Slashdot Mirror
Al Gore Buzzword Bingo
Rodger Crawford writes "Apparently Al Gore has a history of latching on to high-tech buzzword. So much so, that 3 years ago, MIT student played a friendly game of 'Buzzword Bingo' during Gore's graduation speech. "
I figured we might as well go with the trend and just continue
ripping on the yutz. I've never been so excited to vote
against someone before *grin*.
All he's done to deserve your enmity is put his foot in his mouth about technological issues -- and what politicians hasn't put his foot in his mouth at least a dozen times?
Since the best voting strategy is usually "lesser of two evils," I'd wait and see who the GOP nominates before saying who you're voting for/against. Personally, the only Republican I can imagine voting for is John McCain, but he doesn't have a chance in hell of being nominated, assuming he even runs.
--
I still think the article was great, but to take this as Yet Another Gore-bashing Foray (or as yet another chance to fish for proselytes on behalf of the "clueful" "outsider" Libertarian Party) misses the point.
--
--
=8^
As you may recall, many of the worst excesses of "capitalism" have stemmed from big government aiding industry, often in a corrupt fashion. Consider for instance the use of police and National Guard troops to attack striking workers, or the continued corruption of the military-industrial complex, or the continued federal support of Big Tobacco through subsidies (even as with the other hand the government prosecutes the tobacco companies).
Libertarians do not stand for government support and subsidy of industry. Libertarians do not stand for government being used as the tool of the rich against the working class.
Libertarians stand for the government having one purpose and one purpose alone: the protection of individuals against violent force, threat of force, and fraud.
There is nothing in Libertarianism that speaks against labor unions, cooperatives, worker-owned businesses, and other forms of empowerment of the working class. Libertarianism allows for whatever steps a person may take to improve his/her position in the market --- including unionizing or cooperating with others --- as long as those steps do not involve the use of force. The market competition which libertarianism supports permits cooperation within a competitive framework --- whereas the forced, pseudo-cooperative framework which socialism mandates does not permit competition.
Socialism would end oppression by placing all power in the hands of the government, which is presently the largest source of oppression on the planet --- "whitewashing a wall by painting it black", to quote Hagbard Celine. Libertarianism, by directly undercutting this oppressive force, is in a sense more true to the intentions of socialism than socialism itself is.
> They stand for people with money buying what
> they damn well please with it.
How do you wish to restrict what people with money buy? Would you prefer that we (I say "we" because both of us, I assume, have money) not be allowed to buy tobacco? Or fur coats? The present regime in the U.S. thinks we should not be allowed to buy Cuban cigars or domestically-produced hemp products. Do you think these are reasonable restrictions on our property rights? I don't.
> I'm considering it, but I'm also considering
> their use of the Pinkertons and other private,
> "free-enterprise" thugs.
A libertarian government, concerned with protecting the people from force, threat of force, and fraud, would by no means have ignored such abuses. "Libertarian government" does not mean "no government"; it means a government whose sole concern is the protection of individual liberties from violation by (once again the refrain) force, threat of force, or fraud. If the bosses hire thugs to attack union leaders, then the thugs are guilty of assault and battery, and the bosses complicit.
> Don't get economic systems mixed up with
> political systems. That's something that really
> bugs me about the U.S.; people think
> "capitalism", "free market", "democracy", and
> "freedom" are all synonymns. They're not.
I never mentioned democracy.
If technology is your issue, and your going to vote based on that, I would suggest that you look at the Libritarian Party, where your vote against someone will actually count as a vote for your platform. They have a strong stance on Internet Censorship, Cryptology, etc...
Personally, I won't vote for Gore for MANY reasons, I might vote LP, but I am going to wait and see who the choices end up being.
Isn't the opposition to Gore the Republican Party, which is dominated by fundamentalist theocrats and authoritarian reactionaries? Surely a bozo who inanely spouts buzzwords he doesn't understand would be the lesser evil in this case.
Or do you mean Libertarian or Socialist or Natural Law Party or some other unlikely-to-get-elected fringe group?
<SARCASM>
A republican who believes in evolution? Will wonders never cease?
