offense is allowing M.Night Shamaylan to do another movie.
Yep. And, obviously, actually committing perjury about such things would make a man even more unfit to be Presdient.
But the damage he's done will remain for much longer.
Good point.
We are still living with the damage good ole Billy Jeff & Hillary and Carter did to us.
It seems, the query is just looking for people involved neither in politics in general, nor controversial subjects in particular. There is nothing in it, that would favor Republicans over Democrats, actually...
I'd guess, that was Gonzales' ideal government bureaucrat and, I bet, millions of people would share that idea...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You have not really been paying attention to many politicians have you. They are not rocket scientists and for example, not even smart enough to not tap their toe in the bathroom. They will try to get away with stuff and they will continue to get caught. Same as always. The only change will be to how badly they might damage the government in their attempts. I am glad there are still people trying to make sure they don't and I hope more help them.
Don't forget, the Democrats (and Republicans) in the House and Senate are just as complacent in whatever damage has been done, by allowing it to continue and contributing their own malfeasance.
If the Ds really didn't want a war in Iraq, they shouldn't have given Bush the piece of paper authorizing military action.
GWB isn't any more evil than Pelosi and crew! The whole bunch is corrupt! So until you stop voting for the Republicrats, you get what you deserve.
Complicit, meaning "me too", not "complacent" meaning "so what"
Am I the only one who misread NAFTA at a glance?
The best thing: there are pages reading
"[THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]"
P.S.: Please note the immediately amplified blankness of this statement when compared to the usual notice.
M. Nut Shamalamadingdong is actually God's way of punishing us for electing Bush twice. Repent now before another soul-searingly bad movie is unleashed!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yikes! the dreaded spotted owl strikes at the hearts of evil men (and women).
Let's keep some perspective here. Bush catches flak for removing DOJ attorneys after a few years of trying to work with those people that were in place when he took office. An argument could be made that he tried to work with those across the aisle and realized that it was impossible.
Why didn't Clinton have the same problem? Because he FIRED THEM ALL as he took office and put his own people in. And it was CLINTON'S appointees that Bush was dealing with.
Bush politicizing the DOJ? Gimme a break!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22515
Cynicism is a disease of the soul, it excuses inaction. It doesn't make you cool and hip and smarter than the average bear. It makes you an apathetic lump.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Don't forget, the Democrats (and Republicans) in the House and Senate are just as complacent in whatever damage has been done, by allowing it to continue and contributing their own malfeasance.
Excuse me, please, but don't you mean "complicit"?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
That or he would know how good his school football team did that year.
Adultery is not a crime. Drunk driving is. I can forgive perjury about a lie in answer to a question that should never have been asked.
Adultery affects nobody but the adulteror and his/her family. Drunk drivers are a menace to us all. A conviction for a candidate's crime should not be secret. His or her fidelity to his or her spouse is none of the voters' business.
BTW, I am not a partisan. My voting record in presidential elections:
Nixon
Carter
Reagan
Reagan
Whoever ran against Bush Sr (I don't remember)
Clinton (held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils)
Clinton (he did a good job)
Kerry
Gore
Barr (not voting lesser of two evils again)
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
That this question is even asked, seem a little scarry to others?
A neutral Justice Dept is a bare minimum requirement.
And as others have pointed out , the hiring practices were illegal.
Doesn't the thought of the laws being enforced by someone that was hired
because of their beliefs, seem the least bit worrisome?
Let's see:
Are they sure they didn't just accidentally stumble onto the NYT's (or LA times, or Star/Trib, etc.) 'random headline story' generator?
Throw in a sprinkling of verbs, articles, and pronouns, and you've pretty much got the meat of every news story since about 2004.
-Styopa
This Nietzsche quote seems apt, "At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."
That quote is going in my file. I don't think Democratic supporters understand how many faithful Republican voters they've created.
Civil service positions (not political appointees) are supposed to be appointed on merit. Getting around this process is spitting in the eye of the values of American Constitution that we were all taught in school. Even Ashcroft would not do this and specifically instructed his staff that as employees of DOJ they were to be non partisian. Without a doubt the worst administration in modern history. Hopefully America can recover from the deep hole in which it has dug itself.
