What should be promoted is widespread knowledge of availability, quality, and price of goods. Advertising doesn't to that (instead it implants false ideas about the above).
It's not that advertising *can not* do those things - it's just that today's marketing tactics do not. There's a big difference.
As a consumer, I don't mind being exposed to subtle, well-placed and well-targeted ads. For example, if I see a nice ad (as in subtle & not obnoxious) for a good deal on a Mac Mini from a new online seller trying to get new customers, I might be interested.
However, I'm not interested in seeing a huge flashing pop-up ad for Depends. Luckily I don't have to see those thanks to AdBlock. (Please note I don't know if Depends actually uses pop-up flash ads, but if they did I still wouldn't want to see them).
The point is, advertising itself does not have to be evil, but it can be used in evil ways. Advertising, used properly, can benefit both the consumer & the producer.
...which is why they vote for people who know about economics and finances and so on.
Which country did you say you are from again? Because here in the US, very few people seem to vote based on economic philosophy & financial intelligence. If they did, we wouldn't have voted Bush back into office, a man with a terrible personal financial track record and a first-term President who racked up record deficits.
What bothers me about how the US went to war was how it was sold - only a fraction of the rhetoric in the run-up to war was "We're doing it because the UN won't". The majority of the sales pitch was "WMDs!", "Uranium!", "Imminent threat!".
I don't agree with the philosophy of "the ends justify the means". If we go to war because we're told (or its not-so-subtly implied) that Saddam is building nuclear & biological weapons to attack the US with, and then we find out a year or two later that there were no such weapons and in fact that "evidence" was fabricated, then the war is unjustified and wrong. Coming up with alternate (even if factual) rationale for why we went to war doesn't fly - if they really are worthwhile reasons, then why weren't they used originally, instead of the original fabricated BS? And I think enough evidence has come out to indicate that Bush known, or should have known as the Commander-in-Chief, that his original reasons for going into Iraq were not solid & factual.
Lying to get what you want, even if it may end up being a good thing, is a dangerous precedent to set (or continue, as the case may be in US politics).
Fundamentally, giving up your desktop is a matter of trust. You have to trust that your information will still be there tomorrow morning, you have to trust that your privacy will be respected, and you have to trust that you will be able to get on the net.
I see your point, but you're missing something. John Q. User doesn't have that trust *now*, on the desktop. John Q. User has no idea if the file he created today is going to be there tomorrow morning or if his computer somehow eat it. John Q. User is using Internet Explorer with a gazillion spyware & malware programs installed. John Q. User goes and buys whatever shrink-wrapped box on the computer store's shelf looks like it'll make his computer "more secure, run faster, delete cookies!" without the faintest clue what the program is actually doing.
For/.'ers, yes, I agree with you. But for most home users, they don't even know what the desktop is. They just want to click their icons, send some emails, print out some letters. If Google can provide them with a way to do that *that just works*, and if they can market it effectively, I think it has a great chance for success. The network is the weak link in this whole scheme, but that's improving with more & more users getting broadband and networks (in general) becoming more reliable.
True, it's not a all-in-one solution, but for the majority of desktop apps, its a very good solution. Simple things like email & general word processing would be relatively trivial to do in this fashion, and I bet most spreadsheets & presentations could be done here too. Basically the 80-20 rule - roughly 80% of an "average" computer user's daily work could be migrated to a web-app system without much perceived loss of a function. Maybe 20% or so you'd still need full-blown desktop apps to handle.
Same for financial software - you may not like having your financial information out on the net, but guess what? It's already there, in the form of online banking, credit history reports, etc. I would definitely want to see some good security practices in place before I'd consider doing my bookkeeping on a webapp, but I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand.
Some things aren't going to work in this framework. Video & industrial photo work aren't going to fly. But most home-users don't do that now anyway. Photo processing for them is removing red-eye and cropping the image, one picture at a time. Programming will probably go both ways - some shops have complex development environments setup that would probably have to remain desktop apps, others could probably switch to some kind of webapp without much difficulty.