</SARCASM>
Seriously, the unfortunate reality is that sensible republicans are surrounded by the theocrats; it's an unfortunate fact that the more fanatical one is, the more effort one is going to put into their campaigning and politicking, which is why a small extremist fringe holds alarming sway over one of the two major US political parties. Even though the religiots haven't yet succeeded in turning the Republican Party into a Pentecostal Hezbollah, the party line has to bend a lot to accommodate their prejudices and tyrannical ambitions. And that in itself is more cause to worry than bozotic buzzword dropping.
Actually, the only reason he makes these gaffes is because he has a great interest in courting the technology-aware voting base. Okay, it hasn't worked out as well as he would have hoped, but at least he's sympathetic. Would you prefer to elect a technophobe who just keeps his mouth shut about it?
"If you want to go smoke-up, go ahead, but don't say the war on drugs is idiotic. The truth is that drugs are bad, in one way or another, and SOMETHING should be done to stop their abuse. "
Read the book "Drug Crazy" by Mike Gray.
We've been trying prohibition for the last *100* years on one damn substance or another! IT DOESN'T WORK!!!
We don't need the government to make drug users look pathetic...most do on their own (except the lucky few that know exactly how to handle drug use). However, by making it illegal, you make drug trade VERY VERY VERY Profitable, where the drug people can buy off any one they want, and shoot and kill any competitors while destroying whole neighborhoods in the process.
in the 1920's, the people selling alcohol did so in the same way that people sell drugs in the 1990's.
And finally, people have the RIGHT to put WHATEVER THEY WANT into THEIR BODIES. They DON'T have the right to blame their behaviour on the drug afterwords, but it's MY cells, MY blood, MY body, and I'll do with it whatever I please. In my case, I choose not to do drugs (or alcohol) because I don't want to lose control of what I am doing. As long as I don't hurt anybody else physically or destroy property, HOW DARE they say otherwise?
Amazing. Actual thoughtful political *thinking*.
See, Slashdotters? It can be done.
I saw Al Gore speak in DC a couple weeks ago and all I can say is, I hope they get rid of that horrid World Cup theme song as his campaign song.
Gore is a pretty smart guy and I think people will warm up to him once he gets out from Clinton's rapidly diminishing shadow. I disagree with him in quite a few areas, and he is basically too cautious for me in areas I do agree with, but as an actual possibility to be the next president, we could do far worse.
Question to those who despise Al Gore: are you registered to vote? And if so, did you vote in the last election? I do voter files for a living and I can predict that many of you are not registered, and of those who are registered, if you are under 40 years old you probably didn't vote.
If you want someone better than Al Gore to be in office, then you have to participate.
-------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
If you're referring to Steve Kubby, he's not a drug dealer. He was growing marijuana for personal medical benefit in full compliance with California state law.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Isn't the opposition to the fundamentalist theocrats and authortarian reactionaries dominated by religiphobic socialists and radical statists?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Here are some other funny hacks on campus:
Micr o$oft posters
Anomalous banners appeared upon Gates' visit
Everyone's heard of the CP car on the Great Dome. Don't ask how it got up there...you really don't want to know.
Hackers greet the new Institute president
Boston Pops VU meter during Esplanade concert
my personal favorite
We may be nerds, but dammit, we're FUNNY nerds. Browse around hacks.mit.edu for more.
Bradley is an impressive character, and he had a surprisingly large turnout among volunteers (perhaps 3-1 in numbers over Gore). If you're interested seeing how the man walks and talks in a relatively informal setting, check the C-Span schedule over the next few days; they had a crew there taping the event. Worth checking out if you won't vote Republican but don't find Gore an attractive candidate.
(Apropos of nothing, having checked the C-Span schedule just now, I find that no less a grey eminence than Jon Katz will be appearing on C-Span tomorrow morning (Sunday, April 10, 1999, at 8:27 a.m., repeating at 12:47 a.m. ET) as part of a panel discussion on writing biography. Love him or hate him, it's certain to be better than Sam & Cokie.)
My problem with Gore is that he appears to think that he has personal understanding of technology. He has delusions of competence. That's much, much worse than being merely ignorant. One who is ignorant usually knows enough to ask an expert. The poser experts are the dangerous types.
I'd rather get medical treatment from someone with no medical training than from someone who thinks he's a doctor. The one with no medical training will likely do nothing, or find someone with medical training. the poser doctor may well break out the scalpel and stare, amazed, at my incredible array of innards. For much the same reason, I'd rather have a president who didn't understand tech than one who thinks he does.
--The basis of all love is respect
So you are stating you would vote against a party, and not for a canidate. It is voters like you that make both major parties the evil that they are today. If every one of us would study the canidates and vote based on their qualifications and views then maybe we would actually send a message by electing more than a few independants.
_ ________
It is directly because of voters like you that the "fringe parties" you mentioned are unlikely to get elected.
To stay on topic however, Al Gore seems to jump on any bandwagon that rolls past. The technology bandwagon wasn't the first and it won't be the last. Much like Clinton when push comes to shove he will back down and weasle his way out of whatever promises he makes. I think the Democrats only chance is to put canidate up who will stand behind the issues and fight for what he believes in. You say the Republican party is reactionary, wouldn't Al Gore jumping on the technology bandwagon and using buzzwords when he has no idea what they mean be a little reactionary. Maybe not in the same sense you use it in, but reactionary none the less.
I choose not to reveal my party affiliation but, suffice it to say Gore does not have my vote, if for no other reason than by being un-informed he only proves his ignorance. There are canidates within the Democratic party who would stand a much better chance than Gore, but the status quo says that we must nominate the Vice-President no matter how ignorant he is. I say down with the status quo of both parties and down with ignorant voters.
_______________________________________________
Can We trust the future - Flesh99
And for good reason. Anyone born after about 1962 or so cannot remember the government bringing together SQUAT. Previous generations have had common threads: the government getting people to work, getting armies together to fight evil, and in its last great collective breath, sending a man to the moon. Generations since then have seen government generating more problems than it has solved. 91% of people born after 1962 feel there won't be any social security money for them. (And they're right; amazingly, the fund is now due to call it quits just as generation X hits 65. Coincidence?)
Slashdotters reaction to all of this is to turn away from government to solve its problems. And it *has* been solving problems -- in spades. We've started by popularizing a concept so revolutionary that it could do away with any collective control of production in an entire industry. Howzat! We've shrugged off the government-for-life model, are busy shrugging off the company-man-for-life model and are establish a NEW model that works better than those dinosaurs.
You're right, Al Gore may well be the best candidate available in the next presidential election. Why doesn't that scare the shit out of you? Point made: if we seek true leadership, we must find it outside of the usual channels. Every one of us has more principles, more leadership ability, more guts and moxie than any politician in the old system. Nobody here is waiting for the USDA stamp of approval on software we write; we've found a new guarantee of quality better than any envisioned before.
And if you haven't "ruled out" Al Gore and every last one of those blood-sucking, egomanical Washington leeches, you may also be stuck trying to make the old models work. So I have one last word for you: if you aren't going to participate in this new model, at least help by getting Gore and his cronies on both sides of the aisle to stay out of the fucking way as much as possible... before they, too, are hit by the cluetrain.
The only other announced Democratic candidate is Bill Bradley.
Geez, some of you people need a humor transplant. The person who wrote those 35 reasons was just heaping ridicule on Gore, not outlining a detailed case of why not to vote against him. I was interested to see Owen defend Dan Quayle though. (Not that his analogy was even correct: Dan Quayle mis-spoke because he was stupid, Al Gore just plain lied). It is interesting to see some people parroting the radical leftist party line on the affects of humans on the environment. Accuse your opponents of bad science without presenting any scientific evidence whatsover.
Al Gore would be just about the worst president I can possibly image. Here are a few articles with reasons why:
35 Reasons Not to Vote for Al Gore.
How to Tell the Difference Between Al Gore and the Unabomber
Apocalypse Gore
Not only is Al Gore a pathological liar like his buddy Clinton, he's also full of very whacky and very scary ideas.
Whenever slashdot focuses it's collective mind on a political matter, I have to stop and suppress the temptations put forth by this beloved Hyde Park. I will not stoop to petty bickering. I will not participate in a thread that relies on two-sentence come-backs, such as, "Democrats want to to control the boardroom. Republicans want to control the bedroom," or, "Republicans support small government. Democrats support unemployment, big brother, and other liberal programs." I refuse. This stupidity (err, "political naivite") is insulting, and the shame of the matter is that there is a _real_ issue at hand.
The issue at hand is not as transient as Al Gore or the election in the year 2000. It's how this community views itself politically. How does it look at politics? Five years from now, will young politicians in training be joking about computer freaks? I can hear the jokes beginning: "Did I tell you the one about the computer nerd who tried to take his computer into the voting booth?"
And there will be grounds for the jokes. Not because the computer users will be recluses who didn't get a date for the prom, but because they (we) will be sitting on the biggest gold mine of raw power and they (we) will have no idea how to use it or how to control it. This community has only begun to comprehend that this young medium has the opportunity to take control of the staple of politics: images. Who will set the standards for communications over the Internet, Internet2, and its successor? Who will produce the technology and the content? Technology and content do go hand-in hand. (Note the controversy over MP3.)
Does Al Gore realize? He at least acknowledges as much. Does George W. Bush realize this? Who knows? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he's scheming. I'm not George W. Bush, and I don't know enough about him to judge. (Of course, many of the members of the slashdot community are themselves too ignorant to judge Al Gore, but, hey, he's been VP for seven years. Since we're all naturally good and take not note of what our government has been up to for the past few years [or months? days?], we have the inherent right to judge him for one boast if we damn well please.) I know,though, I certainly am not going to rule out Al Gore until I look around hte political landscape a bit more.
It seems right now that there's reaction to some foreign entity. The electronic world is sending its white blood cells out to kill the political bacteria. I'm just disappointed that we've jumped the gun on him.
I just the 35 reasons not to vote for Al Gore, and I must say they are simply wrong. Let's look at number one:
> 1. Gore thinks "human civilization is now the
> dominant cause of change in the global
> environment." Nevermind the sun, the oceans,
> volcanoes, and other natural phenomena that
> actually do control the environment.
So I guess Los Angeles has a brown sky because of the volcanoes in the area? That's a good one.
How about
18. Gore has claimed during a 1999 interview with
> CNN's Wolf Blitzer that "During my
> service in the United States Congress, I took
> the initiative in creating the Internet." The
> preliminary discussions for the creation of the
> Internet took place in 1967 and, in 1969,
> the Defense Department commissioned the creation > of the "Arpanet." Gore was 2l years
> old at the time and it would be eight more years
> before he was elected to the US House of
> Representatives.
If this is a reason _not_ to vote for someone, then I guess you should completely eliminate Mr. Potatoe Head.
> 21. Despite the viewing public's disenchantment
> with the television show, "Ellen", starring
> Ellen DeGeneris, an outspoken advocate of the
> lesbian lifestyle, Gore lauded the star for
> "forcing" millions of Americans to "look at
> sexual orientation in a more open light." They
> stopped looking and the show was cancelled.
Sorry, people, you can't vote for anyone who liked a show that was cancelled. Nope, off the ticket. Nevermind that this comment is probably based off of the author's homophobia, and he thinks that people didn't like the show because she was a lesbian.
> 23. Gore is on record declaring William
> Jefferson Clinton as one of the greatest
> Presidents of modern times.
What _else_ is the freaking VICE PRESIDENT supposed to say? "Clinton sucks ass"????
> 32. Both Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have
> admitted to being "recreational" marijuana
> smokers when he attended Harvard. The
> Clinton-Gore Administration is notorious for
> having failed to stem the flow of drugs into the
> country.
And George W. Bush probably took cocaine. What's your point? You think it's _easy_ to stop drug trafficking?
I could pick apart every single one of these, but I think I've made my point.
Owen Williams
Not trying to talk you out of voting against AG, just wondering how are you going to vote for anyone if having personal understanding of technology is part of criteria :-)