Slashdot Log In
White House: No Kerry Supporters at IATC Meeting
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Apr 25, 2005 05:00 PM
from the politics-as-usual dept.
from the politics-as-usual dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Time Magazine is reporting that the Bush Administration is removing U.S. delegates from the Inter-American Telephone Commission because they gave money to John Kerry in last year's election. A Bush spokesman admits it's true: 'We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,' says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Employees of Qualcomm and Nokia are among those who have been removed from the commission."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
It really *does* seem as if we're becoming more Facist every day (look it up, it's not a troll)
Yes, scary (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Flamebait? Troll? No, the parent post is really serious.
Wikipedia defines fascism as "exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual, uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, engages in corporatism, implements totalitarianism"
So far, over the last so many decades (no, this didn't start out with Bush), I noticed that the country:
Not all of the features of fascism are getting implemented, but I do notice that this place seems to be getting more and more like an Orwellian novel every coming year. I'm kind of getting a bit scared here.
Parent
Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is biting the hand that feeds him and the Republican party. He will change his mind once the telecom companies start threatening to close their pocketbooks. If not, this will only help the Democrats in the future.
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Interesting)
No, that's not what they're saying at all. They aren't preventing all Nokia engineers from attending, just the engineers from Nokia who sent personal donations to the Kerry campaign.
This is a very frightening aspect of it- a donation to Kerry can hurt your chances of employment in the tech sector later on. One might imagine this will have a very chilling effect on non-corporate political donations in the next election.
Parent
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way would be, "essentiall what the Bush administtration is telling these telecom companies is that they won't be allowed to send a representative to a conference UNTIL they stop giving money to Democrats and start giving money to Republicans!"
See, they don't have to wait at all. Everything's right with the world. If you donate money to the right party then you are able to participate in designing the telecommunications infrastructure. Or, to put it even more precisely, people who don't give money to Republicans put any chance of participating in government at risk. Darn, I still haven't got it right. How about this: "Legaly bribe your elected officials and you get to play. Everyone else goes home." Yeah, that's about right.
TW
Parent
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Informative)
Bush is a Methodist and Cheney is an Episcopalian. While both denominations, like orthodox Christianity in general, hope for the imminent return of Jesus Christ, neither denomination is known for "the end is neigh!" certainty. In fact, mainstream Christianity looks down on such rigidity on Jesus; return, since it is un-Biblical. I hate the Bush administration myself, but they can't be called nut-job fundamentalists when they belong to mainline Protestant denominations.
Parent
Re:Biting the hand that feeds (Score:5, Informative)
It's sort of like with the Senate Republicans considering the "Nuclear Option" of barring filibusters; it doesn't seem to occur to any of them that this move will come back to bite them in the ass just as soon as there is a non-Republican majority...
Parent
At least... (Score:5, Funny)
ArsTechnica has a good post... (Score:5, Informative)
Read it. Its more informative that the short writeup above.
Wonks versus hacks (Score:5, Insightful)
The wonks are the people who actually know how to make policy -- know what options are on the table, which of them might actually work, which have been tried before and didn't work, and so forth. In immense detail. If you read /., you are probably a wonk (or at least could be a wonk -- if you have a life, you aren't a wonk).
Hacks know one thing and one thing only -- politics -- and they do it 24/7. They are the kids who spent high school impeaching each other on the student council, and then got into college and did the same thing in student government. Now they have a real government to play with, and play they will. Nothing else matters to them. If you know someone who merely claims to read /., they are a hack.
The hacks have triumphed because of the "permanent campaign" that was brought about by C-SPAN and the cable news channels. If a politician thinks that it is vital to respond to everything within a single news cycle, they by necessity surround themselves with hacks -- wonks actually have to spend time learning things and thinking things through! Can't have that now, can we?
Not a valid goal (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, perhaps important to get certain Homeland Security information out to the public. No, not important to increase the celebrity of Tom Ridge. Not a valid goal.
These twisted motherfuckers just keep getting more brazen.
This is very disturbing (Score:5, Insightful)
This indicates two things: 1) That the republicans can do whatever they want, no matter how immoral or how illegal, and they can get away with it. 2) Partisan politics is being institutionalised. They are willing to take a short term loss (bad press about this story) to put long term pressure on supporters of their opponents. Their goal is to create a work environment where, to get anywhere you will have to be a member of the republican party.
Usually political parties only think forward to the next election. This shows tha the republicans have the goal of making it so they are the only party in america.
Apologists need to look in the *&$%ing mirror (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't.
If you can honestly defend this action, you have less critical thinking skills than a Jonestown suicide victim. It's not that big a deal, as I don't think it's going to kill too many people just because a few engineers couldn't make it to the meeting, but it is plainly and completely wrong.
If you can bring yourself to think that it is right, then you must correct your thinking. I am sure that I have similar backwards notions in other areas, and I would welcome such corrections from the right source. Some guy on slashdot is clearly not that source, so I'm not asking you to give me the benefit of the doubt. But please, consider that you might be wrong. Double check, just this once.
Re:I'm not up on US politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I'm not up on US politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this is a very strange thing to be happening in the United States.
It is a direct violation of the First Amendment, as it seeks to punish individuals in their professions in a direct retaliation for participating in a political process.
This will lead directly to employers checking your history of political donations before they hire you. If you can't attend telecom standards meetings, we'll just hire someone who can.
Parent
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (Score:5, Informative)
Neither Reagan nor Bush '41 would have, either.
Hell, I don't think Nixon would have done this.
Parent
Re:Anyone going to tell me.... (Score:5, Funny)
This is exactly the kind of thing I was saying in 1998. "But surely," I said to everyone, "Bob Dole would be enjoying fellatio in the Oval Office if he had won the 1996 election!"
See? I'm fair and balanced.
Parent
Judges/Advisors != Engineers (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics is beyond ugly, its now officially fugly.
Parent
Engineers != Scientists (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
No it isn't. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is, and here is why: Members of the Cabinet, Ambassadors, Judges, etc. are all offices that the President is given the power to fill by the Consitution (provided the Senate gives its consent).
Deciding who is allowed to attend a non-political, non-partisan industry event based on their history of campaign contributions is not a power given to anyone by any law of the United States. In fact, the opposite is true: this violates amendment one of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees U.S. citizens the freedom of speech.
President Bush can certainly appoint whom he likes to those offices which the law allows him to, but he cannot "punish" people who supported his political opponents by denying them access to events for no other reason.
Parent
Re:Is anyone surprised by this? Anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well duh. Bush failed at absolutely everything he did until his 40's when his father became president; I don't consider winning the fraternaty bong contest a glowing success, although some might. Then he accepted gifts and help from people wanting to get close to his dad. So why on earth would anybody think a failure until age 40 and drug addict would do well as president? I guess if you want a figurehead who's easy to manipulate he might be a good choice.
And now look where the country is: the military can't even recruit poor blacks anymore, the deficit and debt are at ridiculously high levels, the world hates us, gas is expensive (partially due to less oil as a result of the iraq war), the constitution is ripped all the hell, the schools are failing mostly because of "no child left behind." And maybe our very democracy is at the brink of failure.
It's totally predictable based on the man's track record -- I mean jesus christ if you have a visa or family overseas then get out while you have a chance.
Parent
Re:What a silly thing to get upset about. (Score:5, Insightful)
The shame is that the President is removing the people who *should* have input into this sort of thing based on personal retribution.
This isn't an area where partisan politics should play any role whatsoever. The message being sent here is that if your company wants to remain "in the game" with the competition, you'd better fall in line and support the President and vote GOP. It's nothing less than the use of the executive power that We the People entrusted the President with to force compliance with the GOP party line. This isn't how democracy operates.
The sad thing is that you can't seem to see this.
Parent
Re:What a silly thing to get upset about. (Score:5, Interesting)
What rival? John Kerry was not removed. The punishment was for having an opinion. That is the point. You speak up? You get punished. What good is the Freedom of Speech if using it gets you fired? Being fired for performance is one thing, but being fired because of how you are presumed to have voted is unacceptable.
You are allowed freedom, as long as you are agreeing with Bush. I can't help but wonder what your opinion would have been if it were Democrats firing Republicans.
Parent
Re:What a silly thing to get upset about. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, if this is a "Promote the Republicans" conference, you'd have a point. However, this is a forum for telecom providers and the top ones are essentially Banned by Bush(TM) because they donated to a different political party. What's next? The international committee on human rights abuses can only be attended by republicans? Foreign embassies only staffed by republicans? Want a job in the federal government... I sure hope you're a republican! After all, we don't want any rivals working for Uncle Sam, right?
Parent
Re:You're right, it's just whining (Score:5, Insightful)
People are being purged from a completely non-partisan position. This is for a technical conference. There are no politics involved here. Whether or not someone likes Bush has no bearing on their ability to serve competently at this conference. NO OTHER PRESIDENT HAS EVER DONE ANYTHING THIS EXTREME.
This isn't a good thing. Bush supporters should not be cheering this, it makes them look like brainless automotons who don't analyze a single aspect of the administration's polities yet stand behind them 100%.
Parent
My question... (Score:5, Insightful)
My question is, what exactly do they have to do to get an exception to Goodwin's law passed? I mean, so far we've got documented evidence of:
- Internal travel documents/no fly lists ("Transportation safety")
- Spying on your neighbor programs ("Information Awareness")
- Arresting people and holding them with due process ("The War on Terror")
- ...and occasionally torturing them (ditto)
- ...that sometimes leading to them dying (oops)
- Supression of dissent ("Free Speech Zones")
- Orwellean double-speak (see above)
- Supression of opposition (Locking the opposition out of the legislature)
- Arresting opposing party candidates weeks before the election (Clark & Badnarik)
- Manipulation of the media (including paying analysts to "support" their policies)
- Fibing to start wars
Ask yourself this: do you suppose the average Hanz Six-pack circa 1940 thought his country was anything like the country we now can't discuss without invoking Goodwin's law?Personally, I think they've earned an exemption...
--MarkusQParent
Re:My question... (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't that country and that party I keep hearing compared to the present situation, but the Empire of Rome as it began to crumble. Spin a globe about 180 degrees and look at a rising economic giant. The US is mired in debt and a stagnating economy while it looks for more ways to exacerbate both situations.
It has been said that one of the straws that broke the back of the Soviet Union was the cost of the arms race (while Reagan blew huge $ on space-based weapons), bankrupting them. The russians ended up with an $80 billion national debt. Meanwhile, here's the US with, what $7 trillion in the red and borrowing heavily already from China while their momentum builds. In probably 5 years they'll be the big dog and have squat for debt. Where's that leave the US?
Complacency is expensive. Ask any roman.
Parent
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Informative)
In addition to OpenSecrets (Suggested by the other poster in this thread), check out Fundrace.
Talk about anonymity-- Plug in an address, and see who made a $250+ contributution to a candidate, with house number & everything. There's even a button to map the location of the house, which is a little frightening.
http://www.fundrace.org/neighbors.php [fundrace.org]
The databases are not totally accurate-- my own contributions are not anywhere on the list, perhaps because I made a bunch of smaller contributions to multiple groups as I could afford them, instead of one big contribution.
Parent
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you really look at American politics, the only people willing to take the mudwar that is a modern campaign are the most driven and focused upon a single goal. This is not necessarily the best trait in a leader of 200 million people, let alone 'the free world,' a title our President has made obsolete.
I'm so angry at the way our politics work I can't even think about it.
Parent
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not exactly a gun nut here... in fact, I don't really like them. However, Jefferson wanted to encode precisely that. Here are a few quotes:
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere."
"what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Etc. Jefferson was at the view that all governments will inevitably become corrupt, oppressive, and/or unrepresentative of its citizens; and when that time comes, the people must rise up and overthrow it. I think he'd actually be pleasantly surprised at how long America has gone without a revolution.
Parent
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Insightful)
I beleive they realized that military power ultimately trumps any other kind. That the only way to garauntee the government would not become opressive was to ensure that ordinary citizens, if they acted collectively, would be the dominant military force in the country. In their day, that could be acheived (and was, by them a few years earlier) so long as those citizens had access to weapons.
These days, citizens can not become the dominant military force in the country. Unless we have the right to bear nuclear weapons. Which the second ammendment pretty clearly grants. If I'm part of a well regulated militia, my right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Saying, yes, but not those arms is obvuiously infringing. Since that would obviously be insane, we've engaged in all sorts of legal contortions to reduce the second to more sane levels. It would make much more sense to amend the constitution to drop the second, and admit that we have lost that garauntee against oppressive government, so we'd better pay attention. But the Bill of Rights has atained such a sacrosanct status, that that will never happen. So the NRA will keep playing their stupid game of opposing all gun regulation, no matter how sensible in the guise of defending our constitutional right to bear arms. And no politician is going to commit the heresy of admiting that the rights the founders intended to grant in the second amendment are already gone, and nobody sane would want them to still be around anyway.
Parent
Re:Send in the Clones! (Score:5, Funny)
At first I read that as "urine-made" and nodded my head in agreement.
- sm
Parent
Re:In other news . . . (Score:5, Informative)
We aren't talking about diplomatic work, we are talking about standards work.
Here, you don't even have to read the whole article, just read this paragraph:
Parent
Re:In other news . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider the alternative - Send people who dislike the president out to do diplomatic work?
Or you could just send the best people to do the job.
Remember the media fiasco when Powell and President Bush merely made conflicting statements?
Yes, because they were discussing whether or not the country was going to !@$@!# go to war!
It is simply not a good idea to look divided on issues when speaking on the international stage.
From the article:
Yes, because if you give a paltry $250 to a Presidential campaign, you're going to create an international fiasco when you say that VoIP should have access to traditional 911 systems, or something like that. The President isn't going to be making any pronouncements from on high about these issues, so let's not get all breathless.
Let's call this for what it is: an administration that values loyalty first and actual job performance second, and has the time and energy to be really childish and petty about the issue.
Another word for that? "Pathetic"
-jdm
Parent
Re:Kerry would've done the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bush administration, on the other hand, is punishing U.S. citizens for exercising their first amendment rights.
Parent
Re:Kerry would've done the same thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Sinclair was attempting to violate a campaign law using a thinly veiled categorization of their ad as a "documentary." It was illegal. They knew it. Others knew it. They got called on it. End of story.
No one was threatening them for supporting Bush; they were threatening them for being loose with the law.
I'm so tired of hearing people say things like, "<sarcasm>Oh, it's Bush so it must be evil!</sarcasm>" Yes, as it turns out, a lot of the things that Bush and his administration have done are evil. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it is very plain and undeniable. Some people are just afraid to admit it, because it will make them look like an ass for supporting him in the first place.
Parent
Re:+5 flamebait (Score:5, Funny)
"Whore" is such a dirty word to use in describing someone who doesn't hold a White House day-pass.
Parent
Re:Well duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the administration barring *individuals* based on thier polital past - it has nothing to do with thier competence with respect to a technical comittee.
Mayhap the Administration is ensuring that this "International" comittee is going to choose "standards" that are biased to favour Corporate America? Naw, couldn't be...
Soko
Parent
Re:Shock and Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
A successful GOP strategy of discouraging corporate funding for the Democrats would be sufficient to keep them out of the White House perpetually.
This is also novel because it quite clearly proves that the ACLU right about the abuse potential of the new campaign finance reforms. (I never really believed them myself until now).
Parent
Re:unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
it wasn't always this way, just a few years ago our political parties actually had conventions that weren't foregone conclusions.
you are right that the trend is towards more consolidation and homogenization of "the message" but i do personally feel that bush takes it to the next level. with clinton you didn't see things like the jeff gannon incident or the armstrong williams incident. bush went so far as to have the public sign sworns statements that they were going to vote for bush in 2004 or they wouldn't be allowed in to his political rallies, something that has never before happened.
so don't tell me it's just business as usual.
Parent
Re:unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this flamebait moderators?? Please try to remember that "flamebait" doesn't mean something disagrees with your personal political viewpoint.
It is flaimbait because it is inflamitory, as well as incorrect. Who coined the term "vodoo economics" in regards to Reagan's "trickle down" theories? I'll give you a hint. They later gave him a job as the Vice President of the United States. They didn't have the "toe the line or you are fired" stance. They respected opinions they didn't agree with and could overlook differences of opinion.
Also, posting an opinion with no supporting evidence that is nothing other than "you are wrong because I think so" is flaimbait. A valid discussion requires examples - I presented of a policy disagreement that was tolerated, where was the troll's example? Oh, they didn't support their postition because they know it is wrong, but they don't like the opinion they were responding to, so they attacked it.
Parent
Re:Shock and Bah (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the probable dirty tricks in the last election, it was a free election. We didn't have people staying away from the polls because they feared being shot by the opposition. We didn't have people being strong-armed into voting for the "one party". Truthfully, it was a close election. Bush very well could have gotten voted out, and if he had gotten voted out, Kerry would have become president, and policies and politics would have changed. I somehow doubt we would have seen Bush declare a coup and surround the capital with tanks refusing to cede power. Such a scenario seems pretty plausible in a truly totalitarian regime.
We're not in an ideal situation right now by any means, but let's not cheapen things by saying "OMG! We live in Nazi Germany!" or claiming the republic has fallen. If we think like that, then people are going to become even more apathetic.
Much better to take a real look at things and figure out how to avoid letting things get that bad (because, sure, things could get that bad if people don't wake up). The US could change things if people gave a shit and wanted something different out of their government.
Parent
Re:Slashdot presents a good argument in favor (Score:5, Insightful)
Traditionally speaking these kinds of relatively low-level technical spots -have- been filled without a whole lot of view toward political affiliation. Clinton appointed plenty of Republicans to positions like this. Bush Sr. appointed plenty of Democrats, and so on. This isn't a function of poison, it's a function of pettiness.
I don't think it matters what side of the spectrum you call home. This isn't good for America.
Parent
Re:Bush has Backbone! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent