Innocent people die in war, but your statement is rediculous on its face....
"I consider people who are doing nothing more than defending their country against invasion to be innocents."
If you're talking about the Sadr militia's and other Islamic-State enthusiasts, as well as the bitter left-over Saddamites, they're not defending their country from invasion. They're engaging in Jihad (at least the Islamists). There's nothing innocent about these fighters. They blow up their own children, and then hide in Mosques for safety afterwords. We have it doubly hard in that, while these men are absolutely ruthless, some of the Iraqi population just can't bring themselves to blame other Arabs for the murders. They'd rather believe we did it, or even more incredibly, the Mossad. But to call anyone from the Sadr militia or its ilk innocent or freedom fighters is to lose all moral credibility. This is the same kind of moral relativsm that allowed communism a free pass from our intellectuals, all while Stalin was murdering 20 million of his own people in firing squads and labor camps.
" Stewart is funnier, but I haven't watched his program since, oddly enough, I was in college. I started watching O'Reilly about 2 years ago and got hooked.
If I get flamed by people accusing him of lying and slanting, please back it up with some facts...plenty of people have taken him on, the most famous probably being Al Franken, and they've come up with nothing except a misspeak on Bill's part. You can hate him for being a blowhard, but don't insinuate he outright lies on his show without proof."
What is trollish about that post? Whoever modded that, read the damn guidelines. The poster attacked no one, didn't deride anyone, simply stated an honest, thoughtful opinion. Whoever modded the poster troll, I hope you get pounded in metamoderation, because what you're doing is modding down because you don't like his opinion: that's it. That's wrong, totally against the spirit of the moderation process.
Why would it be a security threat? Both the Democratic and Republican databases are gathered from publicly available information sources. You're probably (and justifiably) concerned that your name may be on list in another country, but frankly, it already is. If you've ever bought anything on the web, this same information is on marketing lists in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, China, the Phillipines, etc. It's an unfortunate side effect of the information age. Information may not neccessarily want to be free, but it does get around rather easily now.
The post makes it sound like the GOP went "Fuck Americans, we're going to build this thing with cheap labor! Ah ha ha ha!"
RTFA....directly from the PC World piece...
"Two years prior to the 2002 elections, the RNC hired Advanced Custom Software (ACS) of Seattle to build a Web-based database to help campaign workers target likely Republican voters. According to information posted on Elance.com, an online directory of outsourcing firms, ACS subcontracted development of the database to Compulink Systems of Maharashtra, India."
It's a fair bet that when the GOP found out about the outsourcing (and the fact that ACS is basically nothing but a front company for Indian firms), THEY put a stop to it. Also from the article:
"...all work done on Voter Vault since 2002 has occurred in the U.S."
I love Bats, he's my favorite character, but while he's personally conservative in many ways, he's virulently anti-gun. Not a limosine liberal by any means, but not completely conservative, either. From my years of reading him, I'd have to classify him as a reluctant Democrat. He's, in reality, maybe the most independant-minded character in the DC univers (at least among the big boys).
As for the rest...
Superman - He's from Kansas. Compassionate conservative Republican, easy.
Wonder Woman - Another reluctant Democrat. Feminist, but wary of the whining and victimization of the feminist movement.
Spider-Man - Democrat, but not a blazing leftist.
Aquaman - Republican? Hell no. Nader or Green, all the way.
The Hulk - For president? The Hulk doesn't give a flying fuck about anything but being left alone.
X-Men - Liberal Democrats, natch. Persecuted minorities, and all that.
Iron Man - Republican. While he doesn't make weapons for the government anymore, come on, he flies around in armor and has more money than Bill Gates.
Captain America - Reagan Democrat, maybe switch to the GOP; a man that used to love the party of FDR, but felt left behind when the Dems went hard left in the sixties.