I admit, I don't like the idea of all of my files being out on the network, but the author brings up a good point - how many of us actually make backups? I burn a couple of CDRs every few months when I remember to, but I know I don't have a good personal backup policy, and none of my friends or family do. PCs being in the state they are - in a constant flux of updates and upgrades and spyware - for many home users they do not appear to be very reliable. Having a persistant data store for my mother that's not dependent her computer remaining in good working order would be a strong selling point, especially considering most PC dealers response on the help desk is "Insert the restore CD and reboot".
The CIA and NSA will do what is necessary to carry out their mandate within the legal boundaries the government provides, AOL will do everything it can get away with to make money. (emphasis added)
Oh really? You might want to upgrade your tinfoil hat...
Seriously though, AOL's primary motivation is profit. Sure they might screw consumers in the process and game the law-making system in that pursuit, but that's about as far as it would go (at least in my imagination).
The CIA (and probably the NSA, though I haven't read as much about their illicit activities) is basically a US-sponsored terrorist organization. We funnel funds, weapons, and drugs through the CIA to support terrorist organizations we like (see Osama Bin Laden circa 1970's) and topple regimes we don't. Now the CIA is transferring captured terrorist suspects to Egypt and other countries so we can torture them (which conveniently gets around our pesky Constitution).
(sorry no specific links - don't have time to find the URLs at the moment)
Good point. We better get the US Congress involved to pass a federal law prohibiting people from selling stuff on eBay without first buying a license from Uncle Sam!:-)
Because then the government can't track the movements of its people, and big business can't track the personal histories of shoppers.
Actually, I'm not *that* much of a tin-foil hat person (usually). As another poster stated (and discribed here), the requirement to show ID to board commercial flights appears to have started in response to TWA 800 in 1996, when it was still being considered as a potential terrorist attack (the official story is now mechanical failure). President Clinton ordered this as a temporary reponse to the attack so that the families of TWA 800's victims could see the government was doing something. It was apparently intended as a temporary measure, but made permanent after that 9/11 attacks.
So, what's changed between 1996 and 2005 that showing IDs is now required to board a commercial flight? The requirement didn't prevent 9/11. And if terrorists try to hijack another plane (which I don't think they will), it won't prevent that either, because they'll have a valid-looking ID.
Here's what it will do - let the government spend big dollars on contracts to manage its "No-Fly list" and other databases, so that it can harass law-abiding systems who have the unfortunate coincidence of having a similar name to someone on the List. Or, eventually, the government might use such a list to prevent law-abiding systems with the wrong "views" to fly at all, citing you as a "possible terrorist" because you are a member of some protest organization or you attended a Greenpeace rally. It seems far-fetched now, but you don't have to slide too far down the slope until we get there.
Yes, because knowing who the 9/11 suicide hijackers were *AFTER THE FACT* really was useful. Now we know who not to let on the plane next time (assuming they had survived the suicide hijacking and were not capable of getting a fake ID, of course)
As many othe posters have said, producing an ID does NOTHING for security. Metal detectors, baggage screener, locked cockpit doors - these all enhance security. Checking ID does not.
The funny thing is, Martha Stewart - the horrific "criminal" that she is - will have been in jail, released, and had a new reality show probably hit the top of the ratings before ANY of these top Enron crooks see the inside of a criminal courtroom.
I realize there's a lot of difference between the Stewart trial and the Enron investigation - comparing apples to watermelons, perhaps - but I still can't help but wonder, if Martha had had the same political connections, would she behind bars right now?
I'd rather like to think that silence is already in the public domain.
No, you're mistaking "absence" for "silence" - as in, the absence of anything new in the public domain because of perpetual copyright.
If you've listened to the public domain recently, you would also clearly realize that silence is not a part of it, with particular thanks to car alarms and cell phones.
But its profit margins are going to start being hit if using Windows becomes too unpleasant an experience, and malware is threatening just that for the average user.
Unfortunately, I beg to differ. How much more painful does using Windows+IE have to get for the home user?? An unpatched XP box on an open line to the internet will now be infected in what, less than a minute on average?