For really, being so politically inept. I mean, -everyone- stuffs government with political appointees, even the DOJ. I mean, let's keep in mind that Bill Clinton fired EVERYONE and replaced them with his own people, but Bush couldn't even do that competently with a half a dozen through regular turnover.
The search queries are crazy. They are vetting people based on old issues in the past. Spotted owl is, what, so 1980s, and who cares about the stupid bird anymore. If you are going to vet people for political issues, then vet them based on the decisions you are about to make, not, whether or not they agreed for party doctrine. That way, you can make the argument that such vetting is not political but policy in nature. So, for example, if you are going to have AG's go and prosecute political enemies of the Republican Party, you might go and search for those guys who are gungho on prosecuting the kinds of crimes that align to your enemies...
Should we ever win the White House again, I suggest these kinds of searching:
piracy,dvd,download,bittorrent - really, just find out where your guys are on piracy. If they are lax in enforcing it, that screws hollywood over and takes money out of liberal pockets.
and so forth.
I mean, Bill Clinton's people were MASTERs of this sort of thing. He totally went nuts on right wing institutions, "randomly" auditing the Heritage Foundation every year, etc, but, he always had some legal cover that fufilled an alignment with his policies so he always had that escape trap. Just better politicians. Criminy, when Bill Clinton came over for the holidays, Bush Sr should have invited Bush Jr along just to hear how such political stuffing best be done.
This is my sig.
Only if we retain essentially the same Congress. Bush would be impotent if the Republicans and Democrats did not so enthusiastically support him. And most (*) of it can be wiped out overnight if we decide to undo it in the November elections.
(*) Obviously we can't get back the money that has already been wasted and the soldiers we've already lost, but, as they say, life goes on.
While I agree to you, another consequence is that one might additionally want to join those who lobby for a reform of the voting system. The US two party system, and the comparatively little choice it leaves, is highly unusual among democracies and is really an artifact of the peculiarities of the voting process. Read up on it.
blow your mind already
This story resonates well with Nixon's Enemy's List. Almost too 1984ish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Wow. UR old. And partisan at least by modern (Post-Reagan) standards. You voted for Democrats for 20 years!
Too bad I ran out of mod points yesterday.
Funny. I wonder whether Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, and Rove understand how many lifetime Democratic voters they've created.
A new electorate in the making
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
...the damage good ole [President Bill Clinton]...did to us
8 years of peace and prosperity ending with a budget surplus?
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
The only way out of the "both parties suck" problem is to change the political system so that more than two parties become viable. A system of Condorcet voting does this by eliminating the problem of third party candidates acting as "spoilers" and giving the election to a candidate that the majority of voters actually like the least.
IRV (instant Runoff Voting) is a simple example of such a system that would be easy to implement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
The search string reads like some sort of chant from a Fox News cult.
Spotted owls, Iran, homosexuality, guns, abortion, NAFTA, damn! It is like having a window into the neo-con mind.
until some republican apologist says "the democrats do it too" in 5-4-3-2-1....
Call me when the Democrats care about our Bill of Rights again. Until then, as far as I'm concerned they are the same on the issues that truly matter.
An individual's best bet for political change these days remains to pick the party that most closely aligns with them and attempt to change it from the inside (a difficult and time-consuming task to be sure). Simply voting for the Loony Toon Party, knowing that it will never get more than 3% of the vote, is just not a practical solution.
This is exactly what Ron Paul's presidential bid was all about, and it seems like it's working. The Campaign for Liberty grew out of the movement that began inside the Republican party. It hasn't really ramped up yet, but the idea is to promote candidates who favor freedom at all levels of government. It's unclear if this is a Republican-party-only thing or not, but it certainly started out as one and picked up a lot of steam.
Your brain is not a computer.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784
Wow. UR old
Yeah, but I get younger every year. I had arthritis bad when I first voted, now it barely hurts ate all. When I was 30 I'd call in sick if I drank until 3:00 am, now I outlast the twenty five year olds. I wore coke-bottle glasses all my life, now my vision is better than 20/20 (you will be assimilated).
You voted for Democrats for 20 years!
That was mostly the Republican's fault.
I voted for Reagan because I didn't think we could possibly have a worse President than Carter. I voted for him again because the idiot Democrats ran Carter's VP. I voted Democrat in the next election because Bush was Reagan's VP. I held my nose voted Clinton because Bush was a shitty President.
I actually voted for Clinton's reelection because he did a good job. I voted against Bush because, as they say, "like father, like son". Turns out it was more like Asimov's Foundation Mayors, where the first (don't remember his name) was brutal and efficient, junior was merely brutal, and the third of the line was a "bookkeeper gone wrong".
If I wasn't disgusted with both major parties I'd most likely vote McCain this time.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
> The spotted owl became a shibboleth. Anyone who said "save the endangered owls!" was likely to be a Democrat, and anyone who said "to hell with the owls!" was a Democrat.
I think you mean "a Republican" for that last one.
The problem is that most people can't even come to a single definition of "conservative." So what the heck is a "neo-conservative" supposed to be?
Which means that many conflicting views are lumped together under one heading. When the US gains an electoral system which allows multiple parties, the words may start to mean something.
Deleted
Anymore, yes, it's exactly what I expect.
Not anything like what I want, but definitely what I expect.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Avatar: The Last Airbender ?
I drank what? -- Socrates
The powers that be in the republican party are already trying hard to squash this like a bug.
The base of support needed to really change that party is mostly like me, a disgusted centrist who loathes both parties but wouldn't touch anything republican with a ten foot pole. The hard part is convincing people the GOP is A: possible to change, and B: worth changing.
It doesn't seem like any change to the republican party can happen utile those who run it now die, or are all arrested.
Right, but who's going to push for it when both major parties benefit from the status quo?
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Just to point this out in case you were blindly republican about it.
Jimmy Carter achieved peace in the middle east when noone else could. He is responsible for the recent ceasefire between Hamas and Israel.
If that's the "damage" that he's done to us...
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
If the Justice Department doesn't stop the spotted owl, homosexuals, and dirty dirty sex; the terrorists win.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You can bet a lot of his friends will get long-term no-bid contracts as part of his last hurrah too. After all, what can Obama do about Halliburton if Bush signs a huge 10-year contract with them at the last minute?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I partially disagree. As I see it, the value of alternate parties in a two party political system is that as the ideas of a third party become increasingly popular, the platforms of the two major parties shift their agendas to appropriate the issues that have drawn voters to that third party. Whichever major party can most effectively adjust their platform to accommodate the 3% of the voters who feel that the Loony Toon Party's issues are important to the health of the country can win an election if the margin of victory is 2%. In my view, supporting third-party candidates can be a quite effective means of initiating change within the two major parties.
The AntiJoey
I know I'm splitting hairs, but these definitions mean nothing because they only mean something in the context of the speaker.
Conservative means that the belief holder is against change and wants things to stay roughly status quo. They feel that things are good they way they are in a if it ain't broke; don't fix it. kind of way.
Classical conservatism (original Republicans) had nothing to do with liberty, it had to do with protecting the rich Northern industry and winning the Civil War for the US at any costs. Hence protecting the status quo for the North.
Neo-con is similar in that it is pro-big business and war-hawkish which is actually just an excuse for no-bid contracts; hence more pro-big business. Unfortunately their fiscal policy tends to align with the compromises of those goals which lends itself to fiscal irresponsibility. They tend to mouth their support of social restrictives like the religious right and some times even throw them a bone, but it is mostly a ploy to get their votes.
A neo-libertarian (what is now called libertarianism) is anti-tax and small government but mostly ends up removing long-standing laws written to protect the public from the conflicting interests of big-money, and hence ends up actually removing freedoms from the populace. This is because they tend to ignore that the lack of a legal framework leaves the weak prey to the strong, like all anarchism does (why should fiscal anarchy be any different?)
A liberal is someone who is for a change, be it women's sufferage, equal rights, decriminalizing drugs, etc. Pure and simple.
right and left wings refer to fascism and communism respectively.