On an intersting comics note, there was a big story thread in the DC universe the past couple of years where Lex Luthor was President of the US. Traditionally, comics writers have included the real current Presidents in their storylines. Most comics writers tend to be liberal, so I can't help but think that was their way of saying that we have a REAL Lex Luthor in office with Bush, by equating the current Presidency to evil.
Doesn't really matter, because IT has become such a neccessity, and such a commodity, that it's silly to say "who should I vote for? who will support IT the most?". It's a non-issue. It's like saying "gee, which party will support accountants more?" or "which party supports telephone use?". It just isn't one of those economic sectors thats on one side of the spectrum politically, like trial lawyers.
That's news to the people of Chicago, where Richard Daley was famous for finding all of the neccessary votes the Dems needed in the basement of city hall. Or Louisiana, where so many dead people come out to vote, some residents call the election Second Halloween. Both of these places are longtime democratic strongholds. Even in some places in Alabama, there are irregularities in every single election in some democrat-dominated area with voters that voted, but wonder of wonder, also appear to be deceased. And whenever a serious effort is made to purge the voter lists of the deceased in these areas, a huge stink is made about how this is just a back-door way for whites to intimidate black voters. So don't tell me democrats don't cheat. Not all, certainly, but some are old hands at it.
"We know our election system is broken. It failed us 4 years ago."
No, it didn't. It worked, as designed. And another peacefull transistion of power occurred, the latest in a long line in the United States.
These observers are here because 13 Democratic Congressmen asked them to be (and the State Department, but if you know anything of State, it has a reputation of being filled with left-leaning idealists).
At first I was angry at this, thinking it was an insult, a way for Europeans to poke us in the side. I still think thats true, but I'm not angry anymore. Let them come and watch. Once again, we'll have a free, successful election. Problems will be found here and there, but it will overwhelmingly be an honest election. I personally think the Europeans aren't going to get the result they want (a Kerry victory), and so they'll mumble that is was a fair but stupid decision by the Americans, and then they can skulk on home.
I'm a Republican, and let me say this about Keyes running in Illinois: it's hypocritical in the extreme. Hillary shouldn't have been allowed to run in New York, and Keyes shouldn't have been allowed to run in Illinois. The very concept of a famous person moving to a place just because they think they can win a race stinks. It's basically giving a big backhand to the idea of representative democracy.
When all is said and done, I think that overall, the GOP will win big this year. But when you ask party leaders what they'd do differently, in private they'll tell you that importing Keyes was a huge fuckup, and will likely hurt them in Illinois for years (a state with a not-insignificant 21 electoral votes). Maybe Barrack Obama was going to win no matter who ran against him. But something about the mindset of the GOP in Illinois really bugs me. When Ryan backed out of the race, and Ditka wouldn't run, there was this assumption that since the Dem's were running a black candidate, hey, we have to have a black candidate too. That's stupid thinking number one; just get a good candidate, color or sex not being part of it. Stupid thinking number two comes in when they've decided that they HAVE to have a black candidate, and we've found this woman that's a doctor, and a loyal republican, longtime resident of Illinois. BUT WAIT......Let's bring in Alan Keyes instead! Never mind that he's never LIVED in Illinois before.
Put this one into the "what not to do" section of campaigning.
Ten Key Values of the Green Party, from their own website include things like NON-VIOLENCE, FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY. These aren't leftist positions? Only the decentrilization plank could be construed as libertarian.
"Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count.:)"
What?
He can't be elected for two more terms. Only one. Despite the "appointed" crack, he was in fact elected by THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE, which is the vote that really counts in presidential elections. The Supreme Court merely ruled that the endless vote counting should stop in Florida. And, as others have repeatedly pointed out here before, every single credible attempt to count those so-called lost votes STILL ended up with Bush winning. Every-Single-Time.
So, rest your paranoid little head. Dubya can only win this upcoming election.
Then you get to look forward to Rudy Guliani beating the piss out of Hillary Clinton in 2008:)
One thing I've wondered about third party candidates is their motivation; do you really think you can win races? Do you think that if you run long enough, eventually you can break through the two party system? Or is it just a "protest candidacy" because you don't agree with the Democratic Party's platform? Would you be a Democrat if they became more of a leftist party (for lack of a better way to put it, but you know what I mean; if they had policies more in line with the Green Party). Or do you really and truly believe in your party, and want get them elected and into the political system?
Bottom line, do you ever think that you can truly win political office in the United States, now or in the future?
While word processors are great work-savers (in that , after you write your draft, you need only make a few changes and hit the "print" icon), I don't get the same physical satisfaction that I get with a typewriter. There's just something about feeling the impact of the machine in your hands as you type up a document. The work just seems more, well, real I guess. The sound is soothing too, for some reason. I guess that's why I'm a keyboard snob. I like old fashioned heavy mechanical keyboards for my computers, the kind that make the "click-clack" noise as you type, and you can feel it in your fingers. I despise modern soft membrane keyboards. Working with them is like being in a sensory deprivation tank.
I'm 35, and had a typewriter before I had a computer (and remember actually learning to TYPE on a typewriter), so I realize a lot of younger Slashdotters have never even touched a typewriter. I encourage you to give it a try if you can find one.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here....but did Microsoft hold a gun to your mother's head and make her buy a computer with Windows?
I'll be the first to agree that Windows has all the security of swiss cheese. And it's obviously the dominant operating system.
BUT NO ONE IS FORCED TO USE IT. Your mother can buy an Apple. And before you say "But Apples are too expensive, and Linux is too hard for my mother to use", realize that it's your mothers problem (and yours), not Microsoft's. You have a choice not to use Windows. If quality and ease of use is your main problem, You can get an eMac for under 800 bucks now. If money is your problem (or hers), you can put together a box for peanuts, and put Linux on it. She's just going to have to make do with mean 'ole KDE or Gnome.
Or she could stop using a computer. It's up to her. And you.
" Do we have to dissect every good thing that people do?"
Yes. This is Slashdot, ground zero of the tin-foil hat crowd. If this place had 10 Commandments, 5 of them would have something to do with how evil Microsoft is.
According to our gang, Microsoft is evil. Bill Gates is Microsoft. Thus, Bill Gates is incapable of doing any good whatsoever. Even when it appears he's doing something good, there's some deeper nefarious purpose behind it.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for expressing something I've been thinking about for a long time:
Popular election of Senators may be a bad idea.
"How", you say? "How dare you!", some of you scream. Well, how long have we been complaining that real statesmanship is missing from Congress? The Senate was supposed to be the wise check on the popular passions of the day when the Constituion was written. The Senate was not supposed to be anti-democratic. It was not meant to block the will of the House, those popular representatives of the citizenry. It was mereley supposed to be a group of older and wiser men that would provide moderation in the expression of the democratic will. It didn't always work out this way, but for the exception of the tenure of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (and those two also served in the Senate), the Senate was always known as the chamber of Congress that had the deepest debates about what we would call the Big Picture today. Congressmen were too busy trying to get roads built and budgets passed. The Senate always debated the truly lofty issues of the day.
After the 17th Amendment passed, and Senators became directly elected by popular vote, they became less statesmenlike. For all intents and purposes, they're just "Super-Congressmen" now, just as concerned with bringing home the pork as their fellow House members.
I'm not saying there wasn't abuse of the old system (with state legislatures electing them), or that common people aren't fit to elect their leaders. Far from it. But I wish we could get a better caliber of Senator, regardless of party.
How many truly great Senators have there been last century? Truly wise men that had the best interests of the country at heart, and at times bucked their own party to follow that instinct? In the latter half of the 20th century, I can think of only two I'd apply this label to: Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, and John C Stennis of Mississippi. DPM was Liberal, but had common sense. He was a Democrat, but respected Republicans. And keep in mind, I'm a Republican. How often do you hear someone of one party praise someone of another party? Not often. Stennis was a lifelong Democrat that is remembered as the father of the modern navy for his contributions. What about the House? Despite the more partisan nature of the House, Congressmen have more often made their mark in the public memory than Senators have, becoming both famous, and infamous. Sam Rayburn, Jim Wright, Newt Gingrich.