Like any other consumer sector in a "free-market" (or our approximation thereof), Microsoft's profit margins won't decrease until home users are educated that there is a better alternative to Windows. (Remember, the product with the best tech specs doesn't necessarily win in the market.) Until that time, they'll keep using Windows, and they'll shell out $$$ for anti-virus programs, software firewalls, hardware firewalls, local computer shops to clean-up their infested systems, etc.
Firefox is starting a movement, where non-computer geeks are beginning to realize that there's a better alternative. But I don't know yet if the rest of the open-source community will be able to continue that movement until it reaches critical mass. I definitely hope so, and I do my small part to encourage F/OSS when I can, but I don't see a big migration away from Windows for a few years, at least.
It is irresponsible and possible even stupid to connect any computer directly to the Internet without benefit of a firewall or without having been patched.
And that is exactly the point - when you buy any other consumer product, you expect to be able to plug it in and work, right out of the box. You don't have to go to the mfg's website, look for the last "update", or purchase a gazillion "accessories" (anti-virus, firewall, spyware-blocker, pop-up blocker, etc) just so it works!. If I buy a new TV, I can plug it in to the power outlet and the cable jack, and it just works. If I want to use the advanced features, I can read the instruction manual. If I want to protect it from lightning strikes & power surges, I can buy protective accessories. But it will work just fine without those. Why should computers be different?
I use Windows, and I consider myself a power user, and I *like* dinking around with custom settings. But I can't let my family just buy a new Wintel PC anymore, because it will not just work out of the box and plugged in online. If Mac can do that, I'll start recommending it. And if virus writers and spyware starts hitting Mac once it reaches enough "critical mass", and Mac reaches the same state Windows is at now (worthless without the absolute latest patches) then so be it - I'll start recommending whatever is on the market by then that just works.
Taxes pay for state-sanctioned murder in multiple forms - war in Iraq and the death penalty, for example. And taxpayers pay for classified research into new weapons to kill people and new spy technology. Taxes also pay for corporate welfare via "tax loopholes" to special interests. I'm morally opposed to all of these things, and yet I contine to pay taxes.
So to answer your question - yes, in our (US's) current form of government the taxpayer has to pay taxes with no regard to what those funds are used for, morally opposed or not. If you are a voter, your only choice is to decide what candidate you feel will do the least morally reprehensible things with your money.
That's what's missing with today's political party structure. There is no party in which you can be socially liberal and economically conservative. Although, compared to the current administration, the Democratic party is looking pretty economically conservative...
Wow - intelligent discourse. About abortion. On/.! I'm impressed. I congratulate the people involved in this thread:-)
And to add my own.02:
where does the constitution forbid a medical practice from being banned by the proper legislative process?
Nowhere (to my interpretation). At the same time, however, I don't see anywhere in that document that indicates the federal government has jurisdiction to pass such a law. (note: I didn't see anyone arguing that it did, I'm just making a point).
I would like to see this left as a state's decision; not something in federal law or amended to the Constitution. For states that decide abortion should be illegal, or should have caveats (mandatory counseling, etc), so be it.
As for me... my own personal feeling on where to try the line at life/murder is if the fetus could have a reasonable chance (medically determined) of survival if removed from the mother's womb. Seems like a fair compromise between conception & birth.
And if this election is hailed as a "success" for Diebold, ES&S, and other BBV vendors, you'll always lose.
Maybe I'm foolish, but I hope one day that 3rd parties can challenge the two juggernaughts we have now. But if electronic voting is sanctified after this election, then democracy (and our democractic republic) has lost. When you voted this year, your vote counted. Next election, it may not. Or worse, it may be switched to a major party, and you'll never know it.
Freedom to challenging the electoral process should be a non-partisan issue. It only becomes partisan when someone has something to hide. Personal privacy is one thing; elections require transparency.
I've donated, and I'm an independent who voted for Kerry. I consider myself socially liberal & fiscally conservative. Right now, the Republicans are neither of those, so I voted Democrat.
While I don't like this administration, I do care about the integrity of the electoral process. At this point, I'm not even sure I'd want to see the result changed (because I think the Democratic party needs a major overhaul, and a victory here might do more damage to the party than it would help).
From what I've seen on blogs and forums, there's no real Dem party backing to this movement; it's people who care about their votes, and having their votes counted. People like Bev Harris (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/) and others, who are pushing the Greens & Libertarians to do the recount (precisely because the Democrats can't/won't).
If Congress had declared war, by international treaty our soldiers would be facing international war crimes tribunals rather than simple court martials for Abu Gharib and the like- and such international tribunals would not stop with low-ranking soldiers, but travel up the chain of command to Bush himself. Do your really want that?
I would like to thank both you and the GP post for your excellent, insightful thoughts. With the sound beating the democrats received, and no Nader to blame it on this time, I sincerely hope the Dems can re-group, re-organize, and realize a better party philosophy and come out in 2006 and 2008 with a much more clear, coherent platform that.
Like it or not, the people have spoken and they came down decisively on the side of the Bush crowd. I don't hate him, you, or anyone else. We're all brothers on the same side. If you haven't yet realized that the issue isn't me against you, but us against them, then you haven't been paying attention.
There is no "us" and there is no "them". Yes, we were attacked by a few terrorists on 9/11. It has happened before, it will happen again. NOTHING can stop that - not Bush, not Kerry, not anything. Will something on the magnitude of 9/11 happen again? No one knows - we definitely hope not. But terror & fear are a part of life.
By using the "us vs them" rhetoric, you simply reinforce the Bush administration's fear-based agenda. Keep the public afraid, keep them ignorant about Iraq and the real threats this country faces (for their own good, of course), and people will continue to give you power.
I'm really starting to admire the wisdom of our [non-Christian] founding fathers and their well-founded fear of mob-rule (aka "democracy") and demagogues.
Slashdot Mirror
What should be promoted is widespread knowledge of availability, quality, and price of goods. Advertising doesn't to that (instead it implants false ideas about the above).
It's not that advertising *can not* do those things - it's just that today's marketing tactics do not. There's a big difference.
As a consumer, I don't mind being exposed to subtle, well-placed and well-targeted ads. For example, if I see a nice ad (as in subtle & not obnoxious) for a good deal on a Mac Mini from a new online seller trying to get new customers, I might be interested.
However, I'm not interested in seeing a huge flashing pop-up ad for Depends. Luckily I don't have to see those thanks to AdBlock. (Please note I don't know if Depends actually uses pop-up flash ads, but if they did I still wouldn't want to see them).
The point is, advertising itself does not have to be evil, but it can be used in evil ways. Advertising, used properly, can benefit both the consumer & the producer.
...which is why they vote for people who know about economics and finances and so on.
Which country did you say you are from again? Because here in the US, very few people seem to vote based on economic philosophy & financial intelligence. If they did, we wouldn't have voted Bush back into office, a man with a terrible personal financial track record and a first-term President who racked up record deficits.
What bothers me about how the US went to war was how it was sold - only a fraction of the rhetoric in the run-up to war was "We're doing it because the UN won't". The majority of the sales pitch was "WMDs!", "Uranium!", "Imminent threat!".
I don't agree with the philosophy of "the ends justify the means". If we go to war because we're told (or its not-so-subtly implied) that Saddam is building nuclear & biological weapons to attack the US with, and then we find out a year or two later that there were no such weapons and in fact that "evidence" was fabricated, then the war is unjustified and wrong. Coming up with alternate (even if factual) rationale for why we went to war doesn't fly - if they really are worthwhile reasons, then why weren't they used originally, instead of the original fabricated BS? And I think enough evidence has come out to indicate that Bush known, or should have known as the Commander-in-Chief, that his original reasons for going into Iraq were not solid & factual.
Lying to get what you want, even if it may end up being a good thing, is a dangerous precedent to set (or continue, as the case may be in US politics).
Fundamentally, giving up your desktop is a matter of trust. You have to trust that your information will still be there tomorrow morning, you have to trust that your privacy will be respected, and you have to trust that you will be able to get on the net.
/.'ers, yes, I agree with you. But for most home users, they don't even know what the desktop is. They just want to click their icons, send some emails, print out some letters. If Google can provide them with a way to do that *that just works*, and if they can market it effectively, I think it has a great chance for success. The network is the weak link in this whole scheme, but that's improving with more & more users getting broadband and networks (in general) becoming more reliable.
I see your point, but you're missing something. John Q. User doesn't have that trust *now*, on the desktop. John Q. User has no idea if the file he created today is going to be there tomorrow morning or if his computer somehow eat it. John Q. User is using Internet Explorer with a gazillion spyware & malware programs installed. John Q. User goes and buys whatever shrink-wrapped box on the computer store's shelf looks like it'll make his computer "more secure, run faster, delete cookies!" without the faintest clue what the program is actually doing.
For
True, it's not a all-in-one solution, but for the majority of desktop apps, its a very good solution. Simple things like email & general word processing would be relatively trivial to do in this fashion, and I bet most spreadsheets & presentations could be done here too. Basically the 80-20 rule - roughly 80% of an "average" computer user's daily work could be migrated to a web-app system without much perceived loss of a function. Maybe 20% or so you'd still need full-blown desktop apps to handle.
Same for financial software - you may not like having your financial information out on the net, but guess what? It's already there, in the form of online banking, credit history reports, etc. I would definitely want to see some good security practices in place before I'd consider doing my bookkeeping on a webapp, but I wouldn't dismiss it out-of-hand.
Some things aren't going to work in this framework. Video & industrial photo work aren't going to fly. But most home-users don't do that now anyway. Photo processing for them is removing red-eye and cropping the image, one picture at a time. Programming will probably go both ways - some shops have complex development environments setup that would probably have to remain desktop apps, others could probably switch to some kind of webapp without much difficulty.
I admit, I don't like the idea of all of my files being out on the network, but the author brings up a good point - how many of us actually make backups? I burn a couple of CDRs every few months when I remember to, but I know I don't have a good personal backup policy, and none of my friends or family do. PCs being in the state they are - in a constant flux of updates and upgrades and spyware - for many home users they do not appear to be very reliable. Having a persistant data store for my mother that's not dependent her computer remaining in good working order would be a strong selling point, especially considering most PC dealers response on the help desk is "Insert the restore CD and reboot".
Then surely SOMEONE on /. would have seen it by now!
The CIA and NSA will do what is necessary to carry out their mandate within the legal boundaries the government provides, AOL will do everything it can get away with to make money. (emphasis added)
Oh really? You might want to upgrade your tinfoil hat...
Seriously though, AOL's primary motivation is profit. Sure they might screw consumers in the process and game the law-making system in that pursuit, but that's about as far as it would go (at least in my imagination).
The CIA (and probably the NSA, though I haven't read as much about their illicit activities) is basically a US-sponsored terrorist organization. We funnel funds, weapons, and drugs through the CIA to support terrorist organizations we like (see Osama Bin Laden circa 1970's) and topple regimes we don't. Now the CIA is transferring captured terrorist suspects to Egypt and other countries so we can torture them (which conveniently gets around our pesky Constitution).
(sorry no specific links - don't have time to find the URLs at the moment)
Good point. We better get the US Congress involved to pass a federal law prohibiting people from selling stuff on eBay without first buying a license from Uncle Sam! :-)
You, sir (or madam), have wonderful career potential as a politican :-)
Because then the government can't track the movements of its people, and big business can't track the personal histories of shoppers.
Actually, I'm not *that* much of a tin-foil hat person (usually). As another poster stated (and discribed here), the requirement to show ID to board commercial flights appears to have started in response to TWA 800 in 1996, when it was still being considered as a potential terrorist attack (the official story is now mechanical failure). President Clinton ordered this as a temporary reponse to the attack so that the families of TWA 800's victims could see the government was doing something. It was apparently intended as a temporary measure, but made permanent after that 9/11 attacks.
So, what's changed between 1996 and 2005 that showing IDs is now required to board a commercial flight? The requirement didn't prevent 9/11. And if terrorists try to hijack another plane (which I don't think they will), it won't prevent that either, because they'll have a valid-looking ID.
Here's what it will do - let the government spend big dollars on contracts to manage its "No-Fly list" and other databases, so that it can harass law-abiding systems who have the unfortunate coincidence of having a similar name to someone on the List. Or, eventually, the government might use such a list to prevent law-abiding systems with the wrong "views" to fly at all, citing you as a "possible terrorist" because you are a member of some protest organization or you attended a Greenpeace rally. It seems far-fetched now, but you don't have to slide too far down the slope until we get there.
Yes, because knowing who the 9/11 suicide hijackers were *AFTER THE FACT* really was useful. Now we know who not to let on the plane next time (assuming they had survived the suicide hijacking and were not capable of getting a fake ID, of course)
As many othe posters have said, producing an ID does NOTHING for security. Metal detectors, baggage screener, locked cockpit doors - these all enhance security. Checking ID does not.
The funny thing is, Martha Stewart - the horrific "criminal" that she is - will have been in jail, released, and had a new reality show probably hit the top of the ratings before ANY of these top Enron crooks see the inside of a criminal courtroom.
I realize there's a lot of difference between the Stewart trial and the Enron investigation - comparing apples to watermelons, perhaps - but I still can't help but wonder, if Martha had had the same political connections, would she behind bars right now?
I'd rather like to think that silence is already in the public domain.
No, you're mistaking "absence" for "silence" - as in, the absence of anything new in the public domain because of perpetual copyright.
If you've listened to the public domain recently, you would also clearly realize that silence is not a part of it, with particular thanks to car alarms and cell phones.
=)
But its profit margins are going to start being hit if using Windows becomes too unpleasant an experience, and malware is threatening just that for the average user.
Unfortunately, I beg to differ. How much more painful does using Windows+IE have to get for the home user?? An unpatched XP box on an open line to the internet will now be infected in what, less than a minute on average?
Like any other consumer sector in a "free-market" (or our approximation thereof), Microsoft's profit margins won't decrease until home users are educated that there is a better alternative to Windows. (Remember, the product with the best tech specs doesn't necessarily win in the market.) Until that time, they'll keep using Windows, and they'll shell out $$$ for anti-virus programs, software firewalls, hardware firewalls, local computer shops to clean-up their infested systems, etc.
Firefox is starting a movement, where non-computer geeks are beginning to realize that there's a better alternative. But I don't know yet if the rest of the open-source community will be able to continue that movement until it reaches critical mass. I definitely hope so, and I do my small part to encourage F/OSS when I can, but I don't see a big migration away from Windows for a few years, at least.
It is irresponsible and possible even stupid to connect any computer directly to the Internet without benefit of a firewall or without having been patched.
And that is exactly the point - when you buy any other consumer product, you expect to be able to plug it in and work, right out of the box. You don't have to go to the mfg's website, look for the last "update", or purchase a gazillion "accessories" (anti-virus, firewall, spyware-blocker, pop-up blocker, etc) just so it works!. If I buy a new TV, I can plug it in to the power outlet and the cable jack, and it just works. If I want to use the advanced features, I can read the instruction manual. If I want to protect it from lightning strikes & power surges, I can buy protective accessories. But it will work just fine without those. Why should computers be different?
I use Windows, and I consider myself a power user, and I *like* dinking around with custom settings. But I can't let my family just buy a new Wintel PC anymore, because it will not just work out of the box and plugged in online. If Mac can do that, I'll start recommending it. And if virus writers and spyware starts hitting Mac once it reaches enough "critical mass", and Mac reaches the same state Windows is at now (worthless without the absolute latest patches) then so be it - I'll start recommending whatever is on the market by then that just works.
Taxes pay for state-sanctioned murder in multiple forms - war in Iraq and the death penalty, for example. And taxpayers pay for classified research into new weapons to kill people and new spy technology. Taxes also pay for corporate welfare via "tax loopholes" to special interests. I'm morally opposed to all of these things, and yet I contine to pay taxes.
So to answer your question - yes, in our (US's) current form of government the taxpayer has to pay taxes with no regard to what those funds are used for, morally opposed or not. If you are a voter, your only choice is to decide what candidate you feel will do the least morally reprehensible things with your money.
That's what's missing with today's political party structure. There is no party in which you can be socially liberal and economically conservative. Although, compared to the current administration, the Democratic party is looking pretty economically conservative...
Wow - intelligent discourse. About abortion. On /.! I'm impressed. I congratulate the people involved in this thread :-)
.02:
And to add my own
where does the constitution forbid a medical practice from being banned by the proper legislative process?
Nowhere (to my interpretation). At the same time, however, I don't see anywhere in that document that indicates the federal government has jurisdiction to pass such a law. (note: I didn't see anyone arguing that it did, I'm just making a point).
I would like to see this left as a state's decision; not something in federal law or amended to the Constitution. For states that decide abortion should be illegal, or should have caveats (mandatory counseling, etc), so be it.
As for me... my own personal feeling on where to try the line at life/murder is if the fetus could have a reasonable chance (medically determined) of survival if removed from the mother's womb. Seems like a fair compromise between conception & birth.
And if this election is hailed as a "success" for Diebold, ES&S, and other BBV vendors, you'll always lose.
Maybe I'm foolish, but I hope one day that 3rd parties can challenge the two juggernaughts we have now. But if electronic voting is sanctified after this election, then democracy (and our democractic republic) has lost. When you voted this year, your vote counted. Next election, it may not. Or worse, it may be switched to a major party, and you'll never know it.
Freedom to challenging the electoral process should be a non-partisan issue. It only becomes partisan when someone has something to hide. Personal privacy is one thing; elections require transparency.
I've donated, and I'm an independent who voted for Kerry. I consider myself socially liberal & fiscally conservative. Right now, the Republicans are neither of those, so I voted Democrat.
While I don't like this administration, I do care about the integrity of the electoral process. At this point, I'm not even sure I'd want to see the result changed (because I think the Democratic party needs a major overhaul, and a victory here might do more damage to the party than it would help).
From what I've seen on blogs and forums, there's no real Dem party backing to this movement; it's people who care about their votes, and having their votes counted. People like Bev Harris (http://www.blackboxvoting.org/) and others, who are pushing the Greens & Libertarians to do the recount (precisely because the Democrats can't/won't).
If Congress had declared war, by international treaty our soldiers would be facing international war crimes tribunals rather than simple court martials for Abu Gharib and the like- and such international tribunals would not stop with low-ranking soldiers, but travel up the chain of command to Bush himself. Do your really want that?
Yes.
The World Series is a great analogy - I think I'm going to use this when I explain why I'm in favor of the EC :-)
That's what they wanted to do, but they found out that process was already patented!
So then they attended the Darl McBride School of Business Law.
I would like to thank both you and the GP post for your excellent, insightful thoughts. With the sound beating the democrats received, and no Nader to blame it on this time, I sincerely hope the Dems can re-group, re-organize, and realize a better party philosophy and come out in 2006 and 2008 with a much more clear, coherent platform that.
Like it or not, the people have spoken and they came down decisively on the side of the Bush crowd. I don't hate him, you, or anyone else. We're all brothers on the same side. If you haven't yet realized that the issue isn't me against you, but us against them, then you haven't been paying attention.
There is no "us" and there is no "them". Yes, we were attacked by a few terrorists on 9/11. It has happened before, it will happen again. NOTHING can stop that - not Bush, not Kerry, not anything. Will something on the magnitude of 9/11 happen again? No one knows - we definitely hope not. But terror & fear are a part of life.
By using the "us vs them" rhetoric, you simply reinforce the Bush administration's fear-based agenda. Keep the public afraid, keep them ignorant about Iraq and the real threats this country faces (for their own good, of course), and people will continue to give you power.
I'm really starting to admire the wisdom of our [non-Christian] founding fathers and their well-founded fear of mob-rule (aka "democracy") and demagogues.