The Democrats and Republicans of today would not recognizable to voters around the civil war times although I think the terms actually meant something then and not shifting meanings based only on the speaker's starting political leanings.
This is all like having some idiot try to explain away the differences between nerd, dweeb, dork and geek. (Hint: they are all synonyms, but if you ask 10 people you'll get ten equally idiotic answers depending on what social group they belonged to in high school!)
cat sig >
The problem with your argument is that John McCain is not George Bush and a vote for him is not a vote for a third term of Bush no matter how you try to portray it.
We've basically got two unknowns running for president (in that neither has ever been in the executive branch of anything). Given that you can't trust either to keep their word, I don't know where that leaves us. I won't be voting for either.
The massive spending with the possible government health care from Obama really scares me. I don't like the current massive spending but spending more doesn't seem to be a good solution. We need to get back to a "pay as you go" government.
You keep mentioning "the crimes" while totally discarding someone else's enumerated, and quite truthful list of somone else's crimes.
Whether I agree with you or not about the straw man tactics used there, enumerate your list for us. Don't say "you know" or "everyone knows". Common wisdom very rarely is.
Enumerate please, for everyone's benefit, including yours.
Or is the "EDIT" during your composition?
/. powers?
Or do you have secret
Also note the source in your file... one always suspects that a significant number of Republicans are self-perceived Ubermensch who justify their "I've got mine, fuck you!" outlook with the conceit that they're "beyond good and evil." You rarely see it so openly expressed.
That is like saying to someone getting raped, "get over it, he'll be done soon". Ass.
>Get over it. He'll be gone in six months.
GWB isn't any more evil than Pelosi and crew!
Pelosi was on the Daily Show the other day and she spoke specifically about the Iraq war. The Democratic majority in the House is not able to sway the will of the Congress because rules necessitate a 2/3rds majority when the President disagrees. Since there aren't 16 Republicans in the Senate who oppose the war, it doesn't matter what the Democrats think. Would you rather have Congress deadlocked in a debate about the war... or would you rather have them spending time working the troubles with the economy?
Bush just signed a bill that made its way through Congress today that does lots of good things for the economy. He did this despite saying that he DOESN'T approve of it. He signed it because he knew that not signing it wasn't an option given the circumstances.
Mind you... the political system is working. Things are not supposed to work quickly because the lives of 400 Million Americans are at stake. It is hard to balance all those issues... and since things had gone so horribly badly in the last five years it will take time before the ship rights itself. Just be patient... with a Democrat in the White House come January the changes that are needed will get done.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Keep up the shit work, Taco and Jamie.
Or we'd have every internet capable American on the Do-Not-Fly list.
Hey, we vote these clowns into office so we get what we deserve. If the average citizen would be outraged and vote based on the root problems of our political system maybe progress would be made more representative and honest...well representatives. SERIOUS campaign finance reform, election reform. These are, in my opinion the root of the problems with our political system. Unfortunately americans are incredibly short sighted and are mostly interested in what I call the bright-shiny-object-political-topics. Write your congressman and hold their feet to the fire with outraged about these two items. Don't paw merely at the symptoms and expect much to happen.
It's the same a arguing with a school yard bully; sure you might be right, but they'll just keep on going. They know that some people will utterly believe, and others will think 'the truth is in the middle'. Approaches typically employed by reasonable thoughtful people don't work well, as it's hard to counter someone who is unwilling to approach things logically. The best way to fight a bully is to call them one right off the bat, people understand that. 'Bully Republican tactics' have been very successful, too bad they don't govern as well as they mislead.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
A conservative is someone who believes in continuing whatever is already shown to work; he "conserves" in a social or political sense. Conservation is the fundamental conservative ethic - never throw out the baby with the bathwater, you might need that baby, after all we've needed them before.
A liberal is someone who believes that new problems, or problems that do not respond to conservative measures, should be solved in a new way. Progress is the fundamental liberal ethic - we've got to be free to move onward and upward to a better tomorrow, and we'll need new ideas and bold initiatives to get there, we can't let ourselves be imprisoned by obsolete ways of thought and action.