" I personally object to software I develop being used for military applications"
Then stop writing OSS software, or come up with your own anti-military-use license for your software. The whole point of OSS is that ANYBODY can use it any way they want to.
Oh, and if you're ever attacked or assualted, especially by, oh, I don't know, a terrorist or something...will you cry for help to the mis-named Defense Department? Maybe you'll get by using Gnu-Fu, and tossing your Debian Discs O'Death at them....
" 1) What is the Justice Department doing about the harrassment of Black Voting Leagues in Florida? If the answer (which I suspect it is) is "nothing" than this a clear case of government being used in a partisan and heavy-handed manner."
The intimidation you speak of is a non-issue. There was accusations of voter fraud in Orlando area elections regarding absentee ballot abuse. The allegations were that one of the candidates was taking advantage of elderly black voters. The state investigated. The state found nothing. The state closed the case. But the liberal establishment tried and failed to make an issue out of it. Only one reporter covered the story nationwide (Bob Herbert of the NY Times), and his story was so incendiary, it was pulled from some papers, including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Editors rightly saw it for what it was, a conspiritorial-themed opinion piece, not journalism. Try to find an article on it by any other writer. Go on, do your Google-best.
"It's also racist and classist."
That statement speaks volumes about you. Marx is dead, and his ideas went with him. Try to get over this.
"I don't know about your state, but the Georgia GOP's website already lists already lists their delegates as well as the alternates for all to see."
So? Just their names are listed. And political parties aren't goverment entities. They have a greater right to privacy. And though you'd eat flaming dog feces before you'd ever admit it, the purpose of posting that contact information to Indymedia was to intimidate people in an election. You'd think that, with all of your concern about the voter leagues issue, voter intimidation is something that you'd agree is wrong. I guess that it's only wrong for some people, huh?
"This is a disingenuous, partisan, racist, classist abuse of the Justice Department"
From one of my favorite movies, Young Frankenstein..."Nice Grouping". You managed to get all of the stock leftist name-calling words in one sentance, and you even threw in some Marxist ammunition with the "classist" stuff. Congratulations. You win the 1st grade playground sticks-and-stones contest.
"...but he has lately demonstrated that his loyalty to his party exceeds his loyalty to his country."
What the hell is this? Did you ever consider that maybe he thinks his party is the best one for the country? I mean, he's a REPUBLICAN Senator for a reason.
I get the impression McCain is about as impressed with John Kerry as he is with a pile of old dogshit in the road. And while he doesn't like Bush, you don't have to LIKE someone to think they're the better candidate for office. As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.
"I had more respect for him. No longer."
Your respect was probably going to last only as long as McCain ripped on his own party. Somehow, I don't think he's weeping for the loss of your endorsement.
By the way, here's a standards check: do you also respect Zell Miller or Ed Koch or Ron Silver, liberals all, for going against their party because their convictions tell them to?
My money says you're calling them sellouts. I'd be willing to bet "respect" and "conviction" is a one way street for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Innocent people die in war, but your statement is rediculous on its face....
"I consider people who are doing nothing more than defending their country against invasion to be innocents."
If you're talking about the Sadr militia's and other Islamic-State enthusiasts, as well as the bitter left-over Saddamites, they're not defending their country from invasion. They're engaging in Jihad (at least the Islamists). There's nothing innocent about these fighters. They blow up their own children, and then hide in Mosques for safety afterwords. We have it doubly hard in that, while these men are absolutely ruthless, some of the Iraqi population just can't bring themselves to blame other Arabs for the murders. They'd rather believe we did it, or even more incredibly, the Mossad. But to call anyone from the Sadr militia or its ilk innocent or freedom fighters is to lose all moral credibility. This is the same kind of moral relativsm that allowed communism a free pass from our intellectuals, all while Stalin was murdering 20 million of his own people in firing squads and labor camps.
