You're joking, right? This is cut and run. Rumsfeld is not resigning. He's being scapegoated. You watch: Everybody in the administration is going to be saying "Well, we wanted to do this better, but Rumsfeld talked us into doing it his way..."
"or a belt-hanging, nose-down style holster. Some social occasions just aren't a good fit for that sort of thing"
Well, maybe you should try wearing it in the front, and saying "Why, yes! I AM happy to see you!" Get a whole different sort of social occasion going...
Mmmkay. Better to say that people who aren't serious photographers aren't likely to buy serious camera gear. Seems like a much better generalization, doesn't it?
Do you trust machines to give you the requisite number of $20 bills? Why should we accept or expect that voting machines should be any less reliable than that?
By saying "third party", you are buying into the prevailing notion that there are only really two parties. That is a designed-in artifact of our voting strategy. I agree with you that it should be changed, but I do not agree that voting for a "third party" is the way to effect that change.
Wow. You've got a heck of a funny definition of "won". If we have "won", why are the soldiers still fighting?
"Hussein is gone."
Well, golly. There's a weight off of my mind. As Han Solo said, "I feel safer already."
"The country has been turned into a democracy."
By force, right? I'm sure that'll hold together real real good.
"Of course, it's not that simple -- the government is extremely unstable. There is an unofficial civil war going on, fighting for power. Not all of the country is represented in the government, creating a lot of tension. There are still a lot of terrorists aiming at American soldiers."
If that's what your "win" looks like, I really would rather not see your "lose".
"We NEED a beacon of freedom that other countries can emulate"
Agreed. What on earth do you think that goal has to do with the current "strategy"? (And by "strategy", I mean "goatfuck"?)
"I think they are,"
I don't think that Arabs are any more or less inclined to holding together a polity than anybody else. I think that democracy cannot be imposed by an occupying power.
"and I think if it holds together, this period in history will be seen as a turning point in that part of the world"
I really, really hope you're right. I really, really think you're wrong. The size of that "if" is freakin' ginormous.
"just like how Japan became a modern power"
I don't think that's a valid comparison. Japan was a relatively stable nation state whose army essentially ran a coup, and started calling the shots. It had territorial integrity, and something like social stability throughout the war, and immediately after. The "occupation" government simply needed to re-seat the Emperor as the head of state, and make sure that the country was militarily weak, so that the new government could get on its feet.
If you think that's similar to the picture on the ground in Iraq, I suggest you go back to Reality School.
I'm saying that, without a well-trusted election mechanism, all discussions of what is or is not good policy are irrelevant. Without a provably accurate system of counting votes, our social contract is null and void. There is no basis for government, if there is no democratic (lowercase d) mandate.
John Kerry and Al Gore are cowards for not standing up and contesting the election. Bush is a coward because he wraps himself in the flag and calls everybody who disagrees with him a terrorist. The fact that you cast this as an either or proposition between two people who are unfit to command a rowboat is an indicator of the systematic breakdown of American politics over the last 150 years.
Slashdot Mirror
"No blowjob machine. Doesn't lay golden eggs. Lame."
They were going to get a cut of the profits on Internet Explorer. Sucks to be them!
"I mean, would it be so bad to change your mind based on the will of the people?"
Hard to say. Bush has never much bothered about the will of the people up until now. Why start?
Right, and similar avenues would be available if the voting machine companies cared to do even the slightest bit of engineering to accomodate them.
But they've got a vested interest in NOT accomodating those avenues, so they don't. Why is this hard to understand?
"a remarkable show of integrity."
You're joking, right? This is cut and run. Rumsfeld is not resigning. He's being scapegoated. You watch: Everybody in the administration is going to be saying "Well, we wanted to do this better, but Rumsfeld talked us into doing it his way..."
"If I hear any more god damned grandstanding from the winners"
Were you puking when Bush turned his narrow margin of victory into a Mandate from the People? You should have been.
That was my first thought. He was demoted from SecDef to scapegoat.
Now somebody go do the same thing with Gonzalez.
So, uh, wait a second. You're saying that Slashdot should report that Rumsfeld HASN'T stepped down?
I know you might want it to be so, but facts are not a partisan matter.
"Anything other than free healthcare..."
There is no such thing.
What does that have to do with the fact that 7 out of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans?
Um, there also wasn't a Christmas until several hundred years later. But thanks for playing!
"or a belt-hanging, nose-down style holster. Some social occasions just aren't a good fit for that sort of thing"
Well, maybe you should try wearing it in the front, and saying "Why, yes! I AM happy to see you!" Get a whole different sort of social occasion going...
Mmmkay. Better to say that people who aren't serious photographers aren't likely to buy serious camera gear. Seems like a much better generalization, doesn't it?
Err.../s/machine/ATM
Do you trust machines to give you the requisite number of $20 bills? Why should we accept or expect that voting machines should be any less reliable than that?
"have some rudimentary capability of comprehending geeky logic"
Truly. And, as such, it is not possible for such a person of intellect and consceince vote without detecting the stink of politics.
I'm a fan of emigration to another planet, myself. Emigration is the only way to start political experiments.
By saying "third party", you are buying into the prevailing notion that there are only really two parties. That is a designed-in artifact of our voting strategy. I agree with you that it should be changed, but I do not agree that voting for a "third party" is the way to effect that change.
That thar Rio use MusicMatch Jukebox? If so, any argument you might make about good UI goes right out the damn airlock.
What the crap are you talking about?
Yeah, all four of them.
"We've already won."
Wow. You've got a heck of a funny definition of "won". If we have "won", why are the soldiers still fighting?
"Hussein is gone."
Well, golly. There's a weight off of my mind. As Han Solo said, "I feel safer already."
"The country has been turned into a democracy."
By force, right? I'm sure that'll hold together real real good.
"Of course, it's not that simple -- the government is extremely unstable. There is an unofficial civil war going on, fighting for power. Not all of the country is represented in the government, creating a lot of tension. There are still a lot of terrorists aiming at American soldiers."
If that's what your "win" looks like, I really would rather not see your "lose".
"We NEED a beacon of freedom that other countries can emulate"
Agreed. What on earth do you think that goal has to do with the current "strategy"? (And by "strategy", I mean "goatfuck"?)
"I think they are,"
I don't think that Arabs are any more or less inclined to holding together a polity than anybody else. I think that democracy cannot be imposed by an occupying power.
"and I think if it holds together, this period in history will be seen as a turning point in that part of the world"
I really, really hope you're right. I really, really think you're wrong. The size of that "if" is freakin' ginormous.
"just like how Japan became a modern power"
I don't think that's a valid comparison. Japan was a relatively stable nation state whose army essentially ran a coup, and started calling the shots. It had territorial integrity, and something like social stability throughout the war, and immediately after. The "occupation" government simply needed to re-seat the Emperor as the head of state, and make sure that the country was militarily weak, so that the new government could get on its feet.
If you think that's similar to the picture on the ground in Iraq, I suggest you go back to Reality School.
I'm saying that, without a well-trusted election mechanism, all discussions of what is or is not good policy are irrelevant. Without a provably accurate system of counting votes, our social contract is null and void. There is no basis for government, if there is no democratic (lowercase d) mandate.
John Kerry and Al Gore are cowards for not standing up and contesting the election. Bush is a coward because he wraps himself in the flag and calls everybody who disagrees with him a terrorist. The fact that you cast this as an either or proposition between two people who are unfit to command a rowboat is an indicator of the systematic breakdown of American politics over the last 150 years.
With everything going on in the world, you're scared of DEMOCRATS? On the INTERNET? Your threat-o-meter is broken.
Yes, our current Stay and Lose strategy is much better.