You will notice that these terms are not mutually exclusive. People who use them in a mutually exclusive sense are sometimes just misinformed, but usually (in the USA, at least) have had their minds infected by harmful memes that prevent them from thinking clearly about anything that can be cast as part of a fictional liberal/conservative dichotomy. In the worst cases, you have people like Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, who openly call for the murder of their chosen enemies, and people like Jim David Atkinsson who follow the orders of these people.
The divisive hysteria that has characterized the United States for most of my life, starting with Joe McCarthy and Father Coughlin and more recently continuing with Coulter, Savage, Bill O'Reilly, and many others, is akin the "Tulip Madness" of 1634-37. It's a mental abberation that has infected millions of people, that is being promoted by people who think they can ride the tiger to wealth and glory.
Someday, we'll just wake up, and nobody will be able to understand why it happened, because we will have passed the stage where we can be used in this fashion.
Or we'll all kill each other.
He was impeached, not for getting a blow job, but for lieing about it under oath.
He took a shit on his constitutional duty to uphold the laws of the US of A, and the constitution, both, in one sentence.
There aren't a whole lot of laws that he can easily break, he isn't obliged by the constitution and the oath of office to uphold all the several states' laws, just those of the US, and the constitution.
Lieing under oath, essentially taking a shit square on 1/3 of the government, is one of them.
It really isn't minor. It demonstrated Clinton's lack of respect for his job, this country as whole, and the people of this country as individuals.
Clinton was guilty, got called on it, and got labeled as such. He didn't get punished. An impeachment is, after all, only an official labeling. He wasn't removed from office. Let's not get all worked up over him being impeached, even though he wiped his ass with the constitution.
And I am not really arguing against you. I think they are both assholes, I can't imagine how either one got elected a second time, and yes, I think Bush should get impeached, removed from office, arrested for war crimes, and tried on the world stage. But let's not cloud the issue with crying about Clinton's deserved impeachment.
Michael Dukakis from my home state of Massachusetts was the Democratic candidate against Bush Sr. in 1988. He was really no match for the Republican media campaign against him, which was controversial but masterfully executed. The election was easily won by Bush Sr. - it seems amazing to me as a younger guy that there was a time when California's mass of electoral votes consistently went Republican.
So I'm safe if I refer to it by its proper name, MFN (Most Favored Nation)?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
...to counteract.
Actually BOTH the Democraps and Ripoffagains sold the owl down the river. Clinton's "salvage logging" of old growth forests ring a bell? When I did tree sitting with Earth First! we never carried water for Democrats and saw them as every bit as much the enemy as Repubs.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I can't get into the headspace of that sort of person, but I can easily see people who "think" like that.
There are about 20% of the country who will support Bush no matter what he does, because he "talks to God." They will never change.
For example, how could a Republican filibuster have passed the FISA amendment to grant retroactive immunity? How could a filibuster "authorize the use of force" (and a metric shitload of money) in Iraq without a declaration of war?
The answer is called horse trading. You want to pass a minimum wage hike; I want immunity in my FISA. You want federal funds to repair the bridge in your city; I want immunity in my FISA. You want to pass the annual appropriations for HUD; I want immunity in my FISA. I have the power to deny anything you want; what are you willing to trade? Filibusters are like guns--I don't need to point one at you to get what I want, I just need to point one at something you care about.
Both parties use this tactic very effectively, by the way.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Why are we dicking around with the small-fry when we should be impeaching the President for authorizing giving up Valerie Plame as a CIA agent?
That action destroyed a multi-decade espionage program and resulted in the deaths of assets and allies in the field.
There is no clearer definition of treason.
Shedding party affiliation is a bit like shaking a religious upbringing; the hardest part is breaking the initial unshakable faith.