You mean this one? I've never had a problem with it...Sure you're going to the right address?
" Stewart is funnier, but I haven't watched his program since, oddly enough, I was in college. I started watching O'Reilly about 2 years ago and got hooked.
If I get flamed by people accusing him of lying and slanting, please back it up with some facts...plenty of people have taken him on, the most famous probably being Al Franken, and they've come up with nothing except a misspeak on Bill's part. You can hate him for being a blowhard, but don't insinuate he outright lies on his show without proof."
What is trollish about that post? Whoever modded that, read the damn guidelines. The poster attacked no one, didn't deride anyone, simply stated an honest, thoughtful opinion. Whoever modded the poster troll, I hope you get pounded in metamoderation, because what you're doing is modding down because you don't like his opinion: that's it. That's wrong, totally against the spirit of the moderation process.
Why would it be a security threat? Both the Democratic and Republican databases are gathered from publicly available information sources. You're probably (and justifiably) concerned that your name may be on list in another country, but frankly, it already is. If you've ever bought anything on the web, this same information is on marketing lists in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, China, the Phillipines, etc. It's an unfortunate side effect of the information age. Information may not neccessarily want to be free, but it does get around rather easily now.
The post makes it sound like the GOP went "Fuck Americans, we're going to build this thing with cheap labor! Ah ha ha ha!"
RTFA....directly from the PC World piece...
"Two years prior to the 2002 elections, the RNC hired Advanced Custom Software (ACS) of Seattle to build a Web-based database to help campaign workers target likely Republican voters. According to information posted on Elance.com, an online directory of outsourcing firms, ACS subcontracted development of the database to Compulink Systems of Maharashtra, India."
It's a fair bet that when the GOP found out about the outsourcing (and the fact that ACS is basically nothing but a front company for Indian firms), THEY put a stop to it. Also from the article:
"...all work done on Voter Vault since 2002 has occurred in the U.S."
I love Bats, he's my favorite character, but while he's personally conservative in many ways, he's virulently anti-gun. Not a limosine liberal by any means, but not completely conservative, either. From my years of reading him, I'd have to classify him as a reluctant Democrat. He's, in reality, maybe the most independant-minded character in the DC univers (at least among the big boys).
As for the rest...
Superman - He's from Kansas. Compassionate conservative Republican, easy.
Wonder Woman - Another reluctant Democrat. Feminist, but wary of the whining and victimization of the feminist movement.
Spider-Man - Democrat, but not a blazing leftist.
Aquaman - Republican? Hell no. Nader or Green, all the way.
The Hulk - For president? The Hulk doesn't give a flying fuck about anything but being left alone.
X-Men - Liberal Democrats, natch. Persecuted minorities, and all that.
Iron Man - Republican. While he doesn't make weapons for the government anymore, come on, he flies around in armor and has more money than Bill Gates.
Captain America - Reagan Democrat, maybe switch to the GOP; a man that used to love the party of FDR, but felt left behind when the Dems went hard left in the sixties.
On an intersting comics note, there was a big story thread in the DC universe the past couple of years where Lex Luthor was President of the US. Traditionally, comics writers have included the real current Presidents in their storylines. Most comics writers tend to be liberal, so I can't help but think that was their way of saying that we have a REAL Lex Luthor in office with Bush, by equating the current Presidency to evil.
Doesn't really matter, because IT has become such a neccessity, and such a commodity, that it's silly to say "who should I vote for? who will support IT the most?". It's a non-issue. It's like saying "gee, which party will support accountants more?" or "which party supports telephone use?". It just isn't one of those economic sectors thats on one side of the spectrum politically, like trial lawyers.
That's news to the people of Chicago, where Richard Daley was famous for finding all of the neccessary votes the Dems needed in the basement of city hall. Or Louisiana, where so many dead people come out to vote, some residents call the election Second Halloween. Both of these places are longtime democratic strongholds. Even in some places in Alabama, there are irregularities in every single election in some democrat-dominated area with voters that voted, but wonder of wonder, also appear to be deceased. And whenever a serious effort is made to purge the voter lists of the deceased in these areas, a huge stink is made about how this is just a back-door way for whites to intimidate black voters. So don't tell me democrats don't cheat. Not all, certainly, but some are old hands at it.
"We know our election system is broken. It failed us 4 years ago."
No, it didn't. It worked, as designed. And another peacefull transistion of power occurred, the latest in a long line in the United States.
These observers are here because 13 Democratic Congressmen asked them to be (and the State Department, but if you know anything of State, it has a reputation of being filled with left-leaning idealists).
At first I was angry at this, thinking it was an insult, a way for Europeans to poke us in the side. I still think thats true, but I'm not angry anymore. Let them come and watch. Once again, we'll have a free, successful election. Problems will be found here and there, but it will overwhelmingly be an honest election. I personally think the Europeans aren't going to get the result they want (a Kerry victory), and so they'll mumble that is was a fair but stupid decision by the Americans, and then they can skulk on home.
But make no mistake. We won't forget this.
I'm a Republican, and let me say this about Keyes running in Illinois: it's hypocritical in the extreme. Hillary shouldn't have been allowed to run in New York, and Keyes shouldn't have been allowed to run in Illinois. The very concept of a famous person moving to a place just because they think they can win a race stinks. It's basically giving a big backhand to the idea of representative democracy.
When all is said and done, I think that overall, the GOP will win big this year. But when you ask party leaders what they'd do differently, in private they'll tell you that importing Keyes was a huge fuckup, and will likely hurt them in Illinois for years (a state with a not-insignificant 21 electoral votes). Maybe Barrack Obama was going to win no matter who ran against him. But something about the mindset of the GOP in Illinois really bugs me. When Ryan backed out of the race, and Ditka wouldn't run, there was this assumption that since the Dem's were running a black candidate, hey, we have to have a black candidate too. That's stupid thinking number one; just get a good candidate, color or sex not being part of it. Stupid thinking number two comes in when they've decided that they HAVE to have a black candidate, and we've found this woman that's a doctor, and a loyal republican, longtime resident of Illinois. BUT WAIT......Let's bring in Alan Keyes instead! Never mind that he's never LIVED in Illinois before.
Put this one into the "what not to do" section of campaigning.
"And the one-dimensional political spectrum used in the good-ol US_Of_A strikes again. Greens aren't nearly as leftist as Democrats."
Their party platform says differently.
Ten Key Values of the Green Party, from their own website include things like NON-VIOLENCE, FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY. These aren't leftist positions? Only the decentrilization plank could be construed as libertarian.
"Oh, and keep in mind... Bush wasn't elected, he was appointed technically. Which I think means that he can actually run and be elected 2 more times. Since this term doesn't count. :)"
:)
What?
He can't be elected for two more terms. Only one. Despite the "appointed" crack, he was in fact elected by THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTE, which is the vote that really counts in presidential elections. The Supreme Court merely ruled that the endless vote counting should stop in Florida. And, as others have repeatedly pointed out here before, every single credible attempt to count those so-called lost votes STILL ended up with Bush winning. Every-Single-Time.
So, rest your paranoid little head. Dubya can only win this upcoming election.
Then you get to look forward to Rudy Guliani beating the piss out of Hillary Clinton in 2008
"By the way, do the moderators not like free speech?"
Sure they do. As long as it's Slashdot APPROVED free speech.
One thing I've wondered about third party candidates is their motivation; do you really think you can win races? Do you think that if you run long enough, eventually you can break through the two party system? Or is it just a "protest candidacy" because you don't agree with the Democratic Party's platform? Would you be a Democrat if they became more of a leftist party (for lack of a better way to put it, but you know what I mean; if they had policies more in line with the Green Party). Or do you really and truly believe in your party, and want get them elected and into the political system?