Party affiliation has nothing to do with believing that one political party is the same as the other. I'm not a fan of any flavor of Linux; it's on none of my computers. But I know there is a difference between them.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Salvage logging--removal of dead, diseased, or insect-riddled trees--is a good thing for old growth forests. It makes them less vulnerable to wild fires and creates room for new trees to grow. The actual writing of the bill, combined with a judge in the pocket of the loggers, left massive loopholes in what should have been a protective measure for the forests. And you can't genuinely blame Clinton: the Congress gave him a choice between shutting down the government or allowing 15 months of selective logging in specific areas. There's no correct answer for that choice.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
I'm also thinking of those people who, for whatever reason, think that authoritarianism is good and following the direction of those above you is natural. The ones who love the Decider because he's a "strong leader".
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
"Salvage logging--removal of dead, diseased, or insect-riddled trees--is a good thing for old growth forests. It makes them less vulnerable to wild fires and creates room for new trees to grow."
Bzzzt what actually happened is a lot of healthy surrounding forest was cut as well. As well as removing nutrients essential to restoring the soil in the fire damaged eco-system. Try your timber company propanda on someone who wasn't there, maybe you can fool them.
I sure as hell can blame Clinton, hint Dims never work the media to get people to oppose bad legislation because they support it as well.
Hint #2 Wall St. is Obama's biggest funder.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
"And I have acted, and will continue to act, to ensure that my words are translated into reality so that the conduct described in this report does not occur again at the department."
It's convenient to say you won't let it happen 'again' -- given that it's after 6-8 years of skewed hiring/firing practices, and in the twilight of a lame-duck presidency. In the meantime, you have an AG department that is purged of 'liberals'. and stacked with 'good republicans'.
If he really means what hey says, he should go back and order the hiring of all of the people were arbitrarily denied the opportunity to work for the department. at least, then, there would be at least somecorrection of the nastiness that was done through most of this administration.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
He said salvage logging is good, not that what actually happened was good. Try your eco-propaganda on someone who's illiterate, such as yourself. Maybe you can fool yourself.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Well, you're getting close to the reality of the situation. The second half of that sentence is spot-on.
There is little doubt in my mind that both parties have done whatever they can to entrench themselves in their power. To a large degree this is successful; they have succeeded in stacking the deck against true third parties. However, over the last few years in particular I've come to firmly believe we get exactly the government we deserve.
The reality is that voters can not be trusted to make educated decisions. We have people who vote on the basis of the best hair, or on relatively inconsequential issues. We have people who vote for their political parties because there are too many candidates on a ballot and not nearly enough interest--even at the presidential level--to thoroughly investigate any of them. These facts were known hundreds of years ago; they are the entire reasoning behind the original concept of the electoral college (though its current implementation fails at this). The only difference today compared to then is the availability of information. It's still up to people to digest and weigh this new information, and most simply don't.
Politicians want to get elected. They'll tell you anything to make that happen. That is supposed to be our leverage over them--both in getting them to better represent our opinions by altering the stances of current politicians and in choosing those who do. But as a nation we're chronically disinterested in politics (outside of scandals!). Our exposure is the 15 second sound bites and the 45 second campaign commercials, which the vast majority of us simply do not bother to investigate. We overwhelming believe that politicians lie to us and twist the truth, but we don't bring the skepticism to what they actually say.
A couple examples, to hit on some /. pet issues:
1. Do you truly believe anybody could get (re-)elected if they so much as mentioned that they think sex crime legislation and sentencing has gotten out of hand? The very next day ads would be running from every side "Senator Jones would support legislation to let convicted child rapist out of prison to live in YOUR neighborhood," with a cute little picture of children playing on swings. "Are you willing to gamble your children's lives on Senator Jones' belief that criminals are more important than children?" Jones is dead meat. Dead. It doesn't matter what his ACTUAL position on the matter is, or, hell, even if he may be right. He's simply dead meat, politically. Why? Because nobody is willing to dig into the issue to see what he actually said, or consider whether or not he's right.
2. The United States spends nearly as much or more on defense than the rest of the world combined, depending on the sources you find. (Google "world defense spending" for some examples.) Let's assume we're not at war just to make things easier. If I say I support cuts in defense spending to use on, say, education or health care, ads are running the next day about how I refuse to give the soldiers the equipment they need--even if I've laid out a comprehensive alternative proposal that in no way cuts equipment, training, recruitment, pay, etc spending and only cuts, say, research spending or which eliminates waste. (For the record I tend to like military research, it's led to lots of really cool and useful things for the private sector; I'm only using this as an example.) Maybe--maybe--I can survive this, but it's an uphill battle and it's going to cost me lots of money to try to refute. Why again? Because of the disinterest of people in investigating claims for themselves.
I'm sure I could go on and on and anybody reading this probably could find some I've missed even then, but I think it's safe to simply move to the point: Polticians do these things because they work. They work because people r
Because, after all, the only reason to disagree with any of the things he and his cohorts have done is irrational hatred. It has nothing to do with subverting the Constitution he swore to protect, failing to prevent a major terrorist attack despite warnings, unapologetic law-breaking, stove-piping intelligence to justify a war of aggression and an occupation that's trashing our armed forces and our economy, gutting the balance of powers, alienating long-time allies, making the tax burden even more regressive, hamstringing prosecution of marketplace abuses, blatantly politicizing the Justice Department, rewriting science in the name of ideology, or any other similarly whiny little complaint.
It's the "What have the Romans ever done for us" in reverse:
Yeah, but apart from the subverting of the constitution, the terrorist attacks, the lawbreaking, the fabricated case for war, the economy going down the drain, the imbalance of powers, the alienation, the tax burden, the socially destructive marketplace abuses, the Justice Department and the re-writing of science...
... what have Bushes ever done to us?
I thought the wildfires took care of it? Wild forest fires are actually a part of the natural cycle of a forest.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Don't forget, the Democrats (and Republicans) in the House and Senate are just as complacent in whatever damage has been done, by allowing it to continue and contributing their own malfeasance.
If the Ds really didn't want a war in Iraq, they shouldn't have given Bush the piece of paper authorizing military action.
GWB isn't any more evil than Pelosi and crew! The whole bunch is corrupt! So until you stop voting for the Republicrats, you get what you deserve.
First, it's complicit, not complacent.
Second, third and fourth: the Republicans had a rubber-stamp majority in Congress until 18 months ago so the Democrats could do little to check Bush's activities; Democrats were even prevented from holding hearings about issues with the administration; the Democrats were lied to about the force of evidence against Iraq and even then voted to authorize the use of force as a last resort - Bush went to war four days later. Since the Democrats gained a slim majority in Congress the Republicans have fillibustered action more than 80 times, and numerous Bush aides have refused to testify when subpoenaed by Congress.
The Republicans are in a very bad way when they start blaming the Democrats for their own failed and/or illegal policies.
Ad hominem much?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
Nope, just cutting and pasting.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
He'll be gone in six months.
But not forgotten.
Bring Bush to trial. And that Dick Cheney too.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
If you're going to respond to my posts, do me the courtesy of reading the whole post before you react like a mindless fool.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
The U.S. Attorney for his state brought charges against Siegelman as he was running for re-election, with a trial one month before the election. While the U.S. Attorney's husband was running his opponents campaign. I agree with what other's have said: this will be way bigger than Watergate, if it isn't covered up and the press pulls its head out of its ass.
Congress doesn't have to override Bush's veto, they just have to get enough votes together to stop funding the war. So no, they don't need 60 votes, they need 41.
Generally, half the Democratic party is descent, and half is rotten. But the Republicans are 100% rotten - if you aren't enough of an asshole on taxes or God Norquist and Dobson will run your ass out of town. So it's easier to try and fix the party that's half rotten while driving the GOP into Whig territory than start a 3rd party.
8 years of peace and prosperity ending with a budget surplus?
...at the cost of killing a perfectly good manufacturing sector in the Midwest/Northeast.
Do not be surprised if those of the Rust Belt(and others similarly affected in other areas of the US) use 2009 to fix what started in 1981.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The Clintons only listened to the siren song of "free trade", only to see it bite them back. If you don't count Panama and Iran, he'd start to look good compared to recent presidents.
When those from the Rust Belt have their day in 2009, Reaganism will be on its way out.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
If you don't count Panama and Iran, Carter starts to look good compared to recent presidents.
Fixed typo.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.