Bottom line, do you ever think that you can truly win political office in the United States, now or in the future?
While word processors are great work-savers (in that , after you write your draft, you need only make a few changes and hit the "print" icon), I don't get the same physical satisfaction that I get with a typewriter. There's just something about feeling the impact of the machine in your hands as you type up a document. The work just seems more, well, real I guess. The sound is soothing too, for some reason. I guess that's why I'm a keyboard snob. I like old fashioned heavy mechanical keyboards for my computers, the kind that make the "click-clack" noise as you type, and you can feel it in your fingers. I despise modern soft membrane keyboards. Working with them is like being in a sensory deprivation tank.
I'm 35, and had a typewriter before I had a computer (and remember actually learning to TYPE on a typewriter), so I realize a lot of younger Slashdotters have never even touched a typewriter. I encourage you to give it a try if you can find one.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here....but did Microsoft hold a gun to your mother's head and make her buy a computer with Windows?
I'll be the first to agree that Windows has all the security of swiss cheese. And it's obviously the dominant operating system.
BUT NO ONE IS FORCED TO USE IT. Your mother can buy an Apple. And before you say "But Apples are too expensive, and Linux is too hard for my mother to use", realize that it's your mothers problem (and yours), not Microsoft's. You have a choice not to use Windows. If quality and ease of use is your main problem, You can get an eMac for under 800 bucks now. If money is your problem (or hers), you can put together a box for peanuts, and put Linux on it. She's just going to have to make do with mean 'ole KDE or Gnome.
Or she could stop using a computer. It's up to her. And you.
" Do we have to dissect every good thing that people do?"
Yes. This is Slashdot, ground zero of the tin-foil hat crowd. If this place had 10 Commandments, 5 of them would have something to do with how evil Microsoft is.
According to our gang, Microsoft is evil. Bill Gates is Microsoft. Thus, Bill Gates is incapable of doing any good whatsoever. Even when it appears he's doing something good, there's some deeper nefarious purpose behind it.
Envy is a powerful and ugly thing.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for expressing something I've been thinking about for a long time:
Popular election of Senators may be a bad idea.
"How", you say? "How dare you!", some of you scream. Well, how long have we been complaining that real statesmanship is missing from Congress? The Senate was supposed to be the wise check on the popular passions of the day when the Constituion was written. The Senate was not supposed to be anti-democratic. It was not meant to block the will of the House, those popular representatives of the citizenry. It was mereley supposed to be a group of older and wiser men that would provide moderation in the expression of the democratic will. It didn't always work out this way, but for the exception of the tenure of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (and those two also served in the Senate), the Senate was always known as the chamber of Congress that had the deepest debates about what we would call the Big Picture today. Congressmen were too busy trying to get roads built and budgets passed. The Senate always debated the truly lofty issues of the day.
After the 17th Amendment passed, and Senators became directly elected by popular vote, they became less statesmenlike. For all intents and purposes, they're just "Super-Congressmen" now, just as concerned with bringing home the pork as their fellow House members.
I'm not saying there wasn't abuse of the old system (with state legislatures electing them), or that common people aren't fit to elect their leaders. Far from it. But I wish we could get a better caliber of Senator, regardless of party.
How many truly great Senators have there been last century? Truly wise men that had the best interests of the country at heart, and at times bucked their own party to follow that instinct? In the latter half of the 20th century, I can think of only two I'd apply this label to: Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, and John C Stennis of Mississippi. DPM was Liberal, but had common sense. He was a Democrat, but respected Republicans. And keep in mind, I'm a Republican. How often do you hear someone of one party praise someone of another party? Not often. Stennis was a lifelong Democrat that is remembered as the father of the modern navy for his contributions. What about the House? Despite the more partisan nature of the House, Congressmen have more often made their mark in the public memory than Senators have, becoming both famous, and infamous. Sam Rayburn, Jim Wright, Newt Gingrich.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part.
Texas. Definitely spend it in Texas. John Kerry has a great chance there. Just a few more dollars...
..."Kids who have no idea what the hell they want to do at this point in their lives", and you'll have a winner.
Some people find out what they want to do along the way. So we should have a prep track, a trade track, and a ensure-general-competency track.
" I personally object to software I develop being used for military applications"
Then stop writing OSS software, or come up with your own anti-military-use license for your software. The whole point of OSS is that ANYBODY can use it any way they want to.
Oh, and if you're ever attacked or assualted, especially by, oh, I don't know, a terrorist or something...will you cry for help to the mis-named Defense Department? Maybe you'll get by using Gnu-Fu, and tossing your Debian Discs O'Death at them....
...I'm going to anyway.
" 1) What is the Justice Department doing about the harrassment of Black Voting Leagues in Florida? If the answer (which I suspect it is) is "nothing" than this a clear case of government being used in a partisan and heavy-handed manner."
The intimidation you speak of is a non-issue. There was accusations of voter fraud in Orlando area elections regarding absentee ballot abuse. The allegations were that one of the candidates was taking advantage of elderly black voters. The state investigated. The state found nothing. The state closed the case. But the liberal establishment tried and failed to make an issue out of it. Only one reporter covered the story nationwide (Bob Herbert of the NY Times), and his story was so incendiary, it was pulled from some papers, including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Editors rightly saw it for what it was, a conspiritorial-themed opinion piece, not journalism. Try to find an article on it by any other writer. Go on, do your Google-best.
"It's also racist and classist."
That statement speaks volumes about you. Marx is dead, and his ideas went with him. Try to get over this.
"I don't know about your state, but the Georgia GOP's website already lists already lists their delegates as well as the alternates for all to see."
So? Just their names are listed. And political parties aren't goverment entities. They have a greater right to privacy. And though you'd eat flaming dog feces before you'd ever admit it, the purpose of posting that contact information to Indymedia was to intimidate people in an election. You'd think that, with all of your concern about the voter leagues issue, voter intimidation is something that you'd agree is wrong. I guess that it's only wrong for some people, huh?
"This is a disingenuous, partisan, racist, classist abuse of the Justice Department"
From one of my favorite movies, Young Frankenstein..."Nice Grouping". You managed to get all of the stock leftist name-calling words in one sentance, and you even threw in some Marxist ammunition with the "classist" stuff. Congratulations. You win the 1st grade playground sticks-and-stones contest.
"...but he has lately demonstrated that his loyalty to his party exceeds his loyalty to his country."
What the hell is this? Did you ever consider that maybe he thinks his party is the best one for the country? I mean, he's a REPUBLICAN Senator for a reason.
I get the impression McCain is about as impressed with John Kerry as he is with a pile of old dogshit in the road. And while he doesn't like Bush, you don't have to LIKE someone to think they're the better candidate for office. As for the accusations about Kerry in Vietnam, if he would talk about a reason to elect him OTHER than the 4 months he spent there, then maybe other people would dwell less on it as well.
"I had more respect for him. No longer."
Your respect was probably going to last only as long as McCain ripped on his own party. Somehow, I don't think he's weeping for the loss of your endorsement.
By the way, here's a standards check: do you also respect Zell Miller or Ed Koch or Ron Silver, liberals all, for going against their party because their convictions tell them to?
My money says you're calling them sellouts. I'd be willing to bet "respect" and "conviction" is a one way street for you.
"...as the chamber seems to be unopened, it might still house the complete burial treasure".
In other news today, Geraldo Rivera announced that he's discoverd Al Capone's secret vaults!
It's all Bush's fault! There is NO increased income! None! It's all bad! It's allllllll bad!!!
Whew, thanks. I was possesed by the collective spirit of Slashdot there for a second.
Wait...spoke too soon! Feel....Microsoft.....rant....coming